Study: Homophobic individuals more likely to be closet homosexuals.

[kaz]

If that is true than SURELY some state, some locality would pass same sex marriage laws by vote instead of imposition?

And that will happen. Just like some state, some locality passed civil rights laws by vote rather than by imposition.

BTW...would you say a vote by the legislature is an "imposition"?

Have they? Have other civil rights ever been put to a majority vote?

Oh God, the right to having your government validate who you sleep with and access to other people's money is a "civil right."

You are actually proving that this country has no issue with gays. If you were actually oppressed, those things would be irrelevant to you, you'd just want to be left alone. That you're focused on such trivialities shows that you're there honey. You are free.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I bet it is pretty difficult to find an anti-gay homo...

No, it's easy. The GOP is chock full of them.

I don't care what gays do just as long as they don't corrupt...

Corrupt? Corrupt who? How?

That is the problem I have with gays - they throw their gayness in individuals faces.

I don't see any militant heterosexuals - so why the **** do gays have to be "in your face" type jackasses.

For example?

So what if someone is gay............

Those flamers are annoying tho....

I saw a gay pride parade one time and this dude was dressed like Batman with his dong hanging out.... WTF.

Do gays subscribe to common decency? Geez...

Ever been to Mardi Gras?

Yeah the homophobes who are always babbling about "keeping it in the bedroom" and how gays "shove their sexuality in our faces" are just being hypocrites.

They don't care about straights not keeping it in the bedroom, they don't care about having straight sexual references all over society.

If 2 gay guys have a peck on the lips, "keep it in the bedroom!", if a straight couple kisses, they don't even notice.

As is always the case no matter the period in history, bigotry is always based on ignorance and bigots are always hypocrites.

 

[Dr.Drock]

And that will happen. Just like some state, some locality passed civil rights laws by vote rather than by imposition.

BTW...would you say a vote by the legislature is an "imposition"?

Have they? Have other civil rights ever been put to a majority vote?

Oh God, the right to having your government validate who you sleep with and access to other people's money is a "civil right."

You are actually proving that this country has no issue with gays. If you were actually oppressed, those things would be irrelevant to you, you'd just want to be left alone. That you're focused on such trivialities shows that you're there honey. You are free.

Oppressed is too strong of a word for gays, they have equal rights 95% of the time, but that other 5% of the time is a big deal when it comes to rights.

You can have your argument switched around on you, why should gays be taxed more in order to give straight people tax benefits? How the hell is that fair?

 

[Seawytch]

And that will happen. Just like some state, some locality passed civil rights laws by vote rather than by imposition.

BTW...would you say a vote by the legislature is an "imposition"?

Have they? Have other civil rights ever been put to a majority vote?

Oh God, the right to having your government validate who you sleep with and access to other people's money is a "civil right."

You are actually proving that this country has no issue with gays. If you were actually oppressed, those things would be irrelevant to you, you'd just want to be left alone. That you're focused on such trivialities shows that you're there honey. You are free.

It is your person opinion that the LGBT struggle for equality isn't a fight for civil rights. History will prove you wrong.

 

[FuelRod]

Have they? Have other civil rights ever been put to a majority vote?

No but in their support of measures when they appear on ballots the gay-marriage community is sending the wrong message.
That's my two cents.

Who is showing support? Most gays I know don't believe that civil rights should be put to a majority vote.

My argument is that you are correct for starters. But that the Rights community that supports measures like California's Prop 8 for example (it got on the ballot some how) need to be focusing their efforts on the courts vs. the ballot box.

 

[kaz]

You can have your argument switched around on you, why should gays be taxed more in order to give straight people tax benefits? How the hell is that fair?

That's a stupid question to ask a libertarian

 

[Vast LWC]

Probably.....

How can it be proven tho?

I bet it is pretty difficult to find an anti-gay homo...

I don't care what gays do just as long as they don't corrupt...

That is the problem I have with gays - they throw their gayness in individuals faces.

I don't see any militant heterosexuals - so why the **** do gays have to be "in your face" type jackasses.

So what if someone is gay............

Those flamers are annoying tho....

I saw a gay pride parade one time and this dude was dressed like Batman with his dong hanging out.... WTF.

Do gays subscribe to common decency? Geez...

OK, admittedly, I will concede the point here, though I wouldn't have worded it quite the same way.

I do agree that the more flamboyant among the homosexual community do tend to take things a bit to far.

 

[kaz]

Have they? Have other civil rights ever been put to a majority vote?

Oh God, the right to having your government validate who you sleep with and access to other people's money is a "civil right."

You are actually proving that this country has no issue with gays. If you were actually oppressed, those things would be irrelevant to you, you'd just want to be left alone. That you're focused on such trivialities shows that you're there honey. You are free.

It is your person opinion that the LGBT struggle for equality isn't a fight for civil rights. History will prove you wrong.

The left in this country have an amazing ability to shriek louder and hyperventilate more the more you get your way

 

[kaz]

I do agree that the more flamboyant among the homosexual community do tend to take things a bit to far.

They're my favorite gays. It's the angry, politically motivated ones daring us to knock the chip off their shoulders like the SeaWytch that get old...

 

[Dr.Drock]

You can have your argument switched around on you, why should gays be taxed more in order to give straight people tax benefits? How the hell is that fair?

That's a stupid question to ask a libertarian

That's true, but in this discussion you seem to be downplaying a tax advantage that gays can't have because they're gay, almost defending that straights get a tax advantage for being straight.


I haven't heard you say anything about how neither should be taxed in such instances, which from a libertarian I would have expected by now.

 

[kaz]

almost defending that straights get a tax advantage for being straight

Bull crap. Not addressing something isn't "defending" it. Though actually I've said repeatedly in these discussions I'm libertarian and I'm against all government marriage. "Legal" marriage if that's desired should be a contract between the parties and there should be zero government benefit. Everyone should be to the law an individual. I'm not required to repeat every position I have in every discussion and I reject that you're able to "insert here" my position without asking me if you haven't read the endless other discussions on the topic.

 

[Vast LWC]

almost defending that straights get a tax advantage for being straight

Bull crap. Not addressing something isn't "defending" it. Though actually I've said repeatedly in these discussions I'm libertarian and I'm against all government marriage. "Legal" marriage if that's desired should be a contract between the parties and there should be zero government benefit. Everyone should be to the law an individual. I'm not required to repeat every position I have in every discussion and I reject that you're able to "insert here" my position without asking me if you haven't read the endless other discussions on the topic.

I see your point about zero benefit for marriage...

How about tax breaks for offspring?

 

[kaz]

almost defending that straights get a tax advantage for being straight

Bull crap. Not addressing something isn't "defending" it. Though actually I've said repeatedly in these discussions I'm libertarian and I'm against all government marriage. "Legal" marriage if that's desired should be a contract between the parties and there should be zero government benefit. Everyone should be to the law an individual. I'm not required to repeat every position I have in every discussion and I reject that you're able to "insert here" my position without asking me if you haven't read the endless other discussions on the topic.

I see your point about zero benefit for marriage...

How about tax breaks for offspring?

I support the Fair Tax. Perfect, no. But better then any other proposal I've seen by far. It would trigger a massive wave of prosperity in this country and we'd attract capital from across the world.

 

[Katzndogz]

A mural depicting a man and a woman is so offensive high school students shouldn't be allowed to see it.

If homophobes are closet homosexuals, arachnophobes are closet spiders, are heterophobes secretly heterosexuals?

High school paints over portion of student's mural | Turn to 10
On Friday, Bierenday spoke with John DePetro on WPRO-AM about the mural and said she was told that her original design may be offensive or a religious symbol.

 

[kaz]

A mural depicting a man and a woman is so offensive high school students shouldn't be allowed to see it

It probably actually offended a left wing teacher. I like in schools how left wing politics are presented freely while right wing speech is attacked and shut down.

Hmmm...maybe "like" wasn't the right word...

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

LOL, well I'm not a queer and I know a lot more about if I am or not then some Inet hack trying to pull off some stunt, of course that makes you look like an idiot. Which I have noticed in my life that most Homos I have been around are sick and a lot of them are idiots as well. Any man who doesn't appreciate a women's body is more then a fool, he's a sick, perverted individual. I have never had a desire to get shit on my dick, I doubt if you can say the same.

Now you are headed where I should have put you when I first saw you're idiotic thread.

Why is it sick and perverted not to like a woman's body? Which parts am I supposed to be attracted to, and in what order?

I'm 100% straight, and yet I've had plenty of desire to get shit on my dick. I've had several ex girlfriends that absolutely -love- anal, and I'm not afraid to admit that I thoroughly enjoyed catering to their quirks. Am I a pervert?

Since you seem to be an expert on what is and isn't morally correct, sexually, maybe you could give me a quick rundown. Is it just anal that's wrong? If someone's gay but they don't engage in anal sex but only in, say, handies BJ's and dry humping, is that morally acceptable, but not anal sex with someone of the opposite sex? Or is anal okay as long as it's only between a man and a woman? Or is homosexuality wrong -and- anal sex wrong, as separate entities? If this is the case, I'd appreciate if you could tell me which sexual positions aren't okay. Which female body parts can my penis create pleasurable friction against without making me evil and perverted?

Also, why is an adult having an orgasm that doesn't interfere with anybody's personal initiative a moral issue at all? I'm familiar with the religious explanations, but without falling back on explanations of some God figure that can't be proven, do any of you have any hard, factual evidence that homosexuality is detrimental to anyone? I've yet to hear any that are compelling.

Ahh, what's da matter, you don't like my opinion? Yours sucks

What's da matter? Odd question. I didn't realize I was coming across as depressed.

Excellent comeback, though. You sure set me straight. "Yours [opinion] sucks". Well, shit, I never thought of it that way. Good point, Doc.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Can't say these results are surprising:

Homophobes Might Be Secretly Attracted To People Of The Same Sex - International Business Times

Researchers found that homophobic people are actually attracted to the same sex. They claim that these individuals risk losing the love and approval of their parents if they admit to same sex attractions, so many people deny or repress that part of them.

"In a predominately heterosexual society, 'know thyself' can be a challenge for many gay individuals. But in controlling and homophobic homes, embracing a minority sexual orientation can be terrifying," said Weinstein.

The research also sheds light on high profile cases in which anti-gay public figures are caught engaging in same-sex sexual acts. The authors write that this dynamic of inner conflict may be reflected in such examples as Ted Haggard, the evangelical preacher who opposed gay marriage but was exposed in a gay sex scandal in 2006, and Glenn Murphy, Jr, former chairman of the Young Republican National Federation and vocal opponent of gay marriage, who was accused of sexually assaulting a 22-year-old man in 2007.

"This study shows that if you are feeling that kind of visceral reaction to an out-group, ask yourself, 'Why?'" says William Ryan, professor at the University of California in Santa Barbara. "Those intense emotions should serve as a call to self-reflection."

Discuss.

Probably.....

How can it be proven tho?

I bet it is pretty difficult to find an anti-gay homo...

I don't care what gays do just as long as they don't corrupt...

That is the problem I have with gays - they throw their gayness in individuals faces.

I don't see any militant heterosexuals - so why the **** do gays have to be "in your face" type jackasses.

So what if someone is gay............

Those flamers are annoying tho....

I saw a gay pride parade one time and this dude was dressed like Batman with his dong hanging out.... WTF.

Do gays subscribe to common decency? Geez...

I've got a number of gay friends who are equally appalled by obnoxious flamers and the sort of public indecency that seems to plague many gay and gay-friendly events. I'd go as far as saying that the first of those problems isn't a gay problem. Obnoxious people are readily available in large numbers in any demographic, the loud flamer is simply one of the variations available in most homosexual demographics.

The latter is more complex than just straight vs gay lifestyle and how straight people aren't hanging their dong out on display at parades. Public indecency in general can't really be assigned to one sexuality or the other. . . working in nightclubs, I've broken up many, many public sex incidents between straight people. At events like pride parades you get the same sort of drunken sex antics as you do in a nightclub because a lot of people are drinking during pride festivals. It just seems more fucked up because it's day time. . . people seem to be more apt to let that sort of shit slide after dusk. With the random public display (your example of a dude in a batman outfit with his dong hanging out), before you assign that to something "that gay people do" consider that every gay event (every event that is advertised as such) is, by nature, advertising itself as an event based around a -sexual- orientation. From the word go, the event identifies itself as one of a sexual nature. A "gay" barbecue, for instance, is probably going to have more racy shit going on than someone's family barbecue. However, if you threw a "straight swingers'" barbecue, I'm willing to bet you'd find more than a few willing straight people to put various sexual shit on display in front of everybody. Admit it or not, the nature and implied undertones of an event have a lot to do with how those participating conduct themselves.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

And that will happen. Just like some state, some locality passed civil rights laws by vote rather than by imposition.

BTW...would you say a vote by the legislature is an "imposition"?

Have they? Have other civil rights ever been put to a majority vote?

Oh God, the right to having your government validate who you sleep with and access to other people's money is a "civil right."

You are actually proving that this country has no issue with gays. If you were actually oppressed, those things would be irrelevant to you, you'd just want to be left alone. That you're focused on such trivialities shows that you're there honey. You are free.

The libertarian argument is the only one that I will accept as a logical argument against government recognition of homosexual unions (or polygamous unions, for that matter).

I agree to this degree: It's not a civil right for -anyone- to be given someone else's money just because you found someone with whom you feel a mutual affection. Good for you, get a job and **** off.

Money issues at time of death? No living will? Next of kin. Too bad so sad for Mr/Mrs spouse, should've thought of that shit, don't **** it up for the rest of us because you didn't plan for that one major contingency that eventually surfaces for -everyone-.

Straight, gay, bi, undecided, transsexual, transgender, eunuchs, gimps, latex bunnies, furries. . . it's as simple as this. If its between consenting adults, have at it. Who am I to tell you what kinda fun isn't the "good" kinda fun? Taxpayers giving you money for it is a completely separate issue.

That said, if the -government- is going to give benefits to consenting adults in voluntary, romantic (sexual) unions with one another, it should distribute said benefits to -all- such unions, regardless of religious or purely moral implications. I have a problem with the fact that any Republican (self proclaimed party of small government) can say they honestly have no problem with the government taxing us to give extra financial benefits to a preferred group of people based on perceived moral differences between voluntary contracts between equally consenting parties. You don't need any tinfoil on your hat rack to see where that particular precedent has the potential to turn into some -real- bullshit, even if you don't feel that the current degree to which it's in play is exactly that.

 

[nitroz]

It makes sense, like yidnar for example, he rants on and on about the gays but you know he sucks dick on the low.

Or Sunni Man who is obsessed with man on man anal sex. (He has a fetish of doing it right before the other has to poop)