Self-Hating Homosexuals

Heretic wrote:

Wow. From justifying slavery, to bestiality, to pedophilia.

Stay classy!

My thoughts exactly

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly some people tie homosexuality to bestiality.

Mirage wrote:

I think you have been watching too many movies. The majority of slaves were not abused. Of course abuses did exist, and movie lore seems fixated on those abuses, but the sin of slavery was not the cases of abuse but the preemption of the freedom of fellow human beings and treating them as mere property. England also had slavery but you don't often hear about whips & chains associated to British slavery.

Right,those Blacks from Africa must have just been thrilled to be captured,bound and then put on a slave ship. Heck,they got an all expense paid trip to America in the filthy hold of a slave ship. Then,if they were lucky enough to survive the excruciating 2 month journey,they were rewarded by being allowed to work long hours in the blistering hot cotton fields. Yeah,a real paradise indeed!

Artie60438 wrote:

Mirage wrote:

I think you have been watching too many movies. The majority of slaves were not abused. Of course abuses did exist, and movie lore seems fixated on those abuses, but the sin of slavery was not the cases of abuse but the preemption of the freedom of fellow human beings and treating them as mere property. England also had slavery but you don't often hear about whips & chains associated to British slavery.

Right,those Blacks from Africa must have just been thrilled to be captured,bound and then put on a slave ship. Heck,they got an all expense paid trip to America in the filthy hold of a slave ship. Then,if they were lucky enough to survive the excruciating 2 month journey,they were rewarded by being allowed to work long hours in the blistering hot cotton fields. Yeah,a real paradise indeed!

Like I said, slavery itself was wrong but you are talking 2 different things. Africans captured Africans and put them on British ships for export to the US even after England itself outlawed slavery. But none of that has any baring on how they were treated when they got here.

WhitingLib wrote:

Heretic wrote:

Wow. From justifying slavery, to bestiality, to pedophilia.

Stay classy!

My thoughts exactly

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly some people tie homosexuality to bestiality.

It never ceases to amaze me the depths gays go to try and legitimize a choice as an equal norm.

Mirage wrote:

It never ceases to amaze me the depths gays go to try and legitimize a choice as an equal norm.

Yeah. Well let me ask you this... are you saying that being heterosexual is also a "choice?" If so, what do you base that on? Do you have homosexual thoughts or urges that you "choose" to suppress?

I first got exposed to the term, "GAY" when my best friend's couzin exposed it to me. I had no clue what it meant. I was very close to him cuz I was close to the family.

It was in the '70s when "Gino" confided in me (the best hairdresser in the world), that he was gay, and that the family will reject him.

Gino's mom died at an early age. He has a brother that in fact, lives in IL in an affluent neighborhood, and rejected him. Gino's cousin, whom I hung around with across the street for most of my life (Italian family) was a bit younger than me. She told me the aunts and grammaws' fussed over him, dressed him up femininely, and treated and fussed over him as if he was a "girl".

I didn't understand what Gino was telling me, but I accepted him for what he was and told him, "You're so good looking, what a waste of male".

I even took him in and let him live with me before I had a family of my own. I got so mad at him for shaving his hair, leaving a complete mess in the bathroom, etc. I told him, "If you want to be feminin, act like it and clean up after yourself."

He went on I heard, to have drastic changes to his body, lived in Hammond (didn't find out 'til last year), and his family rejected him. He died from asthma, but had a lived-in-partner that was thrown out, and it is now a rental in Hammond.

My question is, did he turn femish because of the influence of how he was raised? I'll never know...all I know is, he dressed like a woman in pixs I saw two years ago, long after he passed, (lost touch with the family until then). He was a sweetheart to me. I didn't judge him...but he was the one to attune me to the word, "Gay".

On another note, a transgender friend I know from another family, he told me ever since he was little, he didn't feel right. He wanted to dress up in women's clothing. He always felt like he was born in the wrong body. He said he would secretly dress up in his mom's clothing. He never admitted it to his family until before his mom's death when she died. She told him, "I don't care, I still consider you my son". He's been rejected by friends that knew him for years. The phone doesn't ring anymore. He's in his mid-70s, an all alone. I might add. he did marry twice. I guess my point is, he tried, he tried, and couln't keep it in anymore.

For all the people I personally knew they are very few. Some said they felt differently while growing up, trapped in the wrong body. Science thinks the chromosones are messed up.

With the trend with so many coming out and making light of it, I still believe they have been "influenced and anything goes".

I don't want to judge them...I want to kind of believe it has something to do with upbringing from what I witnessed with especially two other neighbors a female and a male....back in the '70s...but fact is, they are who they are.

Just don't flaunt it an act like you are being discriminated against. There are many legal documents out there to serve your "legal needs," but with the divorce rate among normal married people, in this day and age, I suggest separate checking accounts, not marrying anyone with a bad credit report, and I do not agree that same sex's should raise children. It makes them think that that is the only normal lifestyle, and I don't care if you are a celebrity or not...how you show by example affects those kids.

I am against them raising children in that type of lifestyle. Procreation is the way. If you are a gay couple, you chosed that life. You don't adopt or inseminate to push that belief on children who can get so confused and screw up their sexual orientation. You are teaching them something that their genes were not screwed up for, and messing up the brains.

I don't pretend to understand the reasons, I do say I think lifestyles and genetics may have something to do with it...but what is there to fight for when you influence your adopted kids to accept it, and that's what you expose and expect them to accept?

I don't know...my Catholic upbringing says accept it, even though God in my religion frowned upon it...then you get these people saying Jesus was a homosexual.

It all boils down to this: I don't want to know about your sexual orientation. Just be yourself, and who you are, but don't tell me you prefer the same sex, as much as I won't tell you I don't care about ever dating a man again. I had my fill, I'm independent, but why should I have to tell you about my private life?

I have my friends, family, kids, etc. I don't care if you're 70 and want to cross-dress. UGHHHHHH!

Mirage wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Mirage wrote:

I think you have been watching too many movies. The majority of slaves were not abused. Of course abuses did exist, and movie lore seems fixated on those abuses, but the sin of slavery was not the cases of abuse but the preemption of the freedom of fellow human beings and treating them as mere property. England also had slavery but you don't often hear about whips & chains associated to British slavery.

Right,those Blacks from Africa must have just been thrilled to be captured,bound and then put on a slave ship. Heck,they got an all expense paid trip to America in the filthy hold of a slave ship. Then,if they were lucky enough to survive the excruciating 2 month journey,they were rewarded by being allowed to work long hours in the blistering hot cotton fields. Yeah,a real paradise indeed!

Like I said, slavery itself was wrong but you are talking 2 different things. Africans captured Africans and put them on British ships for export to the US even after England itself outlawed slavery. But none of that has any baring on how they were treated when they got here.

They were treated like slaves! They had no choices whatsoever. That's abuse,plain and simple.

Scorpion wrote:

Mirage wrote:

It never ceases to amaze me the depths gays go to try and legitimize a choice as an equal norm.

Yeah. Well let me ask you this... are you saying that being heterosexual is also a "choice?" If so, what do you base that on? Do you have homosexual thoughts or urges that you "choose" to suppress?

It is only a choice to the point that you refrain from choosing to engage in homosexual activity just as refraining from sex entirely is a choice and only having sex with your spouse is a choice. Can you say you were born an adulterer? If you cannot procreate by gay activity you obviously weren't really born that way.

So you're refraining from choosing to engage in homosexual activity?

UrRight wrote:

I do not agree that same sex's should raise children.

A loving stable same sex couple is an excellent alternate to abortion.

UrRight wrote:

It makes them think that that is the only normal lifestyle, and I don't care if you are a celebrity or not...how you show by example affects those kids.

I don't agree with that. My mom raised me as a single parent. My upbringing hasn't led me to believe being a single person is the only normal lifestyle.

I've also encountered effeminate straight men. They have girlfriends, wives, and whatnot. Yet they seem to spend more time dolling themselves up than their counterpart.

I've also encountered masculine gay men. They watch football, eat chicken wings, and fart in public.

Mirage wrote:

It never ceases to amaze me the depths gays go to try and legitimize a choice as an equal norm.

It's a matter of being able to live and let live. I understand where you are coming from when you say you don't want to make gays a protected class. If you commit a crime against someone the law should come down harshly you regardless of your motive. That being said the "gay panic defense" is bullshit. So I am with you where hate crimes are concerned.

Whether you consider it a legitimate norm or not, I don't understand why you are against equality. How does it hurt you for two consenting gay adults to marry? How does it hurt you if they adopt a child? Frankly, I'll never get it.

I don't think homosexuals should be offered more rights, but they should be offered the same rights.

What about liberty? Isn't liberty supposed to be an inherent right of any American?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberty

Quote :

1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.

When a government "defines" (interferes with) marriage, it would seem to me that they are trying to exercise control in a person's life where they are not wanted. Doesn't it seem arbitrary to you that the government would interfere with a private citizen wanting to marry another private citizen?

paul87920 wrote:

I understand where you are coming from when you say you don't want to make gays a protected class. If you commit a crime against someone the law should come down harshly you regardless of your motive.

But it's the motive that changes the entire dynamic of the crime:

Quote :

All violent crimes are bad. But when the motive of a violent (or other nasty) crime is because the victim is the member of some category of person, then all other members of that category are terrorized, even a little, by that criminal act. That makes the crime a hate crime. If I knock you on the head with a hammer because I hate you, that's assault. If I knock you on the head with a hammer because you are a Jew, then that is assault on you and an indirect act of nastiness against all who are Jewish, because they might be my next victim, because if I am glorified by the right wing press or just merely featured in the news, other hate filled sickos may follow suit, because this particular act might be part of a larger anti-group (in this hypothetical case Jews) conspiracy or movement of some kind.

You go from one victim to hundreds. Or thousands. Think a bout it: is a burning cross left in someone's yard just a simple case of vandalism, on par with toilet paper? Or is it something bigger and more terrifying? I think that should warrant a tougher penalty. And it's not every case, either. There are guidelines, as my first link on page 1 points out:

Quote :

Assault and murder are indeed already against the law. Judges do indeed already have the scope to consider circumstances when setting sentences. This is why federal jurisdiction under these bills is limited. The exact wording will need to be hashed out in committee, but in short, federal jurisdiction for hate crimes occurs only when the state doesn’t have jurisdiction over the crime (e.g., it happens across state lines), the state doesn’t exercise its jurisdiction, or “the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.“

It’s the last two circumstances that are particularly important. The criminal justice system is as prone to bias as any other organization. Judges may refuse to consider bias. Prosecutors may refuse to present evidence of it. Police departments may refuse to investigate, or they may be the source of the bias. Hate crimes legislation will expand the scope of the federal justice system, but it won’t do so in any way that our society has not already determined to be justified to preserve civil rights.

And homosexual aren't becoming "a protected class". Hate crime laws are simply recognizing sexual orientation. That includes heterosexuals, though we just don't see very many crimes motivated by that.

Scorpion wrote:

Yeah. Well let me ask you this... are you saying that being heterosexual is also a "choice?" If so, what do you base that on? Do you have homosexual thoughts or urges that you "choose" to suppress?

Mirage wrote:

It is only a choice to the point that you refrain from choosing to engage in homosexual activity just as refraining from sex entirely is a choice and only having sex with your spouse is a choice. Can you say you were born an adulterer? If you cannot procreate by gay activity you obviously weren't really born that way.

Heretic wrote:

So you're refraining from choosing to engage in homosexual activity?

Aren't you starting to wonder why Mirage continues to dodge this question?

.

Nope, none of my business.

Mirage wrote:

If you cannot procreate by gay activity you obviously weren't really born that way.

The fact that homosexuality is found in just about every species that has identifiable genders proves otherwise, but that's not the only reason this is fantastic bullshit.

This whole "it's a choice" argument is inherently self contradictory. It suggests that humans are hardwired to be attracted to the opposite sex since the they tell us there is no choice to be heterosexual. That means, by their own argument, that somewhere in the human body (most likely the brain) there's a mechanism responsible for sexual orientation and attraction.

Now, since all human babies start out anatomically as female, in order for it to turn male (especially in terms of attraction), there is some sort of switch that gets triggered to restructure the systems accordingly; the labias close up, and the ovaries descend and turn into testes, etc. In order for this conservative fantasy to be true, this mechanism must occur exactly as necessary for our genetic code to reproduce, in each every pregnancy ever. Ever.

The idea that this mechanism, and only this mechanism, is somehow magically immune to any number of complications should be recognized as the complete bullshit that it is, but the existence of hermaphrodites prove it. There is no logical reason to think that sexual orientation must match our genetic XX or XY code if we can't even get our genitalia to. So they argue that it's a choice, at the same time they cite the very systems that prove it isn't.

That this poorly thought out argument is being fronted by a creationist isn't a coincidence.

Scorpion wrote:

Aren't you starting to wonder why Mirage continues to dodge this question?

Maybe all he needs is a support group.

I guess you guys don't much care for Jefferson or Washington. Both were some of them evil old slave owners and you know how George Washington treated gays in the military.

Scorpion wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Yeah. Well let me ask you this... are you saying that being heterosexual is also a "choice?" If so, what do you base that on? Do you have homosexual thoughts or urges that you "choose" to suppress?

Mirage wrote:

It is only a choice to the point that you refrain from choosing to engage in homosexual activity just as refraining from sex entirely is a choice and only having sex with your spouse is a choice. Can you say you were born an adulterer? If you cannot procreate by gay activity you obviously weren't really born that way.

Heretic wrote:

So you're refraining from choosing to engage in homosexual activity?

Aren't you starting to wonder why Mirage continues to dodge this question?

.

Why do you want to know? You're clearly not my type.

paul87920 wrote:

Mirage wrote:

It never ceases to amaze me the depths gays go to try and legitimize a choice as an equal norm.

It's a matter of being able to live and let live. I understand where you are coming from when you say you don't want to make gays a protected class. If you commit a crime against someone the law should come down harshly you regardless of your motive. That being said the "gay panic defense" is bullshit. So I am with you where hate crimes are concerned.

Whether you consider it a legitimate norm or not, I don't understand why you are against equality. How does it hurt you for two consenting gay adults to marry? How does it hurt you if they adopt a child? Frankly, I'll never get it.

I don't think homosexuals should be offered more rights, but they should be offered the same rights.

What about liberty? Isn't liberty supposed to be an inherent right of any American?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberty

Quote :

1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.

When a government "defines" (interferes with) marriage, it would seem to me that they are trying to exercise control in a person's life where they are not wanted. Doesn't it seem arbitrary to you that the government would interfere with a private citizen wanting to marry another private citizen?

Gays do adopt. That varies by state and it should be a state's decision. And while I do oppose gay marriage it also is a state's right to determine at the ballot box or at the least by the legislature and not by courts creating laws. And while I am troubled by the number of easy divorces in general for any old reason at all it would appear that a greater number of gay marriages do not last too long without even considering the issue of infidelity itself.

Practicing gay activity is neither a liberty or a right. You have the freedom to practice that activity with a consenting adult but that does not elevate that activity to a right. As for "freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control" again you have the freedom to participate so that really doesn't apply.

Mirage wrote:

I guess you guys don't much care for Jefferson or Washington. Both were some of them evil old slave owners and you know how George Washington treated gays in the military.

I tend to like the great stuff they did, and dislike the bad the stuff.

Terribly complicated, I know.

Mirage wrote:

Gays do adopt. That varies by state and it should be a state's decision.

Why?

Mirage wrote:

it also is a state's right to determine at the ballot box or at the least by the legislature and not by courts creating laws

Once again, why?

paul87920 wrote:

Mirage wrote:

Gays do adopt. That varies by state and it should be a state's decision.

Why?

Mirage wrote:

it also is a state's right to determine at the ballot box or at the least by the legislature and not by courts creating laws

Once again, why?

Because it is not a Constitutional right. If states choose to legitimize this practice that is fine. But marriage regulation is a state's prerogative. You do realize that each state determines when you are old enough to marry, right? Not to mention it regulates who can marry you. For that matter they also determine which relatives you might choose to marry should you be so inclined. So why wouldn't it be up to a state?

Heretic wrote:

Mirage wrote:

I guess you guys don't much care for Jefferson or Washington. Both were some of them evil old slave owners and you know how George Washington treated gays in the military.

I tend to like the great stuff they did, and dislike the bad the stuff.

Terribly complicated, I know.

So you want to overlook the sins of the slave owner guy who first banned gays from the military? Makes one wonder what good he did to get a free pass on those two grievous acts. :usa:

Mirage wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Yeah. Well let me ask you this... are you saying that being heterosexual is also a "choice?" If so, what do you base that on? Do you have homosexual thoughts or urges that you "choose" to suppress?

Mirage wrote:

It is only a choice to the point that you refrain from choosing to engage in homosexual activity just as refraining from sex entirely is a choice and only having sex with your spouse is a choice. Can you say you were born an adulterer? If you cannot procreate by gay activity you obviously weren't really born that way.

Heretic wrote:

So you're refraining from choosing to engage in homosexual activity?

Aren't you starting to wonder why Mirage continues to dodge this question?

.

Why do you want to know? You're clearly not my type.

Not bad, Mirage. But you're still dodging the question. It's always been a mystery to me why anyone would think that someone would "choose" to be gay, unless of course they are making the "choice" not to be gay for themselves.

In order to make such a "choice" there would need to be some desire to engage in homosexuality, otherwise it's not a "choice" at all, is it? This might also explain why so many "pro-family anti-gay" types end up involved in homosexual scandals. IMHO, they are either latent homosexuals or bisexuals who are "choosing" to be "straight," until they inevitably fail.

I simply don't believe that a "true" heterosexual would "choose" to engage in homosexual behavior.

Of course, my opinion is based upon my own experience as a heterosexual. I never "chose" to be heterosexual. That's simply how I am wired. I can't even imagine engaging in homosexuality. Just the idea of it sickens me, not because I think it it is somehow wrong or immoral, but because for me, it's simply a total turn-off. As far as I'm concerned, sexual orientation is not a "choice" at all.

Mirage wrote:

Because it is not a Constitutional right. If states choose to legitimize this practice that is fine. But marriage regulation is a state's prerogative. You do realize that each state determines when you are old enough to marry, right? Not to mention it regulates who can marry you. For that matter they also determine which relatives you might choose to marry should you be so inclined. So why wouldn't it be up to a state?

Well what about interracial marriage? That went to the Supreme Court.

Scorpion wrote:

I never "chose" to be heterosexual. That's simply how I am wired.

I would also venture to say that (assuming you are heterosexual male) that there are certain heterosexual women that you cannot choose to find attractive.