Homosexual recruitment is working

[JimBowie1958]

It simply makes it easier for people like you to hate them, if you can say it is their choice & their fault.

I dont hate the run of the mill fagot.

I hate the militant leaders of the fagot community as they lie to their own flock (and everyone else) and sell them out for political gain. They use them worse than the 'Civil Rights' leaders have exploited the black community.

So that would mean that the homosexuals should hate you for lying about them.

I do not knowingly lie about them.

What you think of as a lie is at worst a disagreement regarding the facts.

And they don't knowingly lie either.

All of you are as pure as driven snow.

How would you know that? lololol

 

[alpine]

woman having sex with another woman is not homosexual...

Yes it is.

Who do you get it from that it is not?

Do you think that a man who commits ass rape on another man is a fagot? I sure do.

"Who do you get it from that it is not?"

me

to me, its not...

 

[Syriusly]

[
But dont worry about your standing among your militant Queer peers, no one expects you to get all objective or something.

LOL.....don't worry about your standing amongst your racist and bigot peers (aka assholes), no one expects you to get all objective or something....

Unlike you- I am a real heterosexual who is not threatened by homosexuals. I am happily married, and a father- and gay marriage doesn't threaten my marriage or my family.

And unlike you, I really do have gay friends, not your so-called shitty friends- and I want them to have the same rights and responsibilities my wife and I have.

The primary problems with open homosexual activity and gay marriage being accepted as normal is the following

1. It will diminish the numbers of homosexuals in the population. These people have evolved with our community and losing them will have a negative impact. Acceptance of open flamboyant perversion will discourage bisexuals from regular heterosexual behavior and their genes will be lost to the gene pool.

2. Further moral degredation of our culture as more and more deviant behavior becomes normalized from polygamy, to bestiality to 'voluntary' sexual enslavement.

3, All this will have a negative impact on demographic population growth. No nation remains a powerful nation once its population begins to implode.

4. This in turn has a huge economic impact as well, as populations with a negative population growth rate soon experience an economic recession and/or depression that they nevber recover from unless the nation is conquered and eradicated.

5. It is an offense to God, like adultery, masturbation, pre-marital sexual behavior and incest. It should never be completely tolerated as moral standards need to be kept.

Well lets review- your 'primary problems'

1. It will diminish the numbers of homosexuals in the population. These people have evolved with our community and losing them will have a negative impact. Acceptance of open flamboyant perversion will discourage bisexuals from regular heterosexual behavior and their genes will be lost to the gene pool.

Says who? Perhaps you think that forcing lesbians to have sex with men so that they are forced to contribute 'to the gene pool' is a good thing- but I don't. Seriously this entire statement makes no sense whatsoever. Gay men and women continue to contribute their genes to the gene pool- and there is no indication that this will alter in anyway the number of homosexuals in our population.

2. Further moral degredation of our culture as more and more deviant behavior becomes normalized from polygamy, to bestiality to 'voluntary' sexual enslavement.

Ah so you equate a consenting woman having sex with a consenting woman with bestiality- a person having sex with an animal?
Here is an idea- deal with homosexuality- and don't try to blame a slippery slope for your bigotry. In the 1960's people were saying the same thing about mixed race relationships- do you think that those were the beginning of the 'moral degradation' of our culture?

3, All this will have a negative impact on demographic population growth. No nation remains a powerful nation once its population begins to implode.

Populations don't implode- they fail to reproduce. The primary reason populations fail to reproduce are two fold:

1. Practical contraception- because women don't like being pregnant all of the time and/or
2. Wealth- wealthy nations tend not to reproduce as much because having children is expensive.

Don't blame homosexuals for us heterosexuals not having enough children- they are fighting for the right to get married and legally parent children- and adopt the children abandoned by their heterosexual parents.

4. This in turn has a huge economic impact as well, as populations with a negative population growth rate soon experience an economic recession and/or depression that they nevber recover from unless the nation is conquered and eradicated.

Examples? And please, please use Rome.

5. It is an offense to God, like adultery, masturbation, pre-marital sexual behavior and incest. It should never be completely tolerated as moral standards need to be kept.

I find the murder of innocent women and children pretty offensive- yet "God" killed millions of innocent women and children in the Old Testament. I find the appeal to God in a nation with many 'Gods' to be pretty much no different than appealing to the tooth fairy.

Yes- good Christians have tried to impose their 'Christian morality' on everyone- with laws to forbid pre-marital sex, with laws about how adults could have sex, which adults could have sex- but I think we Americans should not be forced by law by a bunch of prudish, preaching do gooders to behave how they want everyone to behave.

How about this- rather than telling everyone gay and straight- how we should be having sex- you just concern yourself with contributing your 10 or 15 kids to save the United States from the lack of reproduction.

 

[Dale Smith]

It simply makes it easier for people like you to hate them, if you can say it is their choice & their fault.

I dont hate the run of the mill fagot.

I hate the militant leaders of the fagot community as they lie to their own flock (and everyone else) and sell them out for political gain. They use them worse than the 'Civil Rights' leaders have exploited the black community.

So that would mean that the homosexuals should hate you for lying about them.

I do not knowingly lie about them.

What you think of as a lie is at worst a disagreement regarding the facts.

To all you militant gay defenders? Do a little background checking of GLSEN and the homosexual agenda that they are wanting to make sure is in place in Common Core and then get back to me.

 

[Syriusly]

[The problem was less the idea that two fags were giving each other BJs than that they were out there doing it in public in a park where kids were playing.

And if it was a man and woman having sex in the park?

The problem with your explanation is that Texas sodomy laws wasn't about indecent exposure, or sex in public, it prohibited the act- whether consensual or not, whether in private or not.

Now that Sodomy is illegal does that mean Texas can't arrest two people for having sex in a park?

No- they can use the statutes against indecent exposure, or lewd behavior in public- which apply to everyone.

yes, if it was a man and a woman they would have been arrested as well.

back in high school folks went to some lengths to find remote places to make out. they didnt do it in public parks.

In my life I have stumbled across a total of 3 couples having sex.

All adults. All heterosexual couples. 1 couple in a park.

See the thing is- the statutes you say were useful- aren't needed- because as you agree- a hetero couple- or a gay couple- having sex in a park- can be arrested without any sodomy laws.

The only advantage to sodomy laws was so that the police could charge gays more heavily than a straight couple found having sex in public.

 

[Syriusly]

And how are they recruited, exactly?

You have never heard of seduction?

For goodness sake, get out more, dude.

Unless they were already gay, bi, or bi-curious, seduction isn't going to work.

But my question still remains, why do you think it is any of your business who someone has sex with? If they are consenting adults, it is none of your business.

Absolutely. It's no one's business. So gays can stop asking communities to prioritize prevention of disease among gay men.

You reach out to the communities more at risk- so you reach out to women regarding HPV, and you reach out to intravenous drug users, African Americans and gay men for HIV.

 

[rdean]

So how do right wingers get "recruited"?
If you breath the same air, do you get "turned"?
The touch and feel of a gay is so delectable to a right winger?
The scent of a gay is just enticing?
The thought of what they would do together overwhelms right wingers?

What?

 

[rdean]

[The problem was less the idea that two fags were giving each other BJs than that they were out there doing it in public in a park where kids were playing.

And if it was a man and woman having sex in the park?

The problem with your explanation is that Texas sodomy laws wasn't about indecent exposure, or sex in public, it prohibited the act- whether consensual or not, whether in private or not.

Now that Sodomy is illegal does that mean Texas can't arrest two people for having sex in a park?

No- they can use the statutes against indecent exposure, or lewd behavior in public- which apply to everyone.

yes, if it was a man and a woman they would have been arrested as well.

back in high school folks went to some lengths to find remote places to make out. they didnt do it in public parks.

In my life I have stumbled across a total of 3 couples having sex.

All adults. All heterosexual couples. 1 couple in a park.

See the thing is- the statutes you say were useful- aren't needed- because as you agree- a hetero couple- or a gay couple- having sex in a park- can be arrested without any sodomy laws.

The only advantage to sodomy laws was so that the police could charge gays more heavily than a straight couple found having sex in public.

Straights have sodomy too.

 

[Syriusly]

[The problem was less the idea that two fags were giving each other BJs than that they were out there doing it in public in a park where kids were playing.

And if it was a man and woman having sex in the park?

The problem with your explanation is that Texas sodomy laws wasn't about indecent exposure, or sex in public, it prohibited the act- whether consensual or not, whether in private or not.

Now that Sodomy is illegal does that mean Texas can't arrest two people for having sex in a park?

No- they can use the statutes against indecent exposure, or lewd behavior in public- which apply to everyone.

yes, if it was a man and a woman they would have been arrested as well.

back in high school folks went to some lengths to find remote places to make out. they didnt do it in public parks.

In my life I have stumbled across a total of 3 couples having sex.

All adults. All heterosexual couples. 1 couple in a park.

See the thing is- the statutes you say were useful- aren't needed- because as you agree- a hetero couple- or a gay couple- having sex in a park- can be arrested without any sodomy laws.

The only advantage to sodomy laws was so that the police could charge gays more heavily than a straight couple found having sex in public.

Straights have sodomy too.

The sodomy laws I was speaking of were 'gay men only' sodomy laws- but yes they do.

 

[Blackrook]

Liberals typically have no children, or don't really love their children that much, so they don't understand what it is to be a father in today's world.

I have three adult children, which gives me a stake in the outcome of this culture war we're having.

I do not want my children to experiment with homosexuality, because ultimately, I invested my entire life's resources into them, and I want them to give me grandchildren.

This is about survival of my family to the next generation. Liberals don't get that, they abort their children, so they have no idea what it means to want a legacy.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Liberals typically have no children, or don't really love their children that much, so they don't understand what it is to be a father in today's world.

I have three adult children, which gives me a stake in the outcome of this culture war we're having.

I do not want my children to experiment with homosexuality, because ultimately, I invested my entire life's resources into them, and I want them to give me grandchildren.

This is about survival of my family to the next generation. Liberals don't get that, they abort their children, so they have no idea what it means to want a legacy.

This should not be dignified with a response.

 

[rdean]

Liberals typically have no children, or don't really love their children that much, so they don't understand what it is to be a father in today's world.

I have three adult children, which gives me a stake in the outcome of this culture war we're having.

I do not want my children to experiment with homosexuality, because ultimately, I invested my entire life's resources into them, and I want them to give me grandchildren.

This is about survival of my family to the next generation. Liberals don't get that, they abort their children, so they have no idea what it means to want a legacy.

Experiment with homosexuality?

What's it like having a tard for a parent?

 

[JimBowie1958]

[
But dont worry about your standing among your militant Queer peers, no one expects you to get all objective or something.

LOL.....don't worry about your standing amongst your racist and bigot peers (aka assholes), no one expects you to get all objective or something....

Unlike you- I am a real heterosexual who is not threatened by homosexuals. I am happily married, and a father- and gay marriage doesn't threaten my marriage or my family.

And unlike you, I really do have gay friends, not your so-called shitty friends- and I want them to have the same rights and responsibilities my wife and I have.

The primary problems with open homosexual activity and gay marriage being accepted as normal is the following

1. It will diminish the numbers of homosexuals in the population. These people have evolved with our community and losing them will have a negative impact. Acceptance of open flamboyant perversion will discourage bisexuals from regular heterosexual behavior and their genes will be lost to the gene pool.

2. Further moral degredation of our culture as more and more deviant behavior becomes normalized from polygamy, to bestiality to 'voluntary' sexual enslavement.

3, All this will have a negative impact on demographic population growth. No nation remains a powerful nation once its population begins to implode.

4. This in turn has a huge economic impact as well, as populations with a negative population growth rate soon experience an economic recession and/or depression that they nevber recover from unless the nation is conquered and eradicated.

5. It is an offense to God, like adultery, masturbation, pre-marital sexual behavior and incest. It should never be completely tolerated as moral standards need to be kept.

Well lets review- your 'primary problems'

1. It will diminish the numbers of homosexuals in the population. These people have evolved with our community and losing them will have a negative impact. Acceptance of open flamboyant perversion will discourage bisexuals from regular heterosexual behavior and their genes will be lost to the gene pool.

Says who? Perhaps you think that forcing lesbians to have sex with men so that they are forced to contribute 'to the gene pool' is a good thing- but I don't. Seriously this entire statement makes no sense whatsoever. Gay men and women continue to contribute their genes to the gene pool- and there is no indication that this will alter in anyway the number of homosexuals in our population.

Never spoke of forcing anyone to do anything. However unless fags start having sex with the opposite gender, they will diminish in the gene pool. it's simple science, even if it is contrary to your agenda.

2. Further moral degredation of our culture as more and more deviant behavior becomes normalized from polygamy, to bestiality to 'voluntary' sexual enslavement.

Ah so you equate a consenting woman having sex with a consenting woman with bestiality- a person having sex with an animal?
Here is an idea- deal with homosexuality- and don't try to blame a slippery slope for your bigotry. In the 1960's people were saying the same thing about mixed race relationships- do you think that those were the beginning of the 'moral degradation' of our culture?

While mixed race couples were not a sin, they did signal the end of marriage as something primarily for the sake of bearing and raising children, sure enough. The results we have seen since then support this as parental involvement in helping children learn has become a mere distraction and our schools suffer in part to parental disengagement. And yes, two women buggering each other is as sick and disgusting as them doing it with a horse. It sure as hell is a Slippery slope as the focus on getting a sexual thrill has become popular cultures recurring theme, and some women get that with horses just like they can with other women with a 9 inch strapon.

3, All this will have a negative impact on demographic population growth. No nation remains a powerful nation once its population begins to implode.

Populations don't implode- they fail to reproduce. The primary reason populations fail to reproduce are two fold:

1. Practical contraception- because women don't like being pregnant all of the time and/or
2. Wealth- wealthy nations tend not to reproduce as much because having children is expensive.

Wow, talk about a semantic stretch! Yes, when populations FAIL TO REPRODUCE, they have an IMPLOSION OF NUMBERS, dude.

Don't blame homosexuals for us heterosexuals not having enough children- they are fighting for the right to get married and legally parent children- and adopt the children abandoned by their heterosexual parents.

Fags should be having children too and raising them appropriately. When you fuckers ditch out that is part of the problem.

That should be obvious.

4. This in turn has a huge economic impact as well, as populations with a negative population growth rate soon experience an economic recession and/or depression that they never recover from unless the nation is conquered and eradicated.

Examples? And please, please use Rome.

Rome did have a collapsing population in the Third Century that put it on a slippery footing downward for the next two centuries. While the civil wars,plagues and poor economic times had an impact for certain, the bottom line was Romans did not see any value to having more children and kep their numbers small, causing a spiraling downwards of their population, speeded along by the plagues, civil wars and chaos.
Crisis of the Third Century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
However, dozens of formerly thriving cities, especially in the Western Empire, had been ruined, their populations dispersed and, with the breakdown of the economic system, could not be rebuilt. Major cities and towns, even Rome itself, had not needed fortifications for many centuries; many then surrounded themselves with thick walls.

Minus a thriving economy that was simply depopulated into a trickle of its former glory, Rome could not economically sustain itself any further past the 5th century, and it played a delicate finesse game to get that far, until the Winter of 406.

5. It is an offense to God, like adultery, masturbation, pre-marital sexual behavior and incest. It should never be completely tolerated as moral standards need to be kept.

I find the murder of innocent women and children pretty offensive- yet "God" killed millions of innocent women and children in the Old Testament. I find the appeal to God in a nation with many 'Gods' to be pretty much no different than appealing to the tooth fairy.

Lol, God did not personally kill any kids. He did allow it to happen in most cases, and gave directions to his faithful in others. Given His omniscience, it is certain He had good reason that we today could not justify the use of such deadly methods due to our own insufficiency except in a few small cases.

Yes- good Christians have tried to impose their 'Christian morality' on everyone- with laws to forbid pre-marital sex, with laws about how adults could have sex, which adults could have sex- but I think we Americans should not be forced by law by a bunch of prudish, preaching do gooders to behave how they want everyone to behave.

Yeah, we did have the various Roman emperors who made Christianity the sole official religion of the Empire and that led to a sort of secular version of Christianity that the rulers of the West followed. And the families of these barbaric German princes are still with us today.

How about this- rather than telling everyone gay and straight- how we should be having sex- you just concern yourself with contributing your 10 or 15 kids to save the United States from the lack of reproduction.

My wife and I tried to do our part, but she has a genetic disorder, polysystic kidneys, and we had three miscarriages.

Five shots at it is enough I think, but the impact of losing a child is very disheartening, three is almost unbearable and so we stopped having kids.

Children are a gift from God, and we slaughter our own children, as a society, in a fit of madness.

The same societal madness that says that ass fucking someone is a legit way of copulating.

There are reasons that the great nations are not composed of a bunch of ass fuckers and stingy greedy merchants.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Liberals typically have no children, or don't really love their children that much, so they don't understand what it is to be a father in today's world.

I have three adult children, which gives me a stake in the outcome of this culture war we're having.

I do not want my children to experiment with homosexuality, because ultimately, I invested my entire life's resources into them, and I want them to give me grandchildren.

This is about survival of my family to the next generation. Liberals don't get that, they abort their children, so they have no idea what it means to want a legacy.

This should not be dignified with a response.

That is just classic irony, right there.

 

[JimBowie1958]

What's it like having a tard for a parent?

Why dont you tell us, moron?

 

[Asclepias]

I'm still trying to figure out how the OP knows homosexual recruiting is working. Did he lose someone to the other side or did he turn gay himself?

 

[Blackrook]

Jim, your story is heartbreaking. So many loving couples want to offer children a loving home, but can't have children for whatever reason. And then we kill perfectly good babies these couples could adopt.

 

[Syriusly]

[
But dont worry about your standing among your militant Queer peers, no one expects you to get all objective or something.

LOL.....don't worry about your standing amongst your racist and bigot peers (aka assholes), no one expects you to get all objective or something....

Unlike you- I am a real heterosexual who is not threatened by homosexuals. I am happily married, and a father- and gay marriage doesn't threaten my marriage or my family.

And unlike you, I really do have gay friends, not your so-called shitty friends- and I want them to have the same rights and responsibilities my wife and I have.

The primary problems with open homosexual activity and gay marriage being accepted as normal is the following

1. It will diminish the numbers of homosexuals in the population. These people have evolved with our community and losing them will have a negative impact. Acceptance of open flamboyant perversion will discourage bisexuals from regular heterosexual behavior and their genes will be lost to the gene pool.

2. Further moral degredation of our culture as more and more deviant behavior becomes normalized from polygamy, to bestiality to 'voluntary' sexual enslavement.

3, All this will have a negative impact on demographic population growth. No nation remains a powerful nation once its population begins to implode.

4. This in turn has a huge economic impact as well, as populations with a negative population growth rate soon experience an economic recession and/or depression that they nevber recover from unless the nation is conquered and eradicated.

5. It is an offense to God, like adultery, masturbation, pre-marital sexual behavior and incest. It should never be completely tolerated as moral standards need to be kept.

Well lets review- your 'primary problems'

1. It will diminish the numbers of homosexuals in the population. These people have evolved with our community and losing them will have a negative impact. Acceptance of open flamboyant perversion will discourage bisexuals from regular heterosexual behavior and their genes will be lost to the gene pool.

Says who? Perhaps you think that forcing lesbians to have sex with men so that they are forced to contribute 'to the gene pool' is a good thing- but I don't. Seriously this entire statement makes no sense whatsoever. Gay men and women continue to contribute their genes to the gene pool- and there is no indication that this will alter in anyway the number of homosexuals in our population.

Never spoke of forcing anyone to do anything. However unless fags start having sex with the opposite gender, they will diminish in the gene pool. it's simple science, even if it is contrary to your agenda.

You do seem obsessed with 'fags'.

It is simple science- homosexual men can and do father children without having sex with the opposite gender. For years gay men have provided sperm to women through sperm banks and through personal donations to lesbian friends. Whether they choose to have children or not is of course a personal decision- just as it is for every person.

Whether any of this will have any effect on the number of homosexuals within the population is unknown, since we still do not know the exact mechanism that determines whether someone is heterosexual or homosexual. It doesn't appear to be purely genetic.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Black, I thought that Stephanie took the prize for being the most evil minded and despicable poster on this board. Normally, I look for opportunities for humor on these threads. In your case, I can find nothing funny about you. I had no idea that anyone could have a soul as ugly as your's. It is no wonder that you are so embittered.

 

[Syriusly]

[
But dont worry about your standing among your militant Queer peers, no one expects you to get all objective or something.

LOL.....don't worry about your standing amongst your racist and bigot peers (aka assholes), no one expects you to get all objective or something....

Unlike you- I am a real heterosexual who is not threatened by homosexuals. I am happily married, and a father- and gay marriage doesn't threaten my marriage or my family.

And unlike you, I really do have gay friends, not your so-called shitty friends- and I want them to have the same rights and responsibilities my wife and I have.

The primary problems with open homosexual activity and gay marriage being accepted as normal is the following

1. It will diminish the numbers of homosexuals in the population. These people have evolved with our community and losing them will have a negative impact. Acceptance of open flamboyant perversion will discourage bisexuals from regular heterosexual behavior and their genes will be lost to the gene pool.

2. Further moral degredation of our culture as more and more deviant behavior becomes normalized from polygamy, to bestiality to 'voluntary' sexual enslavement.

3, All this will have a negative impact on demographic population growth. No nation remains a powerful nation once its population begins to implode.

4. This in turn has a huge economic impact as well, as populations with a negative population growth rate soon experience an economic recession and/or depression that they nevber recover from unless the nation is conquered and eradicated.

5. It is an offense to God, like adultery, masturbation, pre-marital sexual behavior and incest. It should never be completely tolerated as moral standards need to be kept.

Well lets review- your 'primary problems'

1. It will diminish the numbers of homosexuals in the population. These people have evolved with our community and losing them will have a negative impact. Acceptance of open flamboyant perversion will discourage bisexuals from regular heterosexual behavior and their genes will be lost to the gene pool.

Says who? Perhaps you think that forcing lesbians to have sex with men so that they are forced to contribute 'to the gene pool' is a good thing- but I don't. Seriously this entire statement makes no sense whatsoever. Gay men and women continue to contribute their genes to the gene pool- and there is no indication that this will alter in anyway the number of homosexuals in our population.

Never spoke of forcing anyone to do anything. However unless fags start having sex with the opposite gender, they will diminish in the gene pool. it's simple science, even if it is contrary to your agenda.

2. Further moral degredation of our culture as more and more deviant behavior becomes normalized from polygamy, to bestiality to 'voluntary' sexual enslavement.

Ah so you equate a consenting woman having sex with a consenting woman with bestiality- a person having sex with an animal?
Here is an idea- deal with homosexuality- and don't try to blame a slippery slope for your bigotry. In the 1960's people were saying the same thing about mixed race relationships- do you think that those were the beginning of the 'moral degradation' of our culture?

While mixed race couples were not a sin, they did signal the end of marriage as something primarily for the sake of bearing and raising children, sure enough. The results we have seen since then support this as parental involvement in helping children learn has become a mere distraction and our schools suffer in part to parental disengagement. And yes, two women buggering each other is as sick and disgusting as them doing it with a horse. It sure as hell is a Slippery slope as the focus on getting a sexual thrill has become popular cultures recurring theme, and some women get that with horses just like they can with other women with a 9 inch strapon..

According to you mixed race couples were not a sin. According to many preachers and Christians at the time- and still- sex between mixed race couples is an abomination. As recently as 20 years ago when I was living in a Southern city, one of my young co-workers told me her minister was still telling the congregation that such relations were a sin.

I have no idea why you think that 'mixed race couples' signaled the end of marriage as 'primarily for the sake of bearing and raising children' other than perhaps you think that mixed race parents can't be good parents?

Oddly enough- unlike you- I don't spend my time obsessing over women having sex with each other, or with horses. And also unlike you- I can see a clear difference between two consenting adults having private consensual sex with each other- and a person abusing an animal.