Bigotboy wants us to be forced to, effectively, show our papers whenever we’re in public. He wants forced outing, in effect, of all gays, everywhere, and at all times.
He wants our civil liberties measured against his not getting a case of the willies at the idea of homosexuality.
If that’s not political gaybashing, what is?
You posted a gaybashing thread, while drunk. The term fits. And even sober, I see you’re a gaybasher. How not surprising.
Wow, a racist, too. Should we take the vote away from the uppity wimmin folk while we’s at it?
So long as he is providing you with proper medical care, your doctor’s private life is none of your concern. A homosexual is no more likely to molest you than a straight male doctor is to molest a woman.
Because every intelligent person on the face of this planet recognizes homosexuality as a morally neutral, utterly harmless, inate condition that cannot be changed.
Shouldn’t calling all gay people on this board diseased be a violation of the rules?
How is being gay a sickness? What harm does it do? How does it prevent proper biological function? Whom does it kill? What are its symptoms?
If you had half a whiff of knowledge on this subject, which of course gaybashers don’t, you’d know that sexuality is innate, and cannot be changed. The best that can be done is to torture the poor gay person into living a life of pain, suffering and constant self-denial. But somehow, I think you’d be just fine with that.
There is nothing wrong with me. I am 100% biologically functional and totally normal in every meaningful way. What, precisely, is it you want to cure me of? My love for my boyfriend? My sex life?
The only toil of gay existence that is unique to gay existence is “people” like you.
And I hope YOU’RE aware that we’re in the 21st century now and it doesn’t have to be like that.
And to all you other peole who want to say I’m a big liar about my five gay friends; so be it. To make you guys feel better (since yoiu can’t accept the truth) let’s just say that was a hypothetical story instead of a real one. :rolleyes:
Ha! Mockingbird, If I were gay I’d be get’n WAY better ass than you my friend.
I’m too lazy right now to provide links back up my claims but one thing I don’t do folks is BS. So if my tale about the five friends leaves you in disbelief maybe you should direct your animousity at the gay folks who are making a bad name for you instead of me.
But hell I know better than to argue shit I can’t prove anyway.
SHAKES: Well because in my life I’ve known five gay people who I THOUGHT were my friends. Turns out everyone of them turned out to be corrupt in one way or another; wheather it be trying to seduce a 14yo on an internet chat room or trying to feel me up while I sleep.
Hey, as a straight woman I’ve known straight men who I thought were my friends who were similarly untrustworthy. Would I therefore be justified in distrusting and wishing to avoid all straight men? Should I be able to discriminate against straight men in any way I choose? Is that fair?
By that I mean if say like an owner of a bar wants to refuse service to black people than I think he should be able to do so.
Nope. If you are running a business that purports to serve the public, then by golly you’ve got to serve the public, not just whatever segment of the public that you happen not to be bigoted against. If a bar owner doesn’t like black people, then he has a perfect right to discriminate against them in his personal life: he doesn’t have to marry one or have any of them as his personal friends or talk to them at his friends’ parties. But in running his place of public business, which is licensed and regulated by the public in accordance with the public goal of fostering commerce, he has no right to treat blacks differently from any other members of the public.
Shouldn’t we instead be treating this as if it were a sickness like cancer or Autism ect…?
Why would we do that? Why should we lump homosexuality in with disease or severe disability? I know plenty of homosexuals who are perfectly healthy and functional. Homosexuality is not “normal” only in the sense that it’s not the statistical norm, i.e., the majority of people are not homosexual. The majority of people are also not left-handed or blue-eyed or red-haired, but that doesn’t mean that we have to treat those characteristics as “sicknesses” either.
I mean really, I think with the proper research it would be great if a hundred years from now instead of gay people having to go through all this turmoil can take a pill or whatever to make them better. And by better I mean the way nature (God/Darwin/natrual order of the universe) intended it to be.
Honey, that is one massive lump of ignorance you’ve got there, and I wish we had a pill you could take to make you better. There is simply no scientific/medical reason to think that nature, or God, or the natural order of the universe (I don’t really think that Darwin himself had any hand in the decisions) did not “intend” for homosexuality to exist in a minority of the human population. Homosexuals have always existed in all human societies as far as we can judge, and there are homosexual behaviors and even exclusively homosexual individuals in many non-human animals as well.
I do wholeheartedly agree with you, though, that it’s a real shame that gay people have to go through all this turmoil in our society because of their orientation. And in the natural order of things, as ignorant and/or homophobic individuals die and (with luck) are replaced by better-informed and more sensible people, the situation will be much better a hundred years from now.
You lost me, dude. Either you’ve been manipulating me so far in the thread trying to get me to meet you halfway, making me the big SUCKER. Or, you’re saying this and you honestly have no idea how deeply offensive and just plain wrong it is.
I don’t know which alternative is worse.
My apologies to you, spectrum. Have at 'im.
Sorry for the multiple post; I just realized that my last bit could be considered to break the Great Debates policy of “don’t encourage posters to start flame wars or personal insults.” I didn’t mean it like that.
SHAKES, your equating homosexuality with a disease and saying it’ll be great when science advances far enough to get rid of all the homos, is patently offensive. And I take it as a personal insult. For you to drop that bomb and then say that you’re leaving the thread is also pretty cowardly.
spectrum, I apologize. Apparently you could see where this was headed better than I could.
Yeah, you mean you made it all up, yes - admitting that would help.
Why? It’s not a difficult question. Why should we try and “cure” homosexuality? Who does it harm? What’s the point of “curing” it? Why do we need to get rid of it? Why, why, why?
Why? Why waste time, energy, money and resources on something as utterly pointless as trying to find a “cure” for homosexuality?
Wait a minute, I’ve heard time and time again; everytime a conservative christian gets on this board and tells all the gay people they’re going to hell for laying with another man; The reply is almost always the same “Hey give us a break! We were born like this.”
So by saying this you imply to me that SOMETHING went awry from the time of conception till the time you were born. Or is all that just BS and being gay really IS a personal choice?
So which is it…
THAT"S what I mean by sickness, incase any body got the wrong idea. I’m not trying to say gay people are sub-human.
SolGrundy If you were born with a pimple on your ass and I cut it off; wouldn’t you STILL be SolGrundy?
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
People are born that have one blue eye, and one brown eye, for instance. It’s not the majority or the usual, but it’s not a disease, the eyes are perfectly normally functioning, and they were most certainly born that way. Same goes for people with red hair.
Or do you think red hair or differently colored eyes is a birth defect as well?
WRONG! I’m pretty sure 99.9% of the worlds population are born with two hands. Just like 99.9% of the worlds popultation are born to like the opposite sex.
By your logic it would be perfectly normal for a child to be born with one hand or no hands.
We are born gay. It is also natural. Just as it is natural in all the other species where homosexuals exists (most mammals, all primates, penguins, most other birds, etc). Why are you implying a dichotomy between homosexuality being natural and it being a non-handicap?
And why are you using the term sickness?
I am not inhibited in any way, biologically. I am not hindered in living a full and productive life, except by the bigotry of people like you. I am not handicapped or unable to function normally. So where is the sickness?
If there is a sickness, if there is a disease, if there is a handicap, to being naturally what I am through no choice of my own, then where is the harm to me?
No, you’re just going out of your way to call us handicapped, which is almost as insulting. No offense to those with true handicaps, but there is nothing wrong with me. At least, nothing which is due to my sexuality.
No, the BS is your assertion that gay=‘something went awry’.
Ah, hell spectrum call me crazy but I’d say being gay puts a mighty big hamper on the whole reproductive process.
BTW
Quit taking what I say out of context; that’s a shity thing to do dude. If you’re going to quote me at least put the entire point I was trying to make which was this:
Dearest, I’m a lesbian, and I have three children. How many do you have?
One, I think you’re missing my point. How did you have these children? Did you do it with a man to whom your were actually attracted to? Or was it artificial insemenation? Or some other form like this?
Also, guess I might as well add fuel to the fire; Idealy a child needs both the mother AND father. if you knowingly bring a kid into this world knowing that he/she will not have both; this also something I would also whole heartily disagree with.
People who have problems with other’s sexual orientation can get treatment.
I’m not sure of the success rate.
It’s being an asshole, that’s all. Lest you of all people forget, spectrum, gay people still do get literally bashed - even this guy’s got nothing on the people who go around beating up gay people.
Are you aware of what the term “stereotyping” means? It’s judging someone on the basis of a surface characteristic. You posted something extremely anti-gay while drunk. Therefore spectrum was judging you by your behavior. What’s next? Is it stereotyping to call someone who molests children a child-molester? (I admit I have trouble with the term “gay-basher” in this context, would “drunken bigot” fit better?)
Yes, thank you, SHAKES, we’ll let the rest of the queers know how you want us to fight for our civil rights.
And you have yet to come up with any reason why we should humor your prejudice. Why is your right to be a homophobe more important than the doctor’s right to keep his sex life private?
Why? I’m not sick. I’m quite healthy, actually. Is everyone who’s different from you “diseased”? Why fix what ain’t broken? Once again, do you have any reasoning to support your bigoted comments?
Announcing Heterol: the once-a-day pill to turn your deviant gay urges into healthy straight ones! Take Heterol and you’ll find you no longer have any desire to have sex with people of the same sex, and you boys will start playing football instead of shopping! And for you girls, Heterol will help you stop playing softball and driving pickup trucks and get your asses back in the kitchen where they belong!
Heterol: the only cure for homosexuality endorsed by SHAKES, the drunk message board guy!
What turmoil? In case you haven’t noticed, we don’t feel turmoil from being gay. The only turmoil we feel is that of being targeted by bigots - so wouldn’t a pill that cures bigotry make more sense? Or would it have been a good goal, back when black people weren’t allowed to use the same drinking fountains, to “cure” them of their blackness?
So you speak for nature? Nature made me this way, but you want to fix me artificially? In order to get me back in line with nature? If it was so unnatural, then where did we come from in the first place? We keep popping up! If nature has trouble with it, isn’t it her business to fix it?
By the way, silly, Darwin isn’t a deity. He’s a scientist who described a natural phenomenon.
Well, at least you’ve figured out that you’re outclassed. Hey, in the turnabout-is-fair-play tradition, I might as well tell you that if you want to spread your bigotry, y’all better come up with someone who’s a little more articulate and capable of discussing it. Now, I know your ranks aren’t exactly thick with reasoned thinkers, but you’re just proving us right, you know.
Wait, I thought reproduction was the “natural” end goal of each person. Suddenly it’s a certain type of reproduction? Isn’t it serving Darwin or the universe or whoever just as well if we use artificial insemination? Or does that not “count”?
More news for you, honeybun: most of the families in our country without two opposite sex parents are single families, not gay ones. Presumably one straight parent still isn’t as good as two gay ones, right? And if giving each kid a parent of each sex (for whatever reason it’s important to you) is your goal, shouldn’t you be crusading against single parenthood, not gay people?
Like what? In case you haven’t noticed, we like our deviant gay lifestyle. If you’re saying that the 21st century is a great time to stop bigots from bothering us, then I quite agree.
Yeah, somehow I thought they’d turn out to be imaginary friends.
Cite? Sorry, SHAKES, it’s just like the straight world: the real desirable ones tend to have higher standards. You wouldn’t be all that successful as a gay guy for exactly the same reason you’re not having to carry pepper spray to defend yourself against horny supermodels.
You keep arguing shit you can’t prove. Shit that doesn’t even make sense. And why is it our responsibility to make none of the gay people scare you? You’ve already shown yourself to be a bigot. Being contradicted and made to look stupid by yet another gay guy couldn’t make that much difference.
Is it a personal choice? I mean, could you decide tomorrow to be gay from now on, just like that? No, it’s probably mostly a biological process, with perhaps some environmental influences; it’s pretty clear that your sexuality is set by early childhood. And there’s nothing “awry” about it, unless “awry” suddenly means “different from SHAKES.” We’re happy the way we are, so some might say the person who’s got a problem is the one who needs fixing.
I’m still not quite clear on what makes us “sick”. If we’re biologically different from straight people, then we’re as “sick” as anyone who’s different. Why is being gay “sick” if being red-haired isn’t? There’s probably fewer of them than there are of us.
Once again, sweetheart, you’re in for a surprise. 0.1% of the population is gay? Multiply that number by 50 and you’re closer.
Seriously. You have yet to come up with any reason why we shouldn’t be perfectly happy to be the way we are. You keep on harping on how we’re “sick”, but as far as I can tell, I’m healthy. So tell me what’s wrong with being gay. If it’s against the “natural order”, then why do we come out this way? Why, for that matter, do all sorts of animals come out this way? Do the assembly lines break down when Mother Nature takes a vacation? Because I still don’t see the problem.