Bulgharia wrote:How could I prove you, when I don't see those gays anymore?
It's like proving that Santa really exists.
You want proof? OK. One of the following images shows a gay man. Identify him.
Advertisement
by Salandriagado » Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:02 am
Bulgharia wrote:How could I prove you, when I don't see those gays anymore?
It's like proving that Santa really exists.
by Sedgistan » Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:21 am
Bulgharia wrote:The guy who said heterosexuals are inferior is simply retarded <snip>
People hate you for a reason. It is not homophobes who have to change, you have to.
by -St George » Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:28 am
Ethel mermania wrote:-St George wrote:Prove. It.
And I am a Christian AND a homosexual.
Get the fuck out of my religion with your outdated and backward bigotry. I hope a bird shits upon from a great height. I hope your children are ugly and your wife is fat. I fart in your general direction.
So much for "turn the other cheeck", eh?
by Euronion » Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:33 am
Thomas Paine wrote:"to argue with someone who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead"
by Ceannairceach » Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:35 am
by Lost Earth » Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:35 am
by Ceannairceach » Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:38 am
Lost Earth wrote:On the OP, I'd say that many people are not actually homophobic that you might consider to be. For example, if someone does not want to be gay or does not believe it is morally right, it does not necessarily mean that they hate or fear homosexual people. I for one feel that not only does homosexuality go against nature, but it is also sinful. However, I am not going to run for my life or pull a gun whenever I see someone of this persuasion.
by The Alma Mater » Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:38 am
by The Raqaani » Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:49 am
The Alma Mater wrote:
If everyone were celibate, the human race would die off in little more than a century.
Therefor one should not become a nun or priest.
If everyone were a doctor there would be no farmers, bakers and butchers - and the human race would die off in little more than a year.
Therefor one should not study medicine.
Need I go on ?
by Salandriagado » Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:50 am
by GeneralHaNor » Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:51 am
The Raqaani wrote:The Alma Mater wrote:
If everyone were celibate, the human race would die off in little more than a century.
Therefor one should not become a nun or priest.
If everyone were a doctor there would be no farmers, bakers and butchers - and the human race would die off in little more than a year.
Therefor one should not study medicine.
Need I go on ?
If people couldn't die, the Earth's resources would be consumed rapidly and the human race would suffer horribly, therefore people shouldn't live.
Victorious Decepticons wrote:If they said "this is what you enjoy so do this" and handed me a stack of my favorite video games, then it'd be far different. But governments don't work that way. They'd hand me a dishrag...
And I'd hand them an insurgency.
Trotskylvania wrote:Don't kid yourself. The state is a violent, destructive institution of class dictatorship. The fact that the proles have bargained themselves the drippings from their master's plates doesn't legitimize the state.
by Australasia » Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:51 am
The Alma Mater wrote:Euronion wrote:
becuase if everyone were gay the human race would die off in little more than a century
If everyone were celibate, the human race would die off in little more than a century.
Therefor one should not become a nun or priest.
If everyone were a doctor there would be no farmers, bakers and butchers - and the human race would die off in little more than a year.
Therefor one should not study medicine.
Need I go on ?
On the OP, I'd say that many people are not actually homophobic that you might consider to be. For example, if someone does not want to be gay or does not believe it is morally right, it does not necessarily mean that they hate or fear homosexual people. I for one feel that not only does homosexuality go against nature, but it is also sinful. However, I am not going to run for my life or pull a gun whenever I see someone of this persuasion.
by -St George » Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:56 am
Australasia wrote:-snip-
by Euronion » Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:59 am
-St George wrote:Prove. It.
And I am a Christian AND a homosexual.
Get the fuck out of my religion with your outdated and backward bigotry. I hope a bird shits upon from a great height. I hope your children are ugly and your wife is fat. I fart in your general direction
Thomas Paine wrote:"to argue with someone who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead"
by The Soviet Technocracy » Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:01 am
Sidhae wrote:Well, for a start, most of the so-called homophobes don't really hate homosexuals and the likes, they just don't enjoy having a lifestyle that goes beyond their standards of decency rubbed in their faces all the time.
It's much like why people who don't have a problem with nudists have a problem with homos - nudists are allocated their own secluded places to practice their thing without offending the sensibilities of others. Homosexuals too have gay bars, clubs and, of course, the privacy of their own homes. But yet a certain minority of them aren't content with that and aggressively press their lifestyle on general public by holding obnoxious parades and screaming and whining about their rights all the time. There's a nice word for such people - assholes, and even the most liberal Western nations haven't yet gone as far as to demand tolerating assholes.
In short, if homos and the likes just kept it private, there wouldn't really be a problem. Being... well, genetically and/or psychologically impaired in the sexual sphere isn't really something to brag with anyway.
by Sovereign Oppression » Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:01 am
Dyakovo wrote:Sovereign Oppression wrote:
No, there has simply been a limit on what they can marry. Sue and Kate can marry. Just not each other. Their right to marriage is protected, but with limitations in place. Completely legal. It's not an infringement on their basic human rights.
You're confusing "right to marriage" with "right to marry whoever you please". They are not the same thing, and no where in current U.S. law is there a piece of legislation that would even hint that.
An inherently discriminatory limit.
by The Alma Mater » Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:03 am
Jasonovia wrote:What is so horrifically evil about suggesting celibacy instead?
by Sovereign Oppression » Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:04 am
by Bottle » Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:04 am
Jasonovia wrote:What is so horrifically evil about suggesting celibacy instead?
by Euronion » Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:05 am
Ceannairceach wrote:Lost Earth wrote:On the OP, I'd say that many people are not actually homophobic that you might consider to be. For example, if someone does not want to be gay or does not believe it is morally right, it does not necessarily mean that they hate or fear homosexual people. I for one feel that not only does homosexuality go against nature, but it is also sinful. However, I am not going to run for my life or pull a gun whenever I see someone of this persuasion.
Homophobia is a term used to refer to a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards lesbian, gay and in some cases bisexual, transgender people and behavior. You could, indeed, be described as a homophobic.
You most certainly could be referred to as factually ignorant or incorrect.
Thomas Paine wrote:"to argue with someone who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead"
by Bottle » Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:08 am
Euronion wrote:Ceannairceach wrote:Homophobia is a term used to refer to a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards lesbian, gay and in some cases bisexual, transgender people and behavior. You could, indeed, be described as a homophobic.
You most certainly could be referred to as factually ignorant or incorrect.
with statements like that I think the OP has gotten his answer, keep on calling the people who don't believe what you believe ignorant, incorrect, and homophobic and you are certainly going to turn them in your favor. Am I considered a Frankophobe because I do not like Napoleon, am I cosnidered an Anglophobe because I don't like King Henry VIII. Stop fitting people into catagories, it annoys people.
by -St George » Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:11 am
Euronion wrote:-St George wrote:
why does everyone assume that all people who are against homosexuality are closets or bigots, how many times has the word bigot been used to describe someone who does not agree with a liberal's views, a great many, why can't you just stop calling names and present your opinion, also your comment could be regarded as flaming.
People who dislike homosexuals are not necessarily bigots or any other word that you Liberals would like to use to describe them. I do not like the idea of homosexuality, is it because I am any of the things you describe me as. no, it is because it makes me physically sick to see one man making out with another especially when they start using their tongues, believe me I have seen it several times at the park while walking my dog.
Education on LGBT is the only way to ensure we don't have a generation of Aaron McKinney's and Russell Henderson's, or is that what you want? LBGT's too afraid to go outside for fear of attack, kidnap, torture and murder?Another reason why people may not like homosexuals is that perhaps they want to believe what they want to believe instead of liberals or LGBT people trying to cram their beliefs down our throats. A good example of this would be in Mississippi were SSM is legal and where legislation was recently passed forcing children from the age of kindergarten to read about homosexuals and openly talk about them. A Christian couple filed a complaint that their child had been sent home (at the age of 5) with a book called "A King and a King" were a Prince marries another Prince. The couple asked for a simple opt-out program but the legislation passed does not allow parents to opt-out. When the father told school administrators that he would not leave their office until he was offered and opt-out program, he was handcuffed and thrown in jail. Similar legislation has been recently passed in California banning all textbooks that contain content that portrays minorities in a negative light and bans teachers from teaching anything to the contrary. I will require History teachers teach about homosexuals throughout history just because they were somewhat important and gay and again there is no opt-out program. For Latino families this is especially hard because a majority of them are very catholic and they are forced into this compulsorily school system, with no opt-out program and there many of the poorer families can't afford homeschooling or private schools. New York's Governor has released a statement saying that soon LGBT history will also be taught in NY school curriculum.
I'd have an erection and go out and join them.Probably most ridiculously why I do not like homosexuals is those pride parades and pride rallies that they have. I have no problem with people doing what they want to do as long as they do it in private, why do you need to hold a gigantic parade that blocks traffic and disturbs people's commute. Why can't you just have some sort of private meeting, instead of having these large events so near to people's homes and without their consent that it breeds resentment against homosexuals? I mean how would your react if someday you look at your window and you see some giant pro-homosexual float and tons of men kissing men and women kissing women.
Everything you said was homophobic.Tone is down, and that is why many people are NOT Homophobic but do dislike homosexuals.
by -St George » Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:12 am
Jasonovia wrote:What is so horrifically evil about suggesting celibacy instead?
by Euronion » Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:12 am
Mairuksta wrote:Three points:
1. It is highly unlikely, at the current figures, that all or even the majority of humanity will behomosexualcelibate.
2. Even if by some stroke of fortune every human did becomehomosexualcelibate,homosexualscelibates are not infertile, and could still reproduce, through the natural means or through artificial impregnation.3. What does that have to do with someones right to express their sexuality?
Thomas Paine wrote:"to argue with someone who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead"
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Andavarast, Dimetrodon Empire, Dumb Ideologies, Ifreann, Keltionialang, Kerwa, Plan Neonie, Republics of the Solar Union, Western Theram
Advertisement