Members the russ Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by SkidMarx BTW - I noticed you completely ignored my question. Let's try agin. Why are they so eager to teach 6 year old kids that being gay is perfectly fine, yet they don't tell them that it can also get you killed? for the same reason they tell kids the same thing about serving in the armed forces? j/k irresponsibility and promiscuity cause people of all sexual orientations to get AIDS. its not something inherent to homo or heterosexuality. ALL sexual irresponsibility will get you STD's, including AIDS. if kids don't learn this from their parents, they'll learn it in 7th grade health class. that is, unless parents like Skid pull their kids from it because they might talk about gay people... also, we're working on the unproven assumption here that all these teachers are telling kids that it is "OK" to be gay, which is a value judgement, whereas they could just be teaching "tolerance" which is not the same thing as saying its "Ok" or "good". i'm sure the teachers that don't agree that it is OK to be gay are NOT telling the kids that it is. they're probably just teaching tolerance, which is FAR different than endorsing it. hairydangler - what are you talking about then? the last post of mine you responded to was talking about monogamy, not drama. but then you started talking about how all the gay couples you know are drama queens. which has nothing to do with my post. moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the russ Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by hairydangler Let me get this straight before I call you a {censored}ing name. A grown man attracted to young boys is not gay? he's a pedophile. same as a guy who's attracted to young girls. its got nothing to do with homosexuality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by Chief Ha ha. This is funny. The gay/lesbo facists are some of the most intolerant people on the face of the earth. Those advocating gay rights are almost unequivocally liberal in their political orientations. Fascism is the opposite of liberalism. Ergo, your assertion is patently ridiculous. Why don't you just call them "fascist communists," and be done with it? They don't tolerate people of faith and their belief that homosexuality is not acceptable behaviorYou are being more than a bit fascist in asserting the false notion that people "of faith" unilaterally view homosexuality as "unacceptable behavior" and that anyone who does not see it that way cannot, by your implication, be a person "of faith." What crap. The gay people that I know personally have run the gamut from agnostic to deeply devout; some of the finest examples of Christians I've ever met have been gay. And some of them have been straight -- because, you see, I live in the real world... ; they don't tolerate the Boy Scouts legal right to determine the moral and ethical standards of their organization.Boy, people sure do toss around the words "moral" and "ethical" pretty liberally, don't they? And they are quick to toss around the homophobic label any time they perceive someone making negative remarks toward gays.If the paranoia fits.... But let me turn it around on you: are you afraid that an open and tolerant society will somehow infect you with "gay"? If not, then what's your problem? If you think homosexual activities are "immoral," simply don't engage in them yourself. There, we've got it sorted. By the way, if you believe some guy sticking his manhood in another guy's ass is not perverse behavior......... Nice to have met you, Mr. Final Arbiter of Virtue and Perversity for All Humanity. I had no idea someone as important as you would post on an amplifier message board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by Chief Liberalism 101: When you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. Keep trying. I've got two Bachelor's degrees and an MBA - and make an obscene amount of money. Chief Too bad those degrees and that money couldn't buy you a dictionary in which to look up "liberalism." But if you're that wealthy, I guess that makes it all white then, dunnit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MadKeithV Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by SkidMarx BTW - I noticed you completely ignored my question. Let's try agin. Why are they so eager to teach 6 year old kids that being gay is perfectly fine, yet they don't tell them that it can also get you killed? I'll answer that, from my point of view. It comes down to a nature/nurture argument. From your argument, it would seem you believe homosexuality is a choice (or perhaps a psychological disease/disorder). Others believe homosexuality is physically determined, a genetic condition that cannot be "cured" in the same way that you can't be cured of being red-haired. If you believe the latter, it would be immoral to you to teach young children that being gay is "wrong", because one of them might be gay themselves. It would cause significant psychological harm, convincing these children that the built-in feelings they have are in fact wrong. If you believe the former, and you also believe that same-sex relationships are morally/ethically wrong, you would feel it's wrong to teach the children that being gay is "okay", like you do. I stand on on the "nature' side of things. I believe that the scientific studies which have highlighted involuntary anomalies in (most?) gay people's reactions to certain stimuli is a pretty good indicator that homosexuality is something you are (or can be)born with. I also have no great moral or ethical objections to homosexual relationships, so my view is that it causes harm to tell children it's wrong. I also accept that your moral convictions are rightfully yours to have and thus I will not call you a bigot. What I do ask is that you have respect for my opinion: I feel you are "wrong", in the same way that I feel that the people who used to think slavery was okay were wrong. They weren't terrible people per se, it's just that the prevailing convictions and opinions of that time have been superceded by a society that has proved that black people are not inferior. I hope that in time, scientific study and intelligent discussion between us all can lead to a satisfactory conclusion on the subject - I think that's the healthy attitude to have. In the meanwhile, I'll try to civilly and intelligently defend my position, and that is that homosexuality is no more wrong than being born with red hair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hairydangler Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by the russ he's a pedophile. same as a guy who's attracted to young girls. its got nothing to do with homosexuality. It's {censored}ing gay rape is what it is first and formost. You can call him a gay pedophile if you want. Some of us don't need researchers and psychologists to give us bull{censored} names for what we already have names for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by SkidMarx wow, well that was very cerebral, but it's really not that complicated. Homosexual behavior IS immoral and indecent, No, it isn't. There, you're entire argument is now moot. Have a nice day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by hairydangler Really? EVERY gay couple I have ever met had lives that were cluster{censored}ed with drama and chaos. One soap-opera after another defines the lrelationships of ones I've met and known. Man, I've never even HEARD of any straight people who fit that description! Wow, you showed us! Oh, wait.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by SkidMarx BTW - I noticed you completely ignored my question. Let's try agin. Why are they so eager to teach 6 year old kids that being gay is perfectly fine, yet they don't tell them that it can also get you killed? Because that assinine question is based on a "premise" that is patently false. They don't tell them that being gay can also get you killed because it can't -- not any moreso than being straight can get you killed. Promiscuous, unprotected sex can get you killed. The violence that inevitably follows from social demonization of a minority group can *definitely* get you killed. But nobody ever died just from being gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by hairydangler Let me get this straight before I call you a {censored}ing name. A grown man attracted to young boys is not gay? *Any* grown person "attracted" to *any* child is SICK, period. It has nothing to do with sex.Clear enough for you, troll-man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by MadKeithV I'll answer that, from my point of view.It comes down to a nature/nurture argument. From your argument, it would seem you believe homosexuality is a choice (or perhaps a psychological disease/disorder). Others believe homosexuality is physically determined, a genetic condition that cannot be "cured" in the same way that you can't be cured of being red-haired.If you believe the latter, it would be immoral to you to teach young children that being gay is "wrong", because one of them might be gay themselves. It would cause significant psychological harm, convincing these children that the built-in feelings they have are in fact wrong.If you believe the former, and you also believe that same-sex relationships are morally/ethically wrong, you would feel it's wrong to teach the children that being gay is "okay", like you do.I stand on on the "nature' side of things. I believe that the scientific studies which have highlighted involuntary anomalies in (most?) gay people's reactions to certain stimuli is a pretty good indicator that homosexuality is something you are (or can be)born with.I also have no great moral or ethical objections to homosexual relationships, so my view is that it causes harm to tell children it's wrong. I also accept that your moral convictions are rightfully yours to have and thus I will not call you a bigot.What I do ask is that you have respect for my opinion: I feel you are "wrong", in the same way that I feel that the people who used to think slavery was okay were wrong. They weren't terrible people per se, it's just that the prevailing convictions and opinions of that time have been superceded by a society that has proved that black people are not inferior.I hope that in time, scientific study and intelligent discussion between us all can lead to a satisfactory conclusion on the subject - I think that's the healthy attitude to have. In the meanwhile, I'll try to civilly and intelligently defend my position, and that is that homosexuality is no more wrong than being born with red hair. Nicely put. Props, bro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hairydangler Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by draelyc *Any* grown person "attracted" to *any* child is SICK, period. It has nothing to do with sex. Clear enough for you, troll-man? You can stop kissing my ass any time now. It's OK to be wrong sometimes. You can always be sure we'll set you straight. No pun intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the russ Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by hairydangler It's {censored}ing gay rape is what it is first and formost. You can call him a gay pedophile if you want. Some of us don't need researchers and psychologists to give us bull{censored} names for what we already have names for. mmkay. how about a guy who molests boys AND girls? is that bisexual rape? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by hairydangler It's {censored}ing gay rape is what it is first and formost. You can call him a gay pedophile if you want. Some of us don't need researchers and psychologists to give us bull{censored} names for what we already have names for. Hell, some of you don't even need dictionaries, apparently, because you can make up whatever words you want and claim they mean whatever you feel like. But you've contradicted yourself right here by (correctly, to my astonishment) labeling pedophilia as rape. See, if we're talking about rape, we CANNOT be talking about sex. We *must* be talking about violence and predation and exploitation. If YOUR personal definition of "sex" includes those things, then you are sick and should be in a steel-reinforced room where psychiatrists can look at you through a tiny window for the rest of your life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by hairydangler You can stop kissing my ass any time now. It's OK to be wrong sometimes. You can always be sure we'll set you straight. No pun intended. Are you . . . propositioning . . . me . . . ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hairydangler Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by the russ mmkay. how about a guy who molests boys AND girls? is that bisexual rape? I'd call that Uncle Henry! LOL OMG Just messin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the russ Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by hairydangler I'd call that Uncle Henry! LOL OMG Just messin. LOLi just spit coffee on my monitor cuz of that one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hairydangler Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by draelyc But you've contradicted yourself right here by (correctly, to my astonishment) labeling pedophilia as rape. See, if we're talking about rape, we CANNOT be talking about sex. We *must* be talking about violence and predation and exploitation. If YOUR personal definition of "sex" includes those things, then you are sick and should be in a steel-reinforced room where psychiatrists can look at you through a tiny window for the rest of your life. I never said pedophilia was "sex". Don't know where you got that idea. Maybe a typo? However the way some gay rapists of minors(pedophiles) seduce and befriend their victims can be very much the oppsite of rape at least in appearance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by hairydangler I never said pedophilia was "sex". Don't know where you got that idea. Maybe a typo? However the way some gay rapists of minors(pedophiles) seduce and befriend their victims can be very much the oppsite of rape at least in appearance. I got that from you ~ you keep equating a homosexual orientation with the sickness of pedophilia. I'm simply pointing out that the two are not only separate, but unrelated to each other. Appearance has even LESS to do with it. Doesn't matter what it looks like -- if it ain't mutually consentual between adults of equal power, it's rape, violation, exploitation, etc., and not sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SkidMarx Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by draelyc Sorry, bro, but he was right: your posts on this particular point are stupid. Homosexuality refers to sex, perforce. Pedophilia is a form of rape, and rape is NOT sex. It is an act of violence and violation, and an obscene abuse of one person's power over another. The child victims of pedophilia cannot ever, under any legal or social definition, be said to be "consenting adults" who are willingly engaging in physical contect with their abusers. The differences in age, authority, and power PREVENT mutual consent.Mutually consenting, monogamous, nurturing relations between two healthy adults hurts no one, no matter what the gender of the two participants. Are you honestly suggesting that pedophilia is the same, that it hurts no one? What kind of monster are you? I think what he means is if the pedophile is a man and he is preying on young boys, then he's also homosexual. As opposed to the pedophile who is male and preys on young girls. See the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dark Angel Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by the russ 3. guess what: gay *couples* are just as monogamous as straight couples, ESPECIALLY the ones who choose to have children. thus, the risk of contracting AIDS is just as low for them as it is for heterosexual couples. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OK, you have two different and unrelated points. Monogamy IS a statistically significant risk factor in contracting AIDS. If gays are as monogamous as straight couples, then fine. I would bet, however, without looking it up that gay male couples have more incidence of adultery than m/f or f/f ones simply because there are two "natural born cheaters" where straights have one (men cheat far more often than women, that's common knowledge), lesbians, zero. Any couple that has kids though has less adultery because the union suddenly revolves around the children as much as it does eachother. However, you know damn well that AIDS numbers don't back up your statement about them not being more likely to contract STDS, simply because of the nature of penetration. Compare the percentage of the world's gays with AIDS compared to the percentage of the remainder with AIDS. Just looking at the raw, "there's more straight people with AIDS than gays" number is meaningless because it's comparing two different sized populations.... grossly different sizes. Adjusted for population, even generously, gays are inherently more "at risk". I didn't see where you originally stated this or what your point was, but you worded it inaccurately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hairydangler Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by SkidMarx I think what he means is if the pedophile is a man and he is preying on young boys, then he's also homosexual. As opposed to the pedophile who is male and preys on young girls. See the difference? Yea that's pretty well sums it up. Thanks skid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SkidMarx Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by the russ he's a pedophile. same as a guy who's attracted to young girls. its got nothing to do with homosexuality. really? Then how do explain NAMBLA? Are they not gay men preying on young boys for sex? That would make them simultaneously pedophiles as well as homosexuals. The terms are not mutually exclusive. If pedophelia is "rape" and "rape" is a violent act, then how do you explain the North American Man Boy LOVE Association? SWISH, 3 pointer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members flames666 Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 A famous quote from Freud: He who protests loudest is the gayest. Therefore Hairydangler, you win! You are the biggest fag! It's obvious to anyone with even a basic psychology background that you are a FAG! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hairydangler Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by draelyc I got that from you ~ you keep equating a homosexual orientation with the sickness of pedophilia. I'm simply pointing out that the two are not only separate, but unrelated to each other. Appearance has even LESS to do with it. Doesn't matter what it looks like -- if it ain't mutually consentual between adults of equal power, it's rape, violation, exploitation, etc., and not sex. For crying out loud dude STOP twisting my words around! They may be seperate but they ARE related. And I never said it wasn't rape. Now lets move along now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.