Homophobe or just reasonable?

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by LuvRPgrl, Aug 20, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. LuvRPgrl
    Offline

    LuvRPgrl Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,163
    Thanks Received:
    206
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +206
    As soon as a person declares their stance on homosexuality, the pro homosexual groups automatically label you a homophobe if you dont support them.

    Yet, Tammy Bruce, a Lesbian radio talk show host, former pres. of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW, has stated that a vast majority of homosexuals have their first encounter when they are quite young.

    If this is true, it shows a pre disposistion amongst the homosexual community to "prey" on youngsters, hence one more arguement to not "endorse" homosexuality (which is what granting same sex marriage would do) and protecting our kids is hardly akin to being a homophobic.

    The following three paragraphs, which is part of a story, true story, about two killers in Chicago, USA, early 20th century. In it, there are quite a few major illustrations of how some things are not so good for us, even though we may not think they are harmful at all.

    One is too much money, which causes the kids of such parents to often grow up spoiled and anti social. Can anyone say "Paris Hilton"?

    Another is the illustration of young homosexual encounters.

    Another is the over rating of intelligence and its value to a person.

    The ensuing trial also lead to the first ever succesful "mentally ill" defense, and one of the two murderers did not even spend his entire life in prison, though given a life sentence.

    "On an afternoon in May 1924, the sons of two of Chicago’s wealthiest and most illustrious families drove to the Harvard School for boys in Kenwood and kidnapped a young boy named Bobby Franks. Their plan was to carry out the “perfect murder”... a scheme so devious that only two men of superior intellect, such as their own, could accomplish. These two men were Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold. They were the privileged heirs of well-known Chicago families who had embarked on a life of crime for fun and for the pure thrill of it. There were also a pair of sexual deviants who considered themselves to be brilliant -- a claim that would later lead to their downfall.

    When captured, the case became known as "the trial of the century".

    Nathan Leopold had been born in 1904 and from an early age had a number of homosexual encounters, culminating in a relationship with Richard Loeb. He was an excellent student with a genius IQ and was only 18 when he graduated from the University of Chicago...."

    http://www.prairieghosts.com/leopold.html
     
  2. William Joyce
    Offline

    William Joyce Chemotherapy for PC

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,693
    Thanks Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Caucasiastan
    Ratings:
    +1,349
    What's politically incorrect to acknowledge... and what, you think I would do such a thing? Is that homosexual men are slightly more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexual men. Yes, it's a fact. And the gay lobby HATES it.
     
  3. archangel
    Online

    archangel Guest

    Ratings:
    +0

    I covered this in previous posts as a former Law enforcement investigator...65% of child porn is attributed to homosexual males!
     
  4. Powerman
    Offline

    Powerman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,499
    Thanks Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +39
    If protecting your children is a high priority maybe you should be concerned about who the Pope is and his alleged cover ups of child molestation.

    But on a more serious note I have a few problems with what you said here. Gay marriage doesn't endorse homosexuality. Homosexuality isn't illegal in the first place so allowing people that can date to get married really isn't much of an endorsement of it. It's just giving them equal rights. The number of homosexuals will not increase if you allow gay marriage so I don't know what you mean by "endorsing" it. You know what it might endorse though? Monogomy in the gay community...I think we would all agree that would be a good thing if it actually had some effect in that area. Secondly I'm not sure how young you are talking about with people having these sexual encounters. If you are in fact talking about child molestation then I see your point but if you are talking about consensual actions with teenagers then it isn't any different than straight people. People are becoming sexually active at young ages now and you can't blame that on gay people.
     
  5. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
     
  6. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    "Homophobe" is just another left-wing label used to dishonestly question the masculinity/security of anyone who thinks homo's ain't normal people. Nothing more than the usual, attempted guilt trip.

    My masculinity is just fine, and I don't fear any latent homosexual desires that may "crop up out of nowhere," AND homo's STILL ain't normal people.
     
  7. LuvRPgrl
    Offline

    LuvRPgrl Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,163
    Thanks Received:
    206
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +206
    Homosexuals already have equal rights. Now they want special rights.
    Marriage is reflective of the society to make stronger families. Homosexual marriages wont do that.

    Allowing same sex marriage is govt endorsement of homosexual activity, and govt endorsement does increase the activity in frequency and numbers of participants, thats a simple fact.

    I am talking about child molestation, and very young teens. But also, older teen sex with an adult is illegal and immoral.


    Getting homosexual men to be monogamous is like getting men to quit looking at sexy and beautiful women, (heterosexual men that is) it AINT gonna happen.
     
  8. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Bull. It "endorses" it by making it a legitimate state of being legally. The fact that something exists and is not illegal, does not automatically make it right.

    How you can even think that legtimizing gay marriage would have no impact on the numbers but for some reason is going to suddenly make gays monogamous beats the Hell out of me.


    Attempting to compare homosexual to heterosexual behavior is bull. Hetersexual behavior is NORMAL. Homosexual behavior is ABNORMAL. The comparison begins and ends THERE.
     
  9. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,548
    Thanks Received:
    8,163
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,165
    What on earth gives anyone the idea that "gay marriage" would make any gay people monoganous? There is no sign of it now. Why should we expect it because we suddenly pass a law. I mean there is nothing preventing them from monogamy as it is.

    In fact, if anyone was thinking about it instead of just doing what is PC or what they think will make them look compassionate and tolerant and hence better than others, they would realize that it should be the other way around. If gays want to marry each other, they should prove that a majority of them want to and will be committed to monogamy. It should be evidence of Monogamy and its widespread occurence throughout the homosexual community that should be pushing for "gay marriage" If they can't be monogamous now why should we change a sacred institution in the hopes that they suddenly do? And why the heck shouldnt we object when the elites in society tell us we have to change such a sacred institution without going through the Democratic process?

    Besides, as has been mentioned. Gays already have the same rights as we to marry. They can marry any single member of the opposite sex over the age of minority that isn't a blood relative, the same as anyone else.
     
  10. LuvRPgrl
    Offline

    LuvRPgrl Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,163
    Thanks Received:
    206
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +206
    That idea comes from the same group that endorses living together without wedlock, after all, its only a piece of paper that means nothing. Well, if it is so meaningless, why are they fighting so hard for it? Why do they declare without it they are being deprived rights? Why would it create monogamy ?


    Not only that, but family law courts are already overburdened, which often doesnt allow judges enough time to examine cases and kids often suffer greately from it, in fact sometimes even great physical harm, sexual abuse and death. Now, lets just flood those courts with a bunch of limp wristed men fighting over who gets the poodle.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page