The Gays

[Endora]

Posting this here to take it out of the shoutbox.

I'm sorry you don't like the English Language, but by definition homosexuality is an aberrant perversion.  That's not being intolerant, it's being factually correct in the description.

This is obviously quite ludicrous, and I hope the rest of you at least realise that this is not quite how language works.

However the general notion that homosexuality is "Perverse" seems to result in circular reasoning, as does the proof for this gay agenda. And of course both are extremely insulting and demeaning towards homosexuals.

I can't stand the idea that people complain about the "gay agenda" while trying to push their own agenda to get the people themselves depicted as either unnatural or animalistic.

Even if someone's sexuality or politicising thereof does not make you comfortable, I still do not believe it is in an excuse to demean someone in that regard.

Saying homosexuality is perverse is "hateful" because it's trying to assign a negative term to something that could just as easily not be described that way. Some people INSIST on using a term that makes homosexuals look like animals. Especially when "perverse" by an equal measure could be used to describe anything sexually abnormal.

[Chris_]

this is gay

[WildRose]

Yep, "moral equivocation" is the leftists last weapon in attempting to force the normalization of homosexuality on society.

[BEG]

Endora, I don't care if gays marry. I am fairly alone in my view on this site but i don't feel the need to "school" people on their views.  They have their own reason for believing the way they do and so do I.  

You took the wrong approach when you came here.  You were just another "enlightened" lib who thought she was going to tell us like it is, tell us how to act while at the same time doing the very thing to us, labeling a whole group in a negative way, the same thing you were accusing us of doing  Do you ever stop to think that they use the language they do to get a rise out of DU or any other liberal who just so happen to come across this site?  

You aren't the first and you won't be the last.  We have had "you" in many forms, it gets tiresome sometimes.  It kind of goes with the whole liberal elite "schtick", it's not new or exciting. In fact it is old.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Your opinion is duly noted.

But I still don't see why I should care.

[Chris_]

How many legs does a dog have, if you call the tail a leg?
Four. Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one, nor does calling homosexuality normal make it so.

[PatriotGame]

Posting this here to take it out of the shoutbox.

This is obviously quite ludicrous, and I hope the rest of you at least realise that this is not quite how language works.

However the general notion that homosexuality is "Perverse" seems to result in circular reasoning, as does the proof for this gay agenda. And of course both are extremely insulting and demeaning towards homosexuals.

I can't stand the idea that people complain about the "gay agenda" while trying to push their own agenda to get the people themselves depicted as either unnatural or animalistic.

Even if someone's sexuality or politicising thereof does not make you comfortable, I still do not believe it is in an excuse to demean someone in that regard.

Saying homosexuality is perverse is "hateful" because it's trying to assign a negative term to something that could just as easily not be described that way. Some people INSIST on using a term that makes homosexuals look like animals. Especially when "perverse" by an equal measure could be used to describe anything sexually abnormal.

You-Queer-Anal-Sex-AIDS-Die, OUTRAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why do we care???????????????


We should NOT!!!


You dig your own fag grave, we happily bury you in it!

[WildRose]

Posting this here to take it out of the shoutbox.

This is obviously quite ludicrous, and I hope the rest of you at least realise that this is not quite how language works.

However the general notion that homosexuality is "Perverse" seems to result in circular reasoning, as does the proof for this gay agenda. And of course both are extremely insulting and demeaning towards homosexuals.

I can't stand the idea that people complain about the "gay agenda" while trying to push their own agenda to get the people themselves depicted as either unnatural or animalistic.

Even if someone's sexuality or politicising thereof does not make you comfortable, I still do not believe it is in an excuse to demean someone in that regard.

Saying homosexuality is perverse is "hateful" because it's trying to assign a negative term to something that could just as easily not be described that way. Some people INSIST on using a term that makes homosexuals look like animals. Especially when "perverse" by an equal measure could be used to describe anything sexually abnormal.

Homosexuality is abberant and perverse because it meets the definition for both.  The biological norms for a species determine what is "normal".

Homosexual behvior is not normal for the human species because it is in direct contravention with the norm for the species which is "sexual reproduction".

Throughout history homosexuality was also defined as a mental illness since phsychology became a recognized discipline. It wass determined by the APA that, such a label was "harmful" because it hurt the feelings of gays, so it no longer is considered by them as such.

Some of us simply care more about the good of mankind and the nation than we do about coddling gays to make them feel better about their affliction.

We were told in the seventies that we should be "tolerant" meaning no longer should gays be labeled as mentally ill.

We were then told in the eighties that we should be accepting, because gays were part of society and didn't need to be made to feel like outcasts.

Since the ninties we had the premise foisted upon us that we had to now cease to label gays in any way which would make them feel bad, because it was simply a lifestyle choice with no real impact on society.

Here we are in the 2000's having come full circle where now anyone who simply recognizes homosexuality for what it is, is to now be labeled as, bigoted, homophobic and intolerant because supposedly they are "born that way" in spite of the fact that even though 90% of the human genome has been unwraveled there's as yet nothing to indicate that a gay gene exists.

To say that homosexuality is aberrant, abnormal, or perverse is merely being honest, it's not homophobic, and it's not "gay bashing".

[Lacarnut]

You-Queer-Anal-Sex-AIDS-Die, OUTRAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why do we care???????????????


We should NOT!!!


You dig your own fag grave, we happily bury you in it!

Sounds about right to me.

[Pat]

this is gay

 

[Splashdown]

Saying homosexuality is perverse is "hateful" because it's trying to assign a negative term to something that could just as easily not be described that way. Some people INSIST on using a term that makes homosexuals look like animals. Especially when "perverse" by an equal measure could be used to describe anything sexually abnormal.

I have no dog in this fight.

I believe that each of us are responsible for our own actions. I have enough trouble trying to live a good life myself, while trying to raise my children to do the same, without caring how other people choose to live their lives--that is, until their choices negatively impact my own.

The line that struck me in your post the most is bolded. If we only define ourselves by our sexual appetites--or indeed, any appetites--then, yes, we are acting like animals.

[formerlurker]

copying and pasting my post from fight club thread:

You are basing your comparison on sexuality to race because I assume your belief is that gay people are born that way -- it's genetic. 

You will find a great deal of Americans do not believe that, and they would represent both parties.    I live in MA, which I think we can both agree is a blue state.    It is also a predominantly Catholic state.    Former Governor Romney attempted to place the issue of gay marriage on the ballot so that this (at that time) bluest of blue states could have their voice heard.    Our state legislature blocked it as they knew what the vote would be.

Like it or not, homosexuality is heavily intertwined with religion.   It is not as simple as race discrimination, which is black and white (no pun intended).    The left likes to paint this issue as a conservative one, however they would be wrong.  It is a religious one.    California has demonstrated that quite clearly. 

I wish the topic was removed from the political arena on the federal level as it has no place there IMHO.

[TheSarge]

Yep, "moral equivocation" is the leftists last weapon in attempting to force the normalization of homosexuality on society.

That and activist judges.

[Carl]

Posting this here to take it out of the shoutbox.

This is obviously quite ludicrous, and I hope the rest of you at least realise that this is not quite how language works.

However the general notion that homosexuality is "Perverse" seems to result in circular reasoning, as does the proof for this gay agenda. And of course both are extremely insulting and demeaning towards homosexuals.

I can't stand the idea that people complain about the "gay agenda" while trying to push their own agenda to get the people themselves depicted as either unnatural or animalistic.

Even if someone's sexuality or politicising thereof does not make you comfortable, I still do not believe it is in an excuse to demean someone in that regard.

Saying homosexuality is perverse is "hateful" because it's trying to assign a negative term to something that could just as easily not be described that way. Some people INSIST on using a term that makes homosexuals look like animals. Especially when "perverse" by an equal measure could be used to describe anything sexually abnormal.

If someone wants to copulate with a dog I will say it is perverse and the majority of society will agree,as such so it is with homosexualty regardless of whether you like it or not.
In time that may change on both examples but it will be by concensus and not demand so live with it.

[JohnnyReb]

I guess I'm just an old pervert......I still like women.

[vesta111]

I guess I'm just an old pervert......I still like women.

Question here about born gays.

If you take say 20 people 10 male and 10 females that claim to be born gay why will you find that the majority of them have natural born children.?

Why did the majority live a heterosexual life style and then wake up one day to realise they were in fact born gay ?

I can understand the virgin gay folks but the breeders that change teams in the 7 inning must have a darn good reason.

[The Hollywood NeoCon]

Posting this here to take it out of the shoutbox.

This is obviously quite ludicrous, and I hope the rest of you at least realise that this is not quite how language works.

However the general notion that homosexuality is "Perverse" seems to result in circular reasoning, as does the proof for this gay agenda. And of course both are extremely insulting and demeaning towards homosexuals.

I can't stand the idea that people complain about the "gay agenda" while trying to push their own agenda to get the people themselves depicted as either unnatural or animalistic.

Even if someone's sexuality or politicising thereof does not make you comfortable, I still do not believe it is in an excuse to demean someone in that regard.

Saying homosexuality is perverse is "hateful" because it's trying to assign a negative term to something that could just as easily not be described that way. Some people INSIST on using a term that makes homosexuals look like animals. Especially when "perverse" by an equal measure could be used to describe anything sexually abnormal.

I really do not understand this need you on the left have to demand complete and unquestioning agreement on every issue.

Like BEG, I frankly do not care who my neighbor takes to bed (as long as it's another consenting adult, mind you), and while I recognize that there those here in the Cave who may have a different opinion on the matter, I don't feel compelled to piss and moan until they agree with my own.

Perhaps instead of railing for equality of outcome, the left would be better off joining the conservatives in striving for equality of opportunity. We can debate the definition of opportunity without so much polarization if you folks would cease passing judgment on anyone who disagrees with you.

[TheSarge]

I really do not understand this need you on the left have to demand complete and unquestioning agreement on every issue.

It's their way of showing the world how tolerant and accepting they are.

[IassaFTots]

I can understand the virgin gay folks but the breeders that change teams in the 7 inning must have a darn good reason.

I wish I could answer that, as my Mom is one of those.  I think for her, it was a feeling of non-threatening companionship.  Her two marriages were a bit, uh, well, violent.  

She does have a "union" with her partner of over 20 years.  No call for real marriage, ever, from her.  The only complaint, if you can call it that, she has had with how she is treated given her relationship status, would be when she was in the hospital.  Her partner lied and said she was her sister, just so she could see her.  That has since been resolved, with legal documents, that now either can be visited by either, regardless of family status.  Which is pretty important, as they live far away, and they both have serious medical conditions.  

For the record, although she will profess to be independent in her voting, she votes Republican more often than not. 

[The Hollywood NeoCon]

It's their way of showing the world how tolerant and accepting they are.

Precisely, which is the inherent paradox of the progressive movement -- they're tolerant and accepting, but only of those who agree with them. If you dissent, it isn't necessary to tolerate or accept you.

By the very definition of tolerance, they are the least tolerant of all. The intellectual gymnastics these people must go through is staggering.

[vesta111]

I wish I could answer that, as my Mom is one of those.  I think for her, it was a feeling of non-threatening companionship.  Her two marriages were a bit, uh, well, violent.  

She does have a "union" with her partner of over 20 years.  No call for real marriage, ever, from her.  The only complaint, if you can call it that, she has had with how she is treated given her relationship status, would be when she was in the hospital.  Her partner lied and said she was her sister, just so she could see her.  That has since been resolved, with legal documents, that now either can be visited by either, regardless of family status.  Which is pretty important, as they live far away, and they both have serious medical conditions.  

For the record, although she will profess to be independent in her voting, she votes Republican more often than not. 

"I wish I could answer that, as my Mom is one of those.  I think for her, it was a feeling of non-threatening companionship.  Her two marriages were a bit, uh, well, violent."

Well said, and as an aside . one of the few virgin Gay woman I met once turned to me and asked what I thought of a coworker that came to work every few weeks with black eyes and black and blue .

My first thought was that she may just be clumsy like me and or needed glasses.  It never occurred to me that our coworker was being beaten up.

One day she came to work a mess, she was even questioned by the bosses as to what happend to her.  She told them and us that she had been in a car  accident.

My Gay friend walked about smiling every time we bumped into that woman and I finally asked the gay woman why she was smiling.

Her answer rocked me off my feet, she told me to give it a year, that woman was a Sister in the making.

[BlueStateSaint]

"I wish I could answer that, as my Mom is one of those.  I think for her, it was a feeling of non-threatening companionship.  Her two marriages were a bit, uh, well, violent."

Well said, and as an aside . one of the few virgin Gay woman I met once turned to me and asked what I thought of a coworker that came to work every few weeks with black eyes and black and blue .

My first thought was that she may just be clumsy like me and or needed glasses.  It never occurred to me that our coworker was being beaten up.

One day she came to work a mess, she was even questioned by the bosses as to what happend to her.  She told them and us that she had been in a car  accident.

My Gay friend walked about smiling every time we bumped into that woman and I finally asked the gay woman why she was smiling.

Her answer rocked me off my feet, she told me to give it a year, that woman was a Sister in the making.

Vesta, your lesbian friend was just applying the saying, "Give time time."  That's all.

[PatriotGame]

"I wish I could answer that, as my Mom is one of those.  I think for her, it was a feeling of non-threatening companionship.  Her two marriages were a bit, uh, well, violent."

Well said, and as an aside . one of the few virgin Gay woman I met once turned to me and asked what I thought of a coworker that came to work every few weeks with black eyes and black and blue .

My first thought was that she may just be clumsy like me and or needed glasses.  It never occurred to me that our coworker was being beaten up.

One day she came to work a mess, she was even questioned by the bosses as to what happend to her.  She told them and us that she had been in a car  accident.

My Gay friend walked about smiling every time we bumped into that woman and I finally asked the gay woman why she was smiling.

Her answer rocked me off my feet, she told me to give it a year, that woman was a Sister in the making.

She got her ass kicked!!!

She made a pubLICK excuse to justify it.

She had a chance to run, she did not!

She got beat up again, she deserved it due to her stupidity!!!

Zero pity here...

[Duke Nukum]

Posting this here to take it out of the shoutbox.

This is obviously quite ludicrous, and I hope the rest of you at least realise that this is not quite how language works.

However the general notion that homosexuality is "Perverse" seems to result in circular reasoning, as does the proof for this gay agenda. And of course both are extremely insulting and demeaning towards homosexuals.

I can't stand the idea that people complain about the "gay agenda" while trying to push their own agenda to get the people themselves depicted as either unnatural or animalistic.

Even if someone's sexuality or politicising thereof does not make you comfortable, I still do not believe it is in an excuse to demean someone in that regard.

Saying homosexuality is perverse is "hateful" because it's trying to assign a negative term to something that could just as easily not be described that way. Some people INSIST on using a term that makes homosexuals look like animals. Especially when "perverse" by an equal measure could be used to describe anything sexually abnormal.

Politicizing language is hateful and a crime against humanity and reason.  Politicizing language is the worst kind of tyranny as it seeks to create false realities for unwitting people to act upon in good faith.

Look at the eco-terrorist we had here in the states this past week, why did he go bonkers?  Because he believed the false realities created by Algore and a fictional talking monkey.

Words mean things.  And if you prefer they did not because they make people like you feel politically uncomfortable, well, la di dah!  I much rather an uncomfortable leftist who is at least marginally in touch with reality than a suicidally psychotic one such as James Lee. 

And yes, I am equating your political ideology with mental illness because it is.

[Ballygrl]

My opinion on homosexuality? I think most are born that way, and for some like the instances cited I think it's a personal choice, I believe in civil unions but not the use of the term marriage. Progressives need to get over themselves and realize that people have their own opinions and because their opinion might be different than yours and mine when it comes to certain issues it doesn't mean the other person is wrong, and all you succeed in doing when you start throwing the terms racist, homophobic, Islamophobic around etc. is to alienate people like me.