Ooo, sassy!

looking at the title of this thread,,,I was left wondering where were the hell are they all?..I hear a lot of them fly the trapeze if you know what I mean...

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

Fly the trapeze?

__________________
"We are each our own devil, and we make this world our hell." - Oscar Wilde

Urban dictionary failed me...

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

I'm guessing it's some sort of lesbian airline?

uhm, trapeze....swings both ways....

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

Actually, there's nothing logically flawed about that argument. It is perfectly normal for people who are frightened by their personal feelings to pretend to act in a way that is completely opposite those feelings so that no one suspects they actually harbor the feelings they so fear. That's not to say that everyone always acts in a way that is antithetical to their true desires, but there's nothing logically flawed about suggesting that people who act hostile toward a certain group of people either fear those people, or fear that they are one of those people.

It's the same way with these people that wear American flag T-shirts and neckties. It's as though they are so afraid that someone will accuse them of being unpatriotic that they feel an annoying need to overcompensate.

Furthermore, there's nothing implied in the "homophobes are actually homosexuals" argument that suggests homosexuality is a choice. If anything, it suggests that homosexuality is not a choice because, if it were, the homophobes, who obviously do not want to be homosexual, wouldn't be. The argument actually implies that homophobes are uncontrollably homosexual and feel the need to overcompensate by acting as anti-homosexual as they can.

If you want to come out and admit you're gay, I don't think anyone on this board will mind. We'll all accept you for who you are. But I think you'll feel much better after dropping this whole "I hate da gays" mentality and exuding your true feelings.

__________________
"The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised.”
- George Will

(1) I agree that homosexuality is not innate, but since there's nothing wrong with it, what's the problem? I think the point was that, if you're so comfortable with your heterosexual status, why the need to stop other people having their fun and intimacy?

(2) Like what?

My objections are neither rooted in envy nor fear. This is the case for just about everybody I know that feels the same way.

Utilization of words like "fear" or "envy" is done solely by those in opposition to my point of view. It is their greatest wish that my legitimate opposition is somehow grounded in something irrational. The fact that this in any way becomes a common belief does not make it less of a fallacy. It does, however, not speak well for those that depend upon such devices.

No, I've worn a flag pin on my lapel since the day of the Oklahoma City bombing. Some enterprising young person was selling them on the city street. I did so then as I do now for the very basic reason that I love my country and I am not afraid to show it - in fact, part of the reason is that I'm even welcoming you to show distaste in my pin. Makes it so much easier if I can become indifferent towards your existence without having to dig very deep.

Nope...the "it's as though..." stuff you cite is classic "Projectionism 101". The sentiment you mention is felt by those who would sooner eat live roaches than show patriotism. How do they rationalize not wanting to be caught dead wearing an American flag T-shirt? Easy...they tell themselves that those that do wear such items are doing so only to hide the fact that they are, in fact, truly unpatriotic. Projectionism. The people in question would be wearing those items as a ruse to avoid ridicule - not because they actually wanted to express a real feeling or mode of thinking.

The homosexuals and their supporters are well adept at the art of projectionism, as well. It is they who were/are fearful (as they should be). It is they who were/are full of hate (self-loathing). It is they who are rife with envy of those enjoying normal lifestyles and normal families. Nobody ever accused a leftist of being introspective (as the human condition, itself, run counter to the very core principles of socialism) - and they won't address these emotions. They'll suffice to apply them to their opposition. Well, hate to tell you, I'm just one of millions of members of the opposition who call "bullshit" on that.

It has been presented to me that faggotry is so not a choice that I would be unable to find instances of, say, a woman being raped by a homosexual man. I was told, "he simply wouldn't be able to do it." Even though I know that rape is not so much a sex act as it is one of anger and power, I figured I'd play ball. You know what? I couldn't find a single Google hit on a case of a homo male raping a female. Tons upon tons of pages of homos raping men. Interesting.

Y'all tell me it is "not a choice" but then suggest that people opposed to homosexuality are homos (I reject the "homophobe" term...see "projectionism" as explained above) that are quite obviously able to not act like homos. They have wives, kids, and, in my case, absolutely no inclination for, attraction to, curiosity of, or stomach to consider cutting off a piece of browneye.

It's just more projectionism bullshit in an effort to silence the majority. Get enough tards believing that speaking out against homos brands you as a closet homo and - voila - forced silent majority. Fuck. That.

While you're sucking on that dick, you can settle for wishing it were mine. Just don't tell me that those misfiring synapses in your malfunctioning brain represent normal behavior. Just don't try to rationalize your own hedonistic, selfish, mentally unbalanced, socially irresponsible, unnatural, disgusting, and otherwise contemptible actions by trying to convince yourself that people like me are actually suffering from the same illness you are. It's outright counterproductive to you ever being cured.

That puts you squarely in the minority within the Fag Cheerleading Squad...just so you know. Saying that out loud in certain circles will get you tarred and feathered, don'tcha know?

I wouldn't mind so much if some cases were proven "natural" - as in "find me the associated gene" - find me a test that identifies it. It might be enough to make me rethink my absolute views against abortion.

This is where we part company.

I've been abundantly clear and direct RE: this whole thing. I'm not going to go over it again right now. It is no mystery where I stand. Look within this thread or any other for the answers to your question(s), grasshopper.

Short answer if you're too lazy: It's unnatural, a product of a damaged mind, of zero value to my society (or any microcosm thereof), and nobody can prove otherwise.

__________________

"Compassionate Conservatism"?!?! That is a stupid phrase. Conservatism is inherently compassionate. It is liberalism that is cruel for the sake of maintaining a constituency.

Actually, it is their possibly mistaken belief -- I don't know about "wish" -- that your opposition is grounded in a particular irrational thing, namely your own homosexuality.

That it is grounded in something irrational is self-evident, although whether it is that or something else irrational is less so.

I don't know who presented that argument to you. Rape being about violence and control rather than sex, I don't find it impossible to conceive of a woman being raped by a gay man. That doesn't make his homosexuality a choice, though.

Show me a gay man who chooses to be gay, and I'll show you a bisexual who chooses to live as if he were gay.

Let's leave your case out of it. I'm personally inclined to believe that your homo-obsession stems from some other sort of irrationality, and that you are not gay. I could be wrong, but you say you're not and I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt.

There is a difference between choosing to be gay (or straight), and choosing to act gay (or straight). It's possible, through an act of imagination, to perform a sex act to which one is not actually inclined. For instance, I could probably manage to enjoy getting a blow job from a guy if I imagined I was getting one from a hot babe and kept my eyes shut.

What determines whether one is gay or straight (or bi) is which gender gets one excited, not a record of one's sexual behavior, although in a society without attitudes such as yours the one would do as well as the other, since nobody would feel pressured to behave against his or her orientation.

Obviously not to you.

1) That which occurs in nature is not unnatural. Homosexuality occurs in nature. Therefore, homosexuality is not unnatural.

2) There is no "damage" to the mind associated with homosexuality which has ever been demonstrated, except what comes from society's condemnation thereof. Proof of a negative is hard to come by, but since you made the assertion, the burden of proof is on you, not on those who disagree.

3) "Value" is a matter of subjective judgment and hence the question of proof is irrelevant; however, by any standard which condemns hatred, violence, intolerance, and bigotry, homophobia is of negative value to society, whatever one may say about homosexuality itself.

That's your opinion. Problem is, the fact is the reasons for my opposition are quite rational. And quite common. Everywhere. Even if MTV tells you otherwise.

It was just yet another dunce grasping at straws.

Still amusing, though, that I cannot find a single reference to a related case/conviction...on the entire Internet. The ENTIRE INTERNET. It has everything, don't you know... I mean, Google "jack squeeznit" and you get one hit in the entire world. Me. On this board. But it is still there. Oops. I guess now we'll get two hits soon.

I would call them the slightly less mentally ill within the sample group. They're into it for kicks or rebellion or attention or whatever.

Color me not giving a fuck.

...and yet another Champion of All Thing Faggoty is caught using the "homosexual condition" as a pejorative. The "benefit of the doubt" gives weight to the desirable option. We might agree more than you'll ever admit.

Is this how you look at yourself in the mirror after that unfortunate evening in Tijuana?

All kidding aside, I have always maintained there are so-called "real" fags who are that way due to mental illness usually stemming from abuse, abandonment, neglect, etc... and there are "fake" fags who do it because they can't get attention/acceptance anywhere else (call it low self esteem). Both types can be cured...the amount of therapy required differs, though.

Yeah, nasty habit me and my kind have...expecting human beings to behave like, um, mentally healthy human beings.

Here we go again. Dolphins can fuck whatever they want. Lions can eat their young. Kitty cats can sleep on the warm engine block of my car in the winter (what a mess that was). Spiders can kill their sex partners. Who gives a fuck? None of these things - nor anything like them - make the behavior "natural" - especially "natural human behavior"...forget about acceptable human behavior.

I'm rolling with the opinion that every psychiatric/psychological organization had until the 1970's...the same opinion that the U.N. World Health Organzation had until the 1990's. The very same opinions that were not overturned because of some scientific finding or revelation, but amended as appeasement to political forces. Prove this positive: The aforementioned opinions were altered because [insert an actual study/finding here]. Mind you...a study that led to the change, not one done after the fact with results in mind designed to reinforce the absurd political retreat the various organizations in question enacted.

Here, again, you can prove a simple positive: Faggotry is of benefit to our society/country/states/counties/cities/neighborhoods/communities/etc... because...(um, I'm drawing a blank here).

__________________

"Compassionate Conservatism"?!?! That is a stupid phrase. Conservatism is inherently compassionate. It is liberalism that is cruel for the sake of maintaining a constituency.

Not nearly as common as they used to be, and less so all the time.

As for rationality, is a valid argument from false premises rational? Depends on whether one is speaking technically as a logician, or more informally. If I begin with the assumption that George W. Bush is an alien, it is rational to conclude that Laura Bush is probably an alien, too. Is the belief that Laura Bush is an alien therefore a rational belief?

In this case, that you are not a liar.

Proof?

Homosexuality has occurred in every human society throughout history, and very likely throughout prehistory as well, always in a minority of every population. Something so widespread may be reasonably supposed to be natural for our species, while eating one's young or sleeping in engine blocks is not, or at least not on the same scale. As for "acceptable," that is not under discussion at the moment. You asserted that homosexuality is "unnatural." By any reasonable definition of "natural," you are clearly incorrect.

Do you also roll with the opinion that every astronomical association had until the 19th century that there are no such things as meteorites?

Besides, we were discussing whether or not there is "damage" to the mind resulting from homosexuality, not whether it was ever considered a mental disorder in itself. Can you demonstrate, or show studies demonstrating, that it is?

Unless you can, there is nothing for me to try to disprove, and thus I need not answer your question. Again, the burden of proof is on you, not me.

As I was not asserting this, I don't have to prove anything of the kind. After all, "faggotry" as you put it is a natural and unavoidable consequence of the human condition, has always existed in a minority of the population of every society that has ever been, and very likely will always exist, without either expanding or contracting in the size of that minority. In fact, I don't believe that the existence of homosexuality is either beneficial or harmful to our society, any more than lefthandedness or blond hair, and in any case there's nothing we can do about it one way or the other.

Acceptance of homosexuality, however, is something we can control. It is not at all hard to show that this acceptance is of benefit to society: it increases mental health, lowers the occurrence of violence and cruelty, and generally makes for a nicer community.

You could make that same exact statement about anything ranging from mental disease (argh, I repeat myself) to alcoholism to people fucking Rover between human orgies.

And be equally ridiculous in doing so.

I don't have to accept shit. "Tolerance" is nothing intolerance of resistance to, in this case, hedonistic bullshit.

__________________

"Compassionate Conservatism"?!?! That is a stupid phrase. Conservatism is inherently compassionate. It is liberalism that is cruel for the sake of maintaining a constituency.