The homophobic thread :>

[Mr.B]

Overpopulation is the greater peril.

Yet you oppose the Catholic Church's disapproval of the use of condoms......opps!

Population would be somewhat lower if the Catholic Church's approved of the use of condoms. Are you drunk already?
But you oppose their disapproval.....Are you drunk already?<squirm, twist, squirm>

Yes, we opponents of racism, homophobia and pedophilia have gotten strong enough that there are economic consequences.

I don't recall pedophilia being a part of this discussion,

Double D Phil encourages men to take child brides and was himself an adult when he started dating his then 14 year old future wife. You should know by now to look things up before openly doubting me.
Forgive me, O'Great One....

but since you brought it up, I have to wonder why you associate homosexuality with pedophilia

I don't. Are you drunk already?

when you staunchly and vehemently deny that male homosexuals that prefer boys, or women who prefer girls, aren't necessarily pedophiles.

Double D Phil is not a pedophile because he's straight, he's a pedophile because he advocates pedophilia and practiced it himself.

I too, am a despiser of racism and pedophilia. I repeat; I do not believe that homosexuality is normal; religiously or naturally.
That doesn't make me "homophobic" or "bigoted". Those are convenient words of the liberal left and activist gay groups.

Since you support the denial of equal rights you are homophobic and bigoted. Own it. If it weren't for that you'd just be a voyeur queerly fascinated with others' sex lives.
Where did I say I supported anything of the such? Are you drunk already?

...(you) might as well be a curmudgeon on other issues.

I'm doing just fine, thank you very much.Nah, you've lost. At your age your skull doesn't tolerate your beating it against a brick wall as well as it did when you were younger.

Nope, I've not lost.

[neoplacebo]

I don't recall pedophilia being a part of this discussion, .

Duck guy Phil said that men should marry 15 year old girls so they can be trained right..

I used to really like certain fifteen year old girls......when I was fifteen.

[neoplacebo]

It's true; it happened to me.....lack of condom use increases population. I have a present net population increase of 2; my daughter and granddaughter. But I cannot know or even predict their future use or lack of use of condoms. I feel that if humans gave birth to as many offspring as, say, cats, there would be a much more vigorous effort toward condom advocacy. I realize, too, that my eventual death will decrease my net population growth figure, but that's small consolation. It probably comes down to just taking a hard look (in the eyes) of the person you're considering for using or not using a condom with and asking yourself some hard questions.

[neoplacebo]

...hard questions.

We way outpace cats. I believe that in the last 10 or 20 years we surpassed rats as the most populous mammal on the planet.

Yeah, but I was just talking about the birthrate; there's some local spay and neuter ad that says something like a couple of cats can be responsible for several millions of offspring if you extrapolate it out. I thought "ye gods, these goddam cats need to cut it out or else adopt a gay lifestyle." It's horrible.....but I can't imagine who could put a condom on a cat; it'd be a hell of a fight.

[neoplacebo]

You ever try putting one on a Catholic against their will?

Can't say that I have, but the idea of them being against their use I find ironic in light of their apparently quite prevalent and widespread tendencey to engage in homosexual trysts between chuch clergy and young parishoners. I mean logically, any emission of sperm is a potential life. So why do they not abhor this type of activity instead of enshrining it?

[Mr.B]

Do you support full legal and institutional equality and opportunity for gays - marriage, employment, housing, schools, etc.? If I believe homosexuality is an abnormal sexual union, why should I support marriage that is not Biblically sanctioned? What's the point in a marriage between homosexuals anyway? Otherwise, yes, I support equality in the other scenarios you've mentioned.

Should qualified gays be able to be Boy Scout leaders, teachers, or your pastor?
What do you deem to be a "qualified gay"? I can't believe you think a 'gay' man should be put in charge of a group of boys. That's outright absurdity.
An example is what neoplacebo said about the clergy:

"...I find ironic in light of their apparently quite prevalent and widespread tendency to engage in homosexual trysts between church clergy and young parishioners......So why do they not abhor this type of activity instead of enshrining it?"

So if a priest/pastor is to be considered a trusted "qualified priest/pastor", and yet they defile young boys, what makes you think a "qualified gay" would be in a better position to be a scoutmaster? True that heterosexual men molest boys as well, but a 'gay' man would more likely to molest given the opportunity of darkness in a pup tent.

Should schools that have prince-princess storybooks also have prince-prince and princess-princess storybooks?
No. period. Do you?

Should bakers be prohibited from denying service to gays just as they can't deny service to blacks.
Inasmuch as the Constitution guarantees us Freedom of Religion and the baker in question was exercising what he deemed his freedom of religion,
due to his religion not condoning homosexuality, I would have to say no. Any other business has the right to refuse service to anyone providing the refusal is not based solely on race or the other's religious beliefs. Homosexuality is neither. I'm willing to bet that if the 'gays' had simply walked in and wanted to buy a cake, they would have been sold a cake. However, they wanted a decorated cake made solely for them that celebrated a 'ritual' the baker didn't believe in.

Also, I believe the judge had no right to tell the baker that he was in violation of law, because he didn't break any law. This means that if a Satan worshipper ordered a cake glorifying Satan, the baker, if he wanted to stay in business and out of jail, would have to comply. This is b.s.

Should NC immediately change its Constitution to allow gay marriage and then pass laws so that gay weddings can start? No, but only if the current politicians want to keep their jobs will it happen. There's so such thing as voting your conscience anymore.

Should Congress immediately pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act?
Who's being discriminated against? Most all employers hire without regard to race, color, creed, national origin, or sexual orientation anyway.

Create your own scenario, should gays be treated equally in every way?
Inasmuch as a 'gay' is still a human, yes. Their sexual lifestyle is nobody's business, just as yours and mine, and should not be considered a factor in job placement, living needs, or whatever.

"If your answer to all of these, no fudging, is "Yes" then it's too bad we can't get Timm to make you a rainbow sweater, too. But, it does beg the question - What's the point in your expressing your personal disapproval of homosexuality for year after year if you don't oppose a single thing that gays are fighting for? It's not like anyone wants you to be gay."
I don't particularly care for sweaters, and I'm not about to don a rainbow sweater thank you. If you're not gay, what's the point in your riding the top of the bandwagon in screaming out your approval of an abnormal sexual lifestyle? As I said above, it's none of mine or your business, so why jump in the affray?

[Boatrocker]

Overpopulation is the greater peril.

Yet you oppose the Catholic Church's disapproval of the use of condoms......opps!

Population would be somewhat lower if the Catholic Church's approved of the use of condoms. Are you drunk already?

But you oppose their disapproval.....Are you drunk already?<squirm, twist, squirm>

Sigh, I'll try to walk you through this slowly.

I oppose overpopulation.
Lack of condom use increases population.
Disapproval of condom use means less condom use.
If I oppose their disapproval, that means I would support their approval of the use of condoms.
If the Catholic Church's approved of the use of condoms, more condoms would be used.
If more condoms are used populations would be lower.
I support lower populations.

I warned you about what beating your head against a wall does to fragile elderly skulls.

Really, there's no squirm, twist or trickery here, you've just gotten yourself confused. If you are still befuddled show the chat to your wife or someone else before making a fool of yourself again.

Damn. Just . . . damn.

[bannination]

Man on hunger strike against gay marriage: "It will end when this stops or I am dead."


He chose death.

[Mr.B]

You asked me questions about my opinions, and like the liberal activist you are, (and yes you ARE a liberal despite your denial) you chose to attack not only my personal beliefs, but my faith and religion as well. I expected no less.

My opinions toward homosexuality have been my opinions long before I "found religion", and for your satisfaction, I'll repeat it.....homosexuality is an abnormal trait, whether by birth or choice; people of the same gender were not created, evolved, hatched, or however to copulate with one another, whether it be by natural, intelligent, or immaculate design.

I realize that the 'gay' lifestyle will one day be recognized nation-wide, and I don't care; I just want no part of it, nor do I now, or will support it.

If that, coupled with my religious beliefs on the subject makes be a bigot in the eyes of the liberal-minded, so be it.....I don't care.

Bottom line Vrede.....I DON"T CARE!
You have my answer, you got your thrills, so carry on with your tirade....again, I DON"T CARE!

[O Really]

At what point can the right to act on ones religious beliefs be limited by law? For example, if your religion requires use of hallucinogenics, you can still be arrested for doing so. If your religion requires you to de-capitate infidels, you can still be charged with murder. But that point is reached far before these examples. For example, you can believe what you want, but you can't act on that belief in Colorado if the act causes discrimination based on sexual orientation. The cake maker was clearly afoul of the law in Colorado, but could have avoided the problem for everyone if he had simply told the guys he was booked, and suggested some other shop. The boys wouldn't have known they were discriminated against; the cake maker wouldn't have had to contribute to the downfall of religious society. But noooooo,

[homerfobe]

The great Fagmaster of The Western District has spoken. Own it.

Anyone who thinks a fag wouldn't be tempted to molest a young boy when given the opportunity, is living in a fantasy world. Own it. Do you think for one minute I'd let a kid of mine go on a camping trip knowing that a slimy fag is slithering around in the bushes waiting to cop a peek into a tent to catch a boy in his underwear? Or even to coerce or force one in a tryst? I'd fill that sonofabitch so full of holes the next fag would have no problem with choosing which hole to screw. Faggots have no business being around children period. There's no such thing as a qualified gay. Only bonafide faggots who have no right to impose their nasty ass practices on unsuspecting children and there is no equality when it comes to queers. Own it.
(notice how easily faggot rhymes with maggot) Own it.

[homerfobe]

We way outpace cats. I believe that in the last 10 or 20 years we surpassed rats as the most populous mammal on the planet.

You must be referring to queers. That seems to be your goal in life, for queers to outnumber every other living being. Don't worry, you'll get your wish, but your ass won't be around to gloat over it. Own that.

[O Really]

Stipulating for sake of discussion that all you say is true and accurate, Homo, can you state any legal theory why any two of those faggots should not be allowed the rights (and rites) of marriage?

[homerfobe]

Legally, probably not. Lawmakers have their heads so far up the ass of the money machine they're afraid to vote against the rise of faggotry.
Can you state any practical theory why any two faggots should marry? The stupid asses can't procreate. All any two men can do is suck each other or pound each's asshole until the shit runs out and all two women can do is suck each other or pretend they have a man by using a dildo. Why pretend they have a woman or a man when there are plenty of the real things? Equal rights, my ass. Queerism is nothing but perverted, deviant, and nasty behavior.
If I was into religion I'd have to say they're spawns of the devil. Wait a minute----I may be on to something.

Save your questions until next weekend. I'll be back in full form. Love, homerfobe.

[O Really]

So am I to understand your position is that nobody who can't or doesn't choose to procreate can't marry? Or that the only legal and societal advantages to marriage involve procreation? OK, let's go with that. Women past menopause can't marry. Men who are infertile or who have had vasectomies can't marry. Those who do marry, but don't produce offspring within some specified period of time get their marriages invalidated. In order to marry, couples must present present medical evidence of fertility and sign an affidavit stating their intention to procreate. Got it. Like China except worse.

[Mr.B]

"The great F**master of The Western District"----

"So am I to understand your position is that nobody who can't or doesn't choose to procreate can't marry? Or that the only legal and societal advantages to marriage involve procreation? OK, let's go with that. Women past menopause can't marry. Men who are infertile or who have had vasectomies can't marry. Those who do marry, but don't produce offspring within some specified period of time get their marriages invalidated. In order to marry, couples must present medical evidence of fertility and sign an affidavit stating their intention to procreate. Got it. Like China except worse."

Let's look at this from another angle. The claim for 'gay' marriage is equality, their love for one another, and their commitment to each other.

I have three dogs that I love very much. Upon obtaining them, I committed myself to their health and well being as long as I have them, but that doesn't mean I want to or should have the freedom to marry any one of them.

Also....what is your opinion on a man having sex with or marrying his sister? or his brother? I love my brothers and sisters, but I don't want to have sex
with them or have the legal right to marry one of them.... Why not? Isn't incest an un-natural act?

You've twisted Homer's remark about procreation...let's twist yours. You're saying that because an individual can't procreate, that should give them the right to enter into an un-natural relationship with one of the same sex? even to the point of marriage?

[Crock Hunter]

I have three dogs that I love very much. Upon obtaining them, I committed myself to their health and well being as long as I have them, but that doesn't mean I want to or should have the freedom to marry any one of them..

Damn.. that's still an unbelievably stupid comment no matter who says it.. First you assume that homosexuality is some sort of sexual perversion.. it isn't.. it's sexual orientation.. Second.. Humans can make such self-determining decisions as who to marry.. humans can give their consent.. Dog, blenders, your church pew cannot..

The next thing we need to examine is your (and homofobe's) belief that marriage MUST include a physical sex component and is in fact centered on the sex act.. And though it clearly often does.. it is not a requisite for a loving relationship.. You both are saying that the sex act alone defines one's spousal relationship..

Tell me.. Would you still love your wife if the possibility of sex never existed..?

[O Really]

Let's look at this from another angle. The claim for 'gay' marriage is equality, their love for one another, and their commitment to each other.

Not necessarily or entirely. Certainly there is that liklihood, and most people who get married love each other at the time. But it's not a legal requirement, is it? People have gotten married for money, married (and unmarried) for tax considerations, stayed married long after the love has left the building, and many have married others with no expectation or possibility of a sexual relationship. Much of that foolish, perhaps, some due more to "drunken stupor" than love, but generally legal nonetheless. Even if they wake up and say "opps" they're still legally married until they go through another legal procedure to get annulled.

But marriage equality isn't about how, when or if a couple has sex. Marriage is not a necessity for anyone to have sex. There is no requirement that those who marry go through some test to make sure whatever they do or intend to do is "natural." Likely a lot of hetero couples fit somebody's definition of "not natural." Marriage does convey some legal rights, privileges, and responsibilities to people willing to undertake them. The state (generic) controls access to those rights, and that control bears no relationship whatsoever to any religion or religious rite of marriage. If a minister says "I proclaim you husband and wife" and hasn't filed the right paperwork, they're not married. We're not talking about religious rites of marriage. We're talking about laws of the state. If the state denies rights to one group of people that are otherwise available to others, it is discriminatory. May be legal at the time and in some places, but discriminatory nonetheless.

It's a very simple, direct contract issue. A form of legal contract exists, called marriage. It does not affect a religious rite of the same name, and has no requirements for sexual activity. Without getting off focus and on to dogs and whatever, there is no rational argument as to why a homosexual couple should not be entitled to the same terms of the contract as heterosexuals.

As to incest, I doubt it's the law that keeps most people from wanting to marry their close family members, but if they're competent adults able to make an informed decision, I don't see that it affects me or my marriage in any way.

[Crock Hunter]

Maybe rather than banning gay marriages we should ban or annul all marriages by people that can't understand the word "consent".

Good one.. I like it..

I really don't believe they understand just how ludicrous they sound making that "Marry your Dog: analogy..

What "B" should understand is that gay marriage is a lot like wool underwear... It might be uncomfortable for him to think about but if he doesn't stick his junk in'um .. it won't bother him..

[Boatrocker]

Maybe rather than banning gay marriages we should ban or annul all marriages by people that can't understand the word "consent".

Good one.. I like it..

I really don't believe they understand just how ludicrous they sound making that "Marry your Dog: analogy..

What "B" should understand is that gay marriage is a lot like wool underwear... It might be uncomfortable for him to think about but if he doesn't stick his junk in'um .. it won't bother him..

Personally, I think it's Freudian.