Homosexuals! worse then terrorists! atleast, that's what they say

sub

Active Member
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Discord Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
5,952
Best answers
0
People who hate homosexuals are out of their minds. I'm upset this kind of prejudice still exists today, let alone from an elected official.
 
New Member
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
1,572
Best answers
0
I cannot say I am a fully "enlightened" individual on this, as I feel a bit creeped out by stereotyped ***s (no problem with them having the sexuality they have, I just wouldn't want to shower with one), what with men acting really feminine or women acting really butch (this is just in general, though, I get the creeps around butch women and feminine men regardless of their sexuality, and I think a lot of them play into their own stereotypes).

They don't deserve to be persecuted for their sexuality. They cannot change what they are, and there is nothing wrong or contagious about them.

Marriage should be legal, although I question adoption and having children a bit. I'd feel weird growing up with two men or two women as my parents, and I think it might put some needless emotional problems in kids' lives.
 
ESF Head Team Mapper
πŸ‘‘ Administrator
🌠 Staff
βœ”οΈ HL Verified
πŸš‚ Steam Linked
Joined
Dec 25, 2001
Messages
3,612
Best answers
0
Congratulations. That ***** just killed her own career with such stupidity and ignorance.

If homosexuals are even worse then terrorists, I'd like to see a *** guy suicide bombing her. That would be gold
 

sub

Active Member
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Discord Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
5,952
Best answers
0
Forget suicide bombing her. I'd like to see a lesbian try to kiss her on the street. THAT would freak her the **** out.
 
ESF Head Team Mapper
πŸ‘‘ Administrator
🌠 Staff
βœ”οΈ HL Verified
πŸš‚ Steam Linked
Joined
Dec 25, 2001
Messages
3,612
Best answers
0
Hahah .. raped by a homosexual.
 
Active Member
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 6, 2004
Messages
2,275
Best answers
0
eh, Sally Kern from Oklahoma hates ***s and doesn't afraid of anything.

EDIT: Why in the **** is the word *** censored? Thats even more offensive (to some) than having it used as an insult.

That needs to get changed.
 
Active Member
πŸ’» Oldtimer
βœ”οΈ HL Verified
πŸš‚ Steam Linked
Discord Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2002
Messages
1,876
Best answers
0
Well yes adoption is a bit of a touchy subject.

But, I know actually know a *** couple that's currently trying to get a kid and I have to say, I'd rather have them raise my kids then some of the straight couples out there.

it's just a bit unfair, because breeding is not restricted.. while we all agree that some people are clearly unfit to raise a child.

Ofcourse there's a chance of trauma or what not, but the same thing applies for straight couples. Only in different ways
 
Live free or die by the sword
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Retired Forum Staff
βœ”οΈ HL Verified
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Messages
7,416
Best answers
0
This is why I refuse to lump myself in with Conservative Republicans. This religeous right has infected a party that had separation of church in state as a primary tennet. Now I am not for *** marriage, it is a reliegeous institution, and it's asinine to tell the church what there religeon should do with legislation (that road works both ways people). I do, however, believe in civil unions, and that *** couples should have all the same consideration as seperate sex spouses. Sad thing is, this right wing theocrat will win re-election on that alone.
 
New Member
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Retired Forum Staff
βœ”οΈ HL Verified
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
1,478
Best answers
0
Now I am not for *** marriage, it is a reliegeous institution, and it's asinine to tell the church what there religeon should do with legislation (that road works both ways people). I do, however, believe in civil unions, and that *** couples should have all the same consideration as seperate sex spouses. Sad thing is, this right wing theocrat will win re-election on that alone.
I don't think any of the mainstream proponents of *** marriage advocate forcing religious institutions to marry people (and that is not the policy in Massachusetts).

However, the state is directly involved with marriage today. You can get married in Court--the judge will pronounce it, rather than a priest/etc. Priests actually get their authority from the state, to issue marriage licenses.

What I personally advocate is that the government needs to get out of marriage altogether. Let straight and *** couples alike get civil unions from the government; and then let the individual religious institutions people belong to "marry" them.

So.. if you're a catholic straight couple, you can get a civil union from the government for all the legally binding rights/obligations. Then you can get married in the catholic church.

Whereas a *** couple could get the civil union, and opt not to get "married," or simply get married from an accepting religious institution (there are many.)
 
New Member
πŸ’» Oldtimer
βœ”οΈ HL Verified
Joined
May 28, 2006
Messages
1,094
Best answers
0
This is why I refuse to lump myself in with Conservative Republicans. This religeous right has infected a party that had separation of church in state as a primary tennet. Now I am not for *** marriage, it is a reliegeous institution, and it's asinine to tell the church what there religeon should do with legislation (that road works both ways people). I do, however, believe in civil unions, and that *** couples should have all the same consideration as seperate sex spouses. Sad thing is, this right wing theocrat will win re-election on that alone.
I like your thinking, I feel the same way :)

Really though, the one thing about a homosexual marriage that disturbs me is indeed the idea of a same sex couple raising a child. How do they teach the kid that homosexuality is uncommon, when they're raised in an environment where they have "Daddy 1, and Daddy 2"? Obviously they're going to know they're friends are different, because they have a Dad AND a Mom, and not two of the same. And with that all set in their minds, they likely aren't homosexual at all, but they might decide to hit on people of the same sex because they don't understand sexuality, and be marked by their peers as being *** (and that's if the kid isn't marked already for having same-sex parents).

I mean, say what you will, but we're a LONG way off from kids being taught from a very young age that boys who like boys and girls who like girls aren't necessarily freaks. Kids are cruel to each other, and that kind of acceptance is rare, if existent at all, in kids of that age-group today. Kids are normally taught that boys and girls go together, and that's all they need to be told in order for them to judge someone who behaves or thinks otherwise as a weirdo. And if the kid who thinks otherwise isn't really *** to begin with, then they're going to feel a number of unnecessary pressures, hardships and confusions until he/she is old enough to grasp such concepts.

I mean, maybe it's different now, but I'd never even HEARD of the concept of homosexuality until I was an early teenager.
 
Live free or die by the sword
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Retired Forum Staff
βœ”οΈ HL Verified
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Messages
7,416
Best answers
0
Homosexuality is not learned behavior, the kids won't be as confused as you think, though I think it's a bad idea to throw an opposite in. If both are patently feminine, or masculine, and you throw a kid in he's missing one half of the world. However, there are many masculine *** men, and many feminine lesbians. That should be the sole criteria, imo. Not gender confusion, it's too strongly wired into our brains.
 
New Member
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Retired Forum Staff
βœ”οΈ HL Verified
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
1,478
Best answers
0
I like your thinking, I feel the same way :)

Really though, the one thing about a homosexual marriage that disturbs me is indeed the idea of a same sex couple raising a child. How do they teach the kid that homosexuality is uncommon, when they're raised in an environment where they have "Daddy 1, and Daddy 2"? Obviously they're going to know they're friends are different, because they have a Dad AND a Mom, and not two of the same. And with that all set in their minds, they likely aren't homosexual at all, but they might decide to hit on people of the same sex because they don't understand sexuality, and be marked by their peers as being *** (and that's if the kid isn't marked already for having same-sex parents).

I mean, say what you will, but we're a LONG way off from kids being taught from a very young age that boys who like boys and girls who like girls aren't necessarily freaks. Kids are cruel to each other, and that kind of acceptance is rare, if existent at all, in kids of that age-group today. Kids are normally taught that boys and girls go together, and that's all they need to be told in order for them to judge someone who behaves or thinks otherwise as a weirdo. And if the kid who thinks otherwise isn't really *** to begin with, then they're going to feel a number of unnecessary pressures, hardships and confusions until he/she is old enough to grasp such concepts.

I mean, maybe it's different now, but I'd never even HEARD of the concept of homosexuality until I was an early teenager.
There are numerous things to respond to. First, I don't think it's about what is "ideal."

Depending on what you think "common" means, homosexuality isn't common. The estimations vary, but the generally accepted value is that 10% of people are exclusively ***, and perhaps more than that have at least some slight leanings towards both, and then you have exclusively straight people. Because homosexuality was/(is, to a degree, and in certain places) taboo, those people who had leanings towards both would solidify their identity in a "straight-only" way of thinking.

But even 1 out of 10 isn't really that uncommon--look at the percentages of people with blue eyes, for instance. It's pretty small, especially worldwide.

It's true that people are ridiculed for being different. Nearly everyone, at some point, is the victim of prejudice or bullying. But I think as the taboos against homosexuality finally fade away--this at least, will be a non-issue.

It's gained incredible acceptance in the past two decades. Going from an "unspeakable" sin to the regular topic of TV shows, movie characters, etc. Mostly because of religion, people have a strong bias against them. People assume it's a fetish, abnormality, "choice," etc--but if you ask any *** person, they'll tell you they were born that way, always like that, etc.

Going back to the child thing--there are multiple ways to look at it. Want to look at statistics? I'm at work now, so I can't do immediate research, but I wrote about this several times during my sociology classes in college. Kids raised by two parents (straight or otherwise) are better off than those raised by one. And obviously, kids raised by one are better off than those in institutions/orphanages/homeless.

Statistics show that kids raised in *** families are:
1) No less better off than their raised-by-straight counterparts.
2) No more likely to "turn out" *** themselves.
3) Much better off than the millions of kids without homes.

There are many more kids than there are people willing to adopt them--straight OR ***. Adoptive parents are desperately needed, and there's no reason to discriminate against *** couples when the kids aren't any less better off.
 
Active Member
πŸ’» Oldtimer
βœ”οΈ HL Verified
πŸš‚ Steam Linked
Discord Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2002
Messages
1,876
Best answers
0
There are numerous things to respond to. First, I don't think it's about what is "ideal."

Depending on what you think "common" means, homosexuality isn't common. The estimations vary, but the generally accepted value is that 10% of people are exclusively ***, and perhaps more than that have at least some slight leanings towards both, and then you have exclusively straight people. Because homosexuality was/(is, to a degree, and in certain places) taboo, those people who had leanings towards both would solidify their identity in a "straight-only" way of thinking.

But even 1 out of 10 isn't really that uncommon--look at the percentages of people with blue eyes, for instance. It's pretty small, especially worldwide.

It's true that people are ridiculed for being different. Nearly everyone, at some point, is the victim of prejudice or bullying. But I think as the taboos against homosexuality finally fade away--this at least, will be a non-issue.

It's gained incredible acceptance in the past two decades. Going from an "unspeakable" sin to the regular topic of TV shows, movie characters, etc. Mostly because of religion, people have a strong bias against them. People assume it's a fetish, abnormality, "choice," etc--but if you ask any *** person, they'll tell you they were born that way, always like that, etc.

Going back to the child thing--there are multiple ways to look at it. Want to look at statistics? I'm at work now, so I can't do immediate research, but I wrote about this several times during my sociology classes in college. Kids raised by two parents (straight or otherwise) are better off than those raised by one. And obviously, kids raised by one are better off than those in institutions/orphanages/homeless.

Statistics show that kids raised in *** families are:
1) No less better off than their raised-by-straight counterparts.
2) No more likely to "turn out" *** themselves.
3) Much better off than the millions of kids without homes.

There are many more kids than there are people willing to adopt them--straight OR ***. Adoptive parents are desperately needed, and there's no reason to discriminate against *** couples when the kids aren't any less better off.
Amen!
I fully agree with everything said here!

\o/

for the record, I was never thought that homosexual people are uncommon either :x
 
Super Moderator
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Discord Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Messages
3,125
Best answers
0
I like your thinking, I feel the same way :)

Really though, the one thing about a homosexual marriage that disturbs me is indeed the idea of a same sex couple raising a child. How do they teach the kid that homosexuality is uncommon, when they're raised in an environment where they have "Daddy 1, and Daddy 2"? Obviously they're going to know they're friends are different, because they have a Dad AND a Mom, and not two of the same. And with that all set in their minds, they likely aren't homosexual at all, but they might decide to hit on people of the same sex because they don't understand sexuality, and be marked by their peers as being *** (and that's if the kid isn't marked already for having same-sex parents).
Which is why straight parents only have straight kids right? Oh wait.

As for the bigotry expressed by Sally Kern.

I'd like to take a moment, to quote Lewis Black, who made a comment about Rick Santorum, a United States Senator who stated that homosexuality was destroying American Families.
Lewis Black said:
Homosexuality is a threat to the family. Are you kidding me? How? No one ever explains it. How? It's not like there's a Jehovah's Witnesses of ***dom. "Hi, we're here, we're queer, we're here, we're queer." "I brought swatches! I brought swatches!"

It's prejudice, and it's ignorance, on a level that is staggering at this point in time.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there are a group of *** banditos. Who get into a van every day, and wander from village to dell. And as night begins to fall, they go back into a suburban neighborhood, to that cul de sac where only one house stands, and in the window, this young American family is setting down to their first meal, and these queers don their black cloaks and hoods and matching pumps--very tasteful--and they charcoal up their faces, and sneak up to that house, and open the door, and START ****ING EACH OTHER IN THE ASS.

And another American family, is destroyed.
 
New Member
πŸ’» Oldtimer
βœ”οΈ HL Verified
Joined
Oct 27, 2004
Messages
2,462
Best answers
0
I don't understand the stereotype of a *** man having to act feminine, flamboyant, and frilly. I think some of them actually think "I'm *** and proud, and I suppose this is how I should act to state that fact". It's the same with other stereotypes, where people think to be truly black, you gotta be gangsta. To be truly white, you need to talk a certain way.

I have no problem with ***s or them getting married/joined. I don't know how it works when certain religious institutions allow and deny *** marriage, but good luck changing the religion. If we forced religions to recognize *** marriage at all times, then that means we could force them to rid the idea that God created the world in 7 days. From a moral view, that means the government is rewriting religion...I actually would not mind if religions were modernized/edited, but I can't be selfish with such a bold move.

But, there is one thing I would like to point out. You know the *** kids that try to force themselves to be straight because they see it as the norm through their parents or society? Well who's to say a straight kid with *** parents may force himself to be *** (for a limited amount of time) to be accustomed to his parents?

The main thing that sucks about a man-with-man marriage is that they do not get to pass on their genes, unless they get a woman to incubate for them, which is already pretty controversial if you ask me.

Edit: Lewis Black is priceless. If he wrote speeches for politicians, uncensored, I seriously think that'd be an efficient approach.
 
New Member
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Retired Forum Staff
βœ”οΈ HL Verified
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
1,478
Best answers
0
I don't understand the stereotype of a *** man having to act feminine, flamboyant, and frilly. I think some of them actually think "I'm *** and proud, and I suppose this is how I should act to state that fact". It's the same with other stereotypes, where people think to be truly black, you gotta be gangsta. To be truly white, you need to talk a certain way.

I have no problem with ***s or them getting married/joined. I don't know how it works when certain religious institutions allow and deny *** marriage, but good luck changing the religion. If we forced religions to recognize *** marriage at all times, then that means we could force them to rid the idea that God created the world in 7 days. From a moral view, that means the government is rewriting religion...I actually would not mind if religions were modernized/edited, but I can't be selfish with such a bold move.

But, there is one thing I would like to point out. You know the *** kids that try to force themselves to be straight because they see it as the norm through their parents or society? Well who's to say a straight kid with *** parents may force himself to be *** (for a limited amount of time) to be accustomed to his parents?

The main thing that sucks about a man-with-man marriage is that they do not get to pass on their genes, unless they get a woman to incubate for them, which is already pretty controversial if you ask me.

Edit: Lewis Black is priceless. If he wrote speeches for politicians, uncensored, I seriously think that'd be an efficient approach.
While some do do it to make a point, I think the really flamboyant people you see are associated with *** people because normal *** people don't stand out.. You notice those flamboyant queens as being *** because they can't hide it. *shrug*
 
Live free or die by the sword
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Retired Forum Staff
βœ”οΈ HL Verified
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Messages
7,416
Best answers
0
But, there is one thing I would like to point out. You know the *** kids that try to force themselves to be straight because they see it as the norm through their parents or society? Well who's to say a straight kid with *** parents may force himself to be *** (for a limited amount of time) to be accustomed to his parents?
Yes, because straight bashings happen all the time in *** communities. I've seen straight people raped by ***s and converted in Greenwich Village in NYC. There is also this enormous pressure from parents who don't understand what it's like to be straight.

:S
 
New Member
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,309
Best answers
0
Well, you know, I'd rather be blown up my a bomb strapped to someones chest or shot with an AK-47 tons of times, or be tortured, than have a man suck my ****. that's just absurd!

this chick is a silly *****. Enjoy your life of flippin burgers. Your political career is over.
 
Live free or die by the sword
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Retired Forum Staff
βœ”οΈ HL Verified
Joined
Dec 1, 2001
Messages
7,416
Best answers
0
Sadly, she is in a bible belt state, she will get very little backlash for this.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top