PDA

View Full Version : Moral question: should homosexuals be hanged?


Nyx
11-14-2006, 09:55 PM
Moral question: should homosexuals be hanged?

I voted 'yes'.

Jimbo Gomez
11-14-2006, 09:57 PM
No. As long as they don't engage in that filthy parade crap and keep their urges to themselves and their lovers, and of course stay away from children, they should be ignored. People wo have the urges but don't commit acts of sodomy should definately be left alone, but they're quite rare.

Hachiko
11-14-2006, 10:01 PM
No, they are a viable tax base and wherever they go to live there are always decent museums.

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
11-14-2006, 10:02 PM
Open-homosexuals who try to recruit others...but not private...or non practicing (which I don't count as gay).

Billy Score
11-14-2006, 10:04 PM
i voted yes unless the homosexual does not parade or preach his vile message.

Starr
11-14-2006, 10:05 PM
If you start hanging them, they would just retreat into the closet and try to live the straight life, while still having urges and many times acting on them in secret, which presents other problems. I have been saying for a while now, just let them be who they are while also letting it be known that their lifestyle is nothing to celebrate. I do believe it is natural for them, but it is not natural for the larger society and should not be held up in that way.

they do not deserve special rights and privileges and should not be allowed to mold society in an attempt to force people to accept their lifestyle and see it as "normal." This is also what causes people to hate them more than anything else.

Mixed Race
11-14-2006, 10:07 PM
Open-homosexuals who try to recruit others...but not private...or non practicing (which I don't count as gay).

How do you try to recruit Homosexuals? :confused:

Sandee
11-14-2006, 10:08 PM
No, because sexuality isn't what defines them even though it's part of their make-up. My heterosexuality doesn't have any bearing on how productive I am in society; though it only ensures continuity of my kind.

I don't approve of homosexuality but I see no reason why they should be hanged if they're contributing to society, etc. They should be left alone. I am against promoting the behavior and I am sick and tired of seeing it flaunted everywhere on the media. Sex is overrated as well.

Why don't we have a heterosexual parade? To me, gay parades and the likes are so out of place. It's ridiculous. How can one be proud to be a homosexual or even a heterosexual? I think people focus too much on their sexuality.

Either way, I don't think they should be hanged.

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
11-14-2006, 10:09 PM
You try to recruit non-homosexuals. You make your degenerate lifestyle public like a campaign to gain sexual partners.

Mixed Race
11-14-2006, 10:13 PM
You try to recruit non-homosexuals. You make your degenerate lifestyle public like a campaign to gain sexual partners.

You can't do that.

How do you turn a straight person into a homosexual simply be "making your degenerate lifestyle public"?

People are born that way and have no choice in the matter. I know gay people that wish nothing more then to be straight as it has caused many problems with their families.

Björn
11-14-2006, 10:14 PM
The real question is how many more off the wall polls do we need in the phora. It's like having a forum run by Jesse Ventura. :rofl:

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
11-14-2006, 10:14 PM
He doesn't have to be a pedophile.

You are supposing genetic determinism for sexuality, yet you probably deny that races are biologically different.

Hachiko
11-14-2006, 10:17 PM
Either way, I don't think they should be hanged.
Me neither, cause you know how "they" are, and they would demand no less than to be hung with silk ropes. And that gets costly. And we're in a recession now.

Draco
11-14-2006, 10:17 PM
I voted no. They're born that way and as long as they're useful to a society in whatever capacity they can be (and live within social norms), they should be allowed to live peacefully.

Starr
11-14-2006, 10:19 PM
You can't do that.

How do you turn a straight person into a homosexual simply be "making your degenerate lifestyle public"?

People are born that way and have no choice in the matter. I know gay people that wish nothing more then to be straight as it has caused many problems with their families.


With males what you are saying is definitely correct. I do not believe there is any possible way a straight guy can be "made" into a homosexual. Males seem to have a very strong natural aversion to it. I do believe, however that there are some straight women out there who might be more inclined to experiment because it is trendy and guys seem to be turned on by it.

Berianidze
11-14-2006, 10:19 PM
i voted yes unless the homosexual does not parade or preach his vile message.
I agree with this. It would be a vast waste of resources to go through houses and try to weed out homosexuals. Treat those that take their private life public via parades, showcases, whatever, the same way you'd treat any type of dissidence or demonstration.

Although, I would choose a single shot to the head or prison internment, not hanging.

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
11-14-2006, 10:20 PM
I agree with this. It would be a vast waste of resources to go through houses and try to weed out homosexuals. Treat those that take their private life public via parades, showcases, whatever, the same way you'd treat any type of dissidence or demonstration.

Although, I would choose a single shot to the head or prison internment, not hanging.
Stalin took care of homos...lol...

///M power
11-14-2006, 10:22 PM
With males what you are saying is definitely correct. I do not believe there is any possible way a straight guy can be "made" into a homosexual. Males seem to have a very strong natural aversion to it. I do believe, however that there are some straight women out there who might be more inclined to experiment because it is trendy and guys seem to be turned on by it.

I think so too.
I mean how many times do we see girls kissing each other in pictures, and like in the nightclubs, they think its cool.
I saw many females that aren't lesbian posting pictures of them kissing another female because they think its sexy..and want to look sexy.

Mixed Race
11-14-2006, 10:24 PM
With males what you are saying is definitely correct. I do not believe there is any possible way a straight guy can be "made" into a homosexual. Males seem to have a very strong natural aversion to it. I do believe, however that there are some straight women out there who might be more inclined to experiment because it is trendy and guys seem to be turned on by it.

Yeah that I can agree with.

Kodos
11-14-2006, 10:27 PM
No. As long as they don't engage in that filthy parade crap and keep their urges to themselves and their lovers, and of course stay away from children, they should be ignored. People wo have the urges but don't commit acts of sodomy should definately be left alone, but they're quite rare.

No parades or acting like women in public and stay in the closet, but otherwise leave em alone.

Carlos Danger
11-14-2006, 10:29 PM
How do you try to recruit Homosexuals? :confused:
See this (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28970) informative article for the shocking truth

Mixed Race
11-14-2006, 10:33 PM
See this (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28970) informative article for the shocking truth

Wow thats pretty shocking actually.

The brainwashing of those children is disgusting.

General Ivan
11-14-2006, 10:34 PM
I think so too.
I mean how many times do we see girls kissing each other in pictures, and like in the nightclubs, they think its cool.

Jewish girls? Or girls imported from Russia by jewish slavers forced into the nightclub business and prostitutio?

Jimbo Gomez
11-14-2006, 10:38 PM
Jewish girls? Or girls imported from Russia by jewish slavers forced into the nightclub business and prostitutio?


Stick to the topic. Not every single thread has to be about jews and their awful sins against sunshine, lollypops and rainbows.

///M power
11-14-2006, 10:42 PM
Jewish girls? Or girls imported from Russia by jewish slavers forced into the nightclub business and prostitutio?

flamer!:viking:
Jewish girls.
our culture is exactly like yours, what they see in Western TV they think its cool and try to imitate it.

Hachiko
11-14-2006, 10:45 PM
flamer!:viking:
Jewish girls.
our culture is exactly like yours, what they see in Western TV they think its cool and try to imitate it.
Hey MP, could you be a good friend and send me one of those Russkie girls you have warehoused down there?
I'll pay you 20% above cost, ok? :D

Heavens to Betsy
11-14-2006, 10:54 PM
Wow thats pretty shocking actually.

The brainwashing of those children is disgusting.

Hmm... yes The Onion has many shocking news stories.


I voted no, because no one has ever explained to me in a coherrent fashion what possible business of mine it is what consenting adults do with their genitails.

And if the issue is "acting like women in public" and the like then I would first be allowed to hang people who shout on buses, people who breath too loudly, anyone who wears a tracksuit while not working out, girls who wear their jeans so low I can see their thongs and indeed all the other people who's harmless behaviour irritates me.

Johnson
11-14-2006, 10:55 PM
Ix,

I really, really hope I don't have to point the irony of this out to you.

Morpheus
11-14-2006, 10:55 PM
I think that hanging someone for their sexual orientation is evil.

Consenting Adults should be allowed to do whatever they want sexually, prvided noone is being harmed in the process.


No. As long as they don't engage in that filthy parade crap and keep their urges to themselves and their lovers, and of course stay away from children, they should be ignored. People wo have the urges but don't commit acts of sodomy should definately be left alone, but they're quite rare.

Now what exactly constitutes sodomy?

It seems to have many definitions including simply an unnatural sexual act.

Homosexuality itself could be considered to be sodomy.

I'm assuming by sodomy you mean anal rape (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k79wpdFPbN0)?

Starr
11-14-2006, 10:58 PM
What is evil? Other people would use that same word to state their reasons for why homosexuals should be hung. Who is right?

Jimbo Gomez
11-14-2006, 10:59 PM
I mean any form of anal sex, as well as oral sex between two people of the same gender. That is the definition I use.

Ahmadinebobina
11-14-2006, 11:12 PM
I think so too.
I mean how many times do we see girls kissing each other in pictures, and like in the nightclubs, they think its cool.
I saw many females that aren't lesbian posting pictures of them kissing another female because they think its sexy..and want to look sexy.

I HATE that. I despise men and women that could be so repulsively fickle. Ugh. It's the most annoying thing of recent years.

Ahmadinebobina
11-14-2006, 11:15 PM
In response to the question, I voted no.
I have no problem with homosexuals as long as they keep their parading etc to the minimum it's at now (we have like one parade a decade or something).

///M power
11-14-2006, 11:23 PM
Hey MP, could you be a good friend and send me one of those Russkie girls you have warehoused down there?
I'll pay you 20% above cost, ok? :D

oh, too bad my ebay account was closed...
I could have done good business.
:rofl:

///M power
11-14-2006, 11:25 PM
I HATE that. I despise men and women that could be so repulsively fickle. Ugh. It's the most annoying thing of recent years.

most guys find girl+girl turning on, I dont.

Heavens to Betsy
11-14-2006, 11:27 PM
I have no problem with homosexuals as long as they keep their parading etc to the minimum it's at now (we have like one parade a decade or something).

No we don't, there's a gay pride parade in town every summer, it goes down to the civic offices.

I have no problem with the gay pride parade, I actually marched along with it what I was 15 (with my boyfriend at the time as it happens) it was good fun and nobody tried to kidnap me and make me be a lesbian.

Heavens to Betsy
11-14-2006, 11:31 PM
I do believe, however that there are some straight women out there who might be more inclined to experiment because it is trendy and guys seem to be turned on by it.

But of course this is not encouraged by gay women, but by straight men who have a thing for a little girl-on-girl action... so-o perhaps we should hang such straight men :)

Hang 'em all I say.

Starr
11-14-2006, 11:34 PM
But of course this is not encouraged by gay women, but by straight men who have a thing for a little girl-on-girl action... so-o perhaps we should hang such straight men :)

Hang 'em all I say.

What is really irritating are the guys that hate male homos with a passion and are turned on and encourage homosexual behavior in women.:whip: I can't even begin to count how many times I have seen this little inconsistency.

Do you notice how when they talk about girls/women like this they get a cheesy little grin on their face? This drives me insane and I really do want to smack them.:whip:

Scryllak
11-14-2006, 11:34 PM
Hell no. Their public traipsing is exasperating, but they don't warrant punishment at all, much less hanging. Homosexuals have always existed on the fringe of society. They aren't a problem in and of themselves--it's the modern cultural and political paradigm that tolerates and even rewards queer flagrancy. Homo politicking is a symptom of cultural decay, not a cause.

In any case, an official fag-bashing policy would inevitably lead to witch-hunting of the first degree. Homosexuality is a vague behavior, and determination is difficult--so the result of any such policy would be a gallows rife with innocent people punished through mislabeling, both honest and malicious.

The death penalty should be reserved for obvious and egregious crimes, anyway. The last thing we need, now or ever, is a government with license to punish harmless personal conduct.

Starr
11-14-2006, 11:36 PM
Homo politicking is a symptom of cultural decay, not a cause.

Exactly. And it is only one symptom of many. The larger cultural decay is what I believe a lot of people who focus on homosexuals and rant and rave about it, are truly reacting to. It is just that the relaxed attitude on homosexuals and all of their in-your-face proud to be gay crap is such a visible part of a much larger picture.

Ahmadinebobina
11-14-2006, 11:38 PM
No we don't, there's a gay pride parade in town every summer, it goes down to the civic offices.

I have no problem with the gay pride parade, I actually marched along with it what I was 15 (with my boyfriend at the time as it happens) it was good fun and nobody tried to kidnap me and make me be a lesbian.

all parades should be like this one. it's very quiet.

Morpheus
11-14-2006, 11:38 PM
Exactly. And it is only one symptom of many.

The Greeks seemed to get along well for quite awhile with a tolerant view on homosexuality.

Ahmadinebobina
11-14-2006, 11:39 PM
most guys find girl+girl turning on, I dont.

awwww:thanks:

antibuddha
11-14-2006, 11:41 PM
Of course not. That's one less group I can rag on in order to feel superior.

Hachiko
11-14-2006, 11:42 PM
Of course not. That's one less group I can rag on in order to feel superior.
Don't worry, at the rate they procreate, you'll never run out of spics'n'nigs to mock. :D

delete
11-14-2006, 11:53 PM
People have been born gay for ages, and will continue to be born gay in the future.

The only viable long term solution is to leave them alone and try to make them contribute to society as any other member.

Most gay people are loved by their family, so beeing mean towards them is not an option, as this would hurt the family, and through this, society.

Brechun
11-15-2006, 12:26 AM
Jewish girls? Or girls imported from Russia by jewish slavers forced into the nightclub business and prostitutio?

Ignore the fact that the Israelis play a minority role in the sex slavery of eastern europe, while the hands of the eastern europeans themselves in it far outdwarf that of Israelis.

It's all about the jews, guys!:viking:

il ragno
11-15-2006, 12:32 AM
I voted no: homosexuals should not be hanged. It's wrong to hang people for their sexual orientation!

Instead, they should be tortured with pliers and acetelyne torches until they expire on their own, of natural causes.

Kodos
11-15-2006, 12:35 AM
I voted no: homosexuals should not be hanged. It's wrong to hang people for their sexual orientation!

Instead, they should be tortured with pliers and acetalyne torches until they expire on their own, of natural causes.

I have given out too much rep in the last 24 hours... in order to retaliate against Johnson.

Hrolf Kraki
11-15-2006, 01:57 AM
No. As long as they don't engage in that filthy parade crap and keep their urges to themselves and their lovers, and of course stay away from children, they should be ignored. People wo have the urges but don't commit acts of sodomy should definately be left alone, but they're quite rare.

I agree 100%.

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
11-15-2006, 02:24 AM
Ignore the fact that the Israeli's play a minority role in the sex slave of eastern europe, with the numerous of eastern european nations outdwaring Israel in their lust for preteen whores.

It's all about the jews, guys!:viking:
that's a good point

shanemac
11-15-2006, 02:45 AM
I voted yes... for comedy reasons. Actually I think fags were hanged in Ayatolla Khomeini's revolution in Iran. Drug dealers certainly were. I had an Iranian co-worker once, and he was very proud of this fact.

Thomas777
11-15-2006, 03:24 AM
No. Its unreasonable to execute people for having vices.

Daniel Shays
11-15-2006, 04:12 AM
Hanging is for class enemies. I prefer sexual re-orientation camps (mines, sweatshops, chaingangs, etc.) for homosexuals.

Mike
11-15-2006, 04:37 AM
Certainly, a few highly publicized hangings of this age's most egregious perverts would be morally and socially salutary, as a way of shattering the mindset of degeneracy so prevalent in this society. However, I cannot condone hanging homosexuals categorically. The ones who do not practice can often learn to sublimate their unnatural urges into constructive and creative outlets. The ones who cannot are mostly sick but harmless people who need help. Perhaps an effective combination of therapy and medication could be researched to provide a cure.

Der Sozialist
11-15-2006, 05:17 AM
I prefer sexual re-orientation camps (mines, sweatshops, chaingangs, etc.) for homosexuals.

I prefer castration and/or penectomy. This would have 2 effects:

Lower sex drive (lower level of testosterone produced)
And "inadequate" equipment thus preventing them from engaging in sodomy, oral sex, and masturbation.

Not to mention that this process is rather inexpensive and effective. Since homosexuality in males is genetic—sex re-orientation would never be a fully "effective" policy.

Also, while I did vote "yes" just out of spirit of the poll—I don’t [necessarily] support the execution of all sodomites—John Nash was one and yet he contributed positively to society.

il ragno
11-15-2006, 06:09 AM
Inject them with powerful chemicals that will ensure it's always 6:30 in their pants.

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
11-15-2006, 06:33 AM
btw isn't the word "hung" not "hanged."

Thomas777
11-15-2006, 06:35 AM
btw isn't the word "hung" not "hanged."

No. "Hung" is what a male horse is...hanged is a method of execution. "Hanged by the neck until dead..."

Thomas777
11-15-2006, 06:37 AM
I prefer castration and/or penectomy. This would have 2 effects:

Lower sex drive (lower level of testosterone produced)
And "inadequate" equipment thus preventing them from engaging in sodomy, oral sex, and masturbation.

Not to mention that this process is rather inexpensive and effective. Since homosexuality in males is genetic—sex re-orientation would never be a fully "effective" policy.

Also, while I did vote "yes" just out of spirit of the poll—I don’t [necessarily] support the execution of all sodomites—John Nash was one and yet he contributed positively to society.

I don't think the State needs to police people's bedrooms. Sure, homosexuality is a vice, and it harms its practitioners...but its really not something to be concerned about at the political level.

The only reason why homosexuality is a "problem" is because its endorsed by the Establishment as a positive good...but then again, all manner of sexual deviancy is promoted as such. Huxley had a theory on this, and I agree with him.

Gays aren't the problem.

Oblisk
11-15-2006, 08:32 AM
Moral question: should homosexuals be hanged?

I voted 'yes'.

Other.

Not every single homosexual should be executed immediately, but they should be given a chance for rehabitation and a chance to turn their life around. And if they prove themselves to be a normal man again, by all means let them live.

If they are unwilling and uncooperative, execute with extreme prejudice.

Razikashvili
11-15-2006, 10:00 AM
Only when they try to make public what should never leave the bedroom.

Agnostic Priest
11-15-2006, 11:21 AM
I don’t think homos should be hung however I do believe homosexuals should be separated from normal society. I mean male homos butt bang their boyfriends homos are HIV magnets, they have all kinds of Sexually transmitted diseases etc etc. Homosexuals are dangerous. The government should not force heterosexuals to live amongst these fruits. Ship them to San Francisco. And furthermore gays homos transgenders what ever it is they want to be called should not be allowed to work around kids or have the right to adopt. ( my 2 cents)

J Van Der Meyde
11-15-2006, 12:22 PM
homosexuals should not be hanged.

They should be put in front of a firing squad.

///M power
11-15-2006, 12:23 PM
I suggested to transfer them to a gay island, every country will ship its gay population to an island,it Will be easier for them to do what they like to do and it would be considered normal because everyone would be gay.
they will be able to fuck each other all day and in public, it will be a dream island for them.
they will want to move to this island on their own,without forcing them.

Hachiko
11-15-2006, 12:26 PM
I suggested to transfer them to a gay island, every country will ship its gay population to an island,it Will be easier for them to do what they like to do and it would be considered normal because everyone would be gay.
they will be able to fuck each other all day and in public, it will be a dream island for them.
they will want to move to this island on their own,without forcing them.
Homo Island sounds like a good plan. I would like to nominate Africa as the locale. :D

///M power
11-15-2006, 12:37 PM
Homo Island sounds like a good plan. I would like to nominate Africa as the locale. :D

if we choose Africa the plan wont work.
we need a place they will want to go to..

Hachiko
11-15-2006, 12:40 PM
if we choose Africa the plan wont work.
we need a place they will want to go to..
Dress up the local bucks like cabana boys.
Then they won't mind. :D

///M power
11-15-2006, 12:42 PM
Dress up the local bucks like cabana boys.
Then they won't mind. :D

good idea!:)

J Van Der Meyde
11-15-2006, 12:42 PM
I suggested to transfer them to a gay island, every country will ship its gay population to an island,it Will be easier for them to do what they like to do and it would be considered normal because everyone would be gay.
they will be able to fuck each other all day and in public, it will be a dream island for them.
they will want to move to this island on their own,without forcing them.

Its a good thoery but no such place exists on Earth.

All large islands are inhabited. And I doubt the locals would want a mass immigration of faggots.

shanemac
11-15-2006, 01:11 PM
Perhaps Antarctica? Hey, who said anything about them liking where we put them?

Berianidze
11-15-2006, 02:04 PM
Hanging is for class enemies. I prefer sexual re-orientation camps (mines, sweatshops, chaingangs, etc.) for homosexuals.
This actually has many benefits to it, and I must say I agree. Execution might come off as harsh and might spur more unnecessary dissidence from an already exhausted public (assuming that revolution will only be sucessful with Civil War). By putting all those who parade their degeneracy into labour camps will not only show our willingness at rehabilitation (thus our humanity), but it will make for an efficient underclass of labour force who can be put to good use in civil construction.

sugartits
11-15-2006, 04:11 PM
I voted 'yes'. Though many of them are fine, quiet people, tolerance of homosexuality causes a large social disruption, with gay activism and demands to be a part of heterosexual traditions (like marriage and nuclear families). It appears to be harmless at first, but it is corrosive. I do not think that homosexuality is unnatural or a sin, but lines have to be drawn or further will our cultures deteriorate with permissiveness.

Theoretically I think they should be hanged.

Geist
11-15-2006, 04:20 PM
No, I have no problem with homosexuals, and have yet to see a convincing argument outside of the Church for their being 'unnatural' or 'evil.'

Dr. Gutberlet
11-15-2006, 04:28 PM
I would make it mandatory that all of their gay pride parades be held in muslim countries. As for the island, I vote for Molokai.

Der Sozialist
11-15-2006, 04:31 PM
I would make it mandatory that all of their gay pride parades be held in muslim countries. As for the island, I vote for Molokai.
Molokai is not the isolated island that it once was when the lepers were sent to die there.

shanemac
11-15-2006, 04:41 PM
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~slacey/images/antarctica_map.gif

http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/M-RainbowFlag.jpg

This will be the new flag of Antarctica.

Hachiko
11-15-2006, 04:48 PM
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~slacey/images/antarctica_map.gif

http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/M-RainbowFlag.jpg

This will be the new flag of Antarctica.
No way, I couldn't bear to hear about penguins contracting AIDS! :(
I'd say send 'em to the North Pole, but then girls and boys will end up getting dolls on Christmas. :(

Heavens to Betsy
11-15-2006, 04:49 PM
I voted 'yes'. Though many of them are fine, quiet people, tolerance of homosexuality causes a large social disruption, with gay activism and demands to be a part of heterosexual traditions (like marriage and nuclear families). It appears to be harmless at first, but it is corrosive. .

How is it corrosive exactly?
If you look at heterosexual divorce rates I don't think gay marriage can do any more damage to the institution than is done already by straights.
But then I don't see how gays are corrosive to the institution of marriage at all. Care to enlighten me.

As to gay adoption, I havn't seen any data to show that it's harmful, or more harmful than heterosexual adoption, and it seems intuitivly to be preferable to group homes or going from foster home to foster home.

That's just an intuition of course, you're the one talking about hanging people so perhaps you could explain the problem to me.

shanemac
11-15-2006, 04:55 PM
How is it corrosive exactly?
If you look at heterosexual divorce rates I don't think gay marriage can do any more damage to the institution than is done already by straights.
But then I don't see how gays are corrosive to the institution of marriage at all. Care to enlighten me.

As to gay adoption, I havn't seen any data to show that it's harmful, or more harmful than heterosexual adoption, and it seems intuitivly to be preferable to group homes or going from foster home to foster home.

That's just an intuition of course, you're the one talking about hanging people so perhaps you could explain the problem to me.

I do not think that homosexuality is unnatural or a sin, but lines have to be drawn or further will our cultures deteriorate with permissiveness.

Theoretically I think they should be hanged.


So you do agree with hanging them. I'm shocked. :confused:

Heavens to Betsy
11-15-2006, 04:59 PM
No, that was just bad copying and pasting, it's fixed now.

Halo
11-15-2006, 05:46 PM
No.
I do not know If I am pro or against their marriage. If by one side, society accepting them would make them dissapear if it is a hereditary disease, on the other side would I like to live in a society that does and wait for their inevitable extinction?
Fuck, sometimes I just love my backwards, racist, machist country.

Hrolf Kraki
11-15-2006, 07:55 PM
Perhaps Antarctica? Hey, who said anything about them liking where we put them?

Hey, that's where the penguins live!

Starr
11-15-2006, 08:04 PM
[QUOTE=Heavens to Betsy]How is it corrosive exactly?
If you look at heterosexual divorce rates I don't think gay marriage can do any more damage to the institution than is done already by straights.
But then I don't see how gays are corrosive to the institution of marriage at all. Care to enlighten me.


Giving approval for the homosexual lifestyle and the idea that "all lifestyles are equal" has had a hand in the breakup of traditional lifestyles by redifining our moral codes and reducing traditional lifestyles to just another lifestyle choice equal to all others rather than being the accepted standard. Allowing for gay marriage would continue down this path.


As to gay adoption, I havn't seen any data to show that it's harmful, or more harmful than heterosexual adoption, and it seems intuitivly to be preferable to group homes or going from foster home to foster home.

There is a possible link between homosexuality and pedophilia. And children, especially children who have already had a negative start in life need the moral guidance that comes with a traditional setting. Being adopted by a gay couple is also going to throw them in a situation where they are going to have to deal with other people not accepting them and their parents and the hassle that comes along with that. Also homosexuals are a small fraction of the population and homosexuals who wish to adopt kids is even smaller, is it even going to make any kind of difference or put any kind of dent in the number of kids who need a home?

Dr. Gutberlet
11-15-2006, 08:07 PM
Molokai is not the isolated island that it once was when the lepers were sent to die there.


http://www.scarborough.k12.me.us/wis/teachers/dtewhey/webquest/nature/images/Kilauea%20eruption.gif

Then just toss them into Kilauea:bbbat:

sugartits
11-15-2006, 08:34 PM
So you do agree with hanging them. I'm shocked. :confused:

Unless they are valuable contributers to the Arts or philosophy, yes. Also only the openly homosexual upstarts should be hanged, theoretically speaking. I don't think it would be necessary nor possible to hound out all of them. Mostly I think they need to be silenced as a minority rights group moreso than any other.

Heterosexuals are the majority, which cannot have freedom with the existence of radical homosexuals. Gross acceptance of that group will lead to chaos and to an oppressive existence for heteros. Look how already the notion of 'sex' is questioned, as if people can be born the 'wrong' sex. That is greatly a result of homosexuality being tolerated to the extent it has. Just imagine the nonsense resulting if it goes further.

Aryan Imperium
11-15-2006, 08:51 PM
Moral question: should homosexuals be hanged?

I voted 'yes'.

I voted `no`.
Whilst I do not `approve` of homosexuality and regard it as an aberration of nature I think that there is an element of petit-bourgeois petty moralising among white nationalists generally.
`Morals` and even worse,moralising are the signs of a degenerate society.

Hermetic
11-15-2006, 08:51 PM
No, there is nothing "morally" wrong with homosexuals this is nature laws clashing with mans created laws.

Berianidze
11-15-2006, 10:12 PM
No, I have no problem with homosexuals, and have yet to see a convincing argument outside of the Church for their being 'unnatural' or 'evil.'
I don't believe homosexuality to be "unnatural" nor "evil" --refer back to the debate in an old thread with user "Holly." That doesn't mean it's acceptable. My problem with homosexuality is that I find it personally disagreeable, but not worth the resources of codification as an outright crime. However, I would treat homosexual "activists" as I would any other activist who takes their message to the street, thus creating a direct response to their agitation for equal consideration while utilizing their labor in constructive purposes. Like I said before, keep it private where nobody but the individuals involved will know and the state should have no problem. When you take it out of the bedroom then you have disturbed a state interest and the state has every right vested in its authority to punish and deter such behavior. It's more a matter of cohesive social and political attitudes than anything else.

Starr
11-15-2006, 10:15 PM
No, there is nothing "morally" wrong with homosexuals this is nature laws clashing with mans created laws.

for one to believe it is morally wrong, they would, in the very least, have to believe the lifestyle is a choice, which I do not, so I suppose I would have to agree.

Berianidze
11-15-2006, 10:21 PM
for one to believe it is morally wrong, they would, in the very least, have to believe the lifestyle is a choice, which I do not, so I suppose I would have to agree.
I don't see the necessity in believing that something is a choice and persecuting it. You're just not punishing them based on desert, but rather one must find the justification in other grounds, perhaps social utility or a concept of justice disregarding desert as a whole.

I don't believe anybody chooses to to be homosexual (not including those individuals who willingly engage in "experimental" sex), but that doesn't mean society has to tolerate it. They have the capacities to maintain a private realm for their way of life, but its when they breech the law that they should be punished. Actively punishing homosexuality itself would be a drastic waste of resources, but you can find loopholes in the law that would just as easily (and result in less frivelous use of valuable resources) target and isolate those who like to make publicize and flash their agenda.

Starr
11-15-2006, 10:52 PM
I would use the word tolerate only in the sense of allowing them to do their deed behind closed doors, without facing any negative consequences imposed by society. I would not tolerate it in the sense of what we have today, where they have the parades all around town and everyone must see their behavior as normal in relation to the larger society. We can acknowledge that the behavior, in itself, is natural to them and is not harmful, while still acknowledging that the behavior is unnatural in society as a whole. We need to break away from the ideas that all lifestyles are "equal." or just as normal, natural and respectable as all others. That is the biggest problem I have here.

Brechun
11-15-2006, 11:21 PM
I voted `no`.
Whilst I do not `approve` of homosexuality and regard it as an aberration of nature I think that there is an element of petit-bourgeois petty moralising among white nationalists generally.
`Morals` and even worse,moralising are the signs of a degenerate society.

Moral relativism is the most self-contradictory stance ever, and nobody even notices it. :(

Helios Panoptes
11-15-2006, 11:30 PM
Moral relativism is the most self-contradictory stance ever, and nobody even notices it. :(

Why?....................

Brechun
11-15-2006, 11:52 PM
Why?....................

To say morals are relative is a moral absolutist statement. By rejecting and condeming moral absolutes, the very act of that is engaging in the propogation of a moral absolute. So basically, it fucks itself in the ass.

Heavens to Betsy
11-16-2006, 12:31 AM
[QUOTE]

Giving approval for the homosexual lifestyle and the idea that "all lifestyles are equal" has had a hand in the breakup of traditional lifestyles by redifining our moral codes and reducing traditional lifestyles to just another lifestyle choice equal to all others rather than being the accepted standard. Allowing for gay marriage would continue down this path.


First of all there is a correlation between increased toleration of homosexuality and a break up of traditional lifestyles. I haven't seen evidence to show how one has caused the other, other factors such as the increased uptake of the scientific world view, the rise of the middle class, women's liberation, and a whole host of other things. I doubt sweeping homosexuality under the rug is going to hold back the flood. Besides the reduction of traditional lifestyles is not necessarily a totally bad thing, just an issue that needs to be dealt with.

Second of all approval for the homosexual lifestyle need not incorporate the idea that "all lifestyles are equal".



[QUOTE]

There is a possible link between homosexuality and pedophilia.

No, there are people who really want there to be a link because it sure would help them back up their prejudices.
For help busting that myth see here: http://www.internationalorder.org/scandal_response.html

[QUOTE]
And children, especially children who have already had a negative start in life need the moral guidance that comes with a traditional setting.

Non-traditional people are capable of acting morally.


[QUOTE]
Being adopted by a gay couple is also going to throw them in a situation where they are going to have to deal with other people not accepting them and their parents and the hassle that comes along with that.

I always find this argument funny... it's people who make allegations that that homosexuality is unnatural, wrong, linked with paedophilia, etc who then say, oh and people will be mean to their kids. I wouldn't be mean to their kids, only the people who are part of the problem (and their kids) will be.
And, I don't think a kid is somehow less of a target for bullies in a group home, or going from foster parent to foster parent. At least with two parents (even if they're of the same sex) the kid has someone in his/her corner.

[QUOTE]
Also homosexuals are a small fraction of the population and homosexuals who wish to adopt kids is even smaller, is it even going to make any kind of difference or put any kind of dent in the number of kids who need a home?

Well if numbers are all that's important I could turn that argument around on you and ask does it really matter if homosexuals adopt, since there's so few of them and all.
But I don't think it's just a numbers question, if a small number of kids get a family (even a ghastly non-traditional one) then I think that's better than not having a family.

Helios Panoptes
11-16-2006, 12:44 AM
To say morals are relative is a moral absolutist statement. By rejecting and condeming moral absolutes, the very act of that is engaging in the propogation of a moral absolute. So basically, it fucks itself in the ass.

There is a difference between a metaethical statement such as "morality is relative" and an applied statement like "murder is wrong." The former is a statement about ethics itself. Once the equivocation is drawn out, it becomes apparent that no fallacy has been committed.

Let me give an example. Astrologers make many claims and from what little I have gathered from your posts here, you probably think they are all unjustified. However, you might agree with the statement "astrology does not generate accurate predictions." The difference is that the last statement is about astrology itself. Moral relativism is like this.

Leshrac
11-16-2006, 12:46 AM
You try to recruit non-homosexuals. You make your degenerate lifestyle public like a campaign to gain sexual partners.

Gays are not an obscurantist cult trying to "recruit members" and expose satanic ideals...

I'm pretty sure 90% of the people "hate" gays because "THEBIBLEANDJESUSANDGOD SAY FAGSAREUNNATURALANDEVIL".

I had a few problems with gay before, because like you, i had thoughts and heard rumors and was completely ignorant of the subjet. Now i have some gay friends because i did research for myself and been around a few of them. When you stop thinking like an ignorant, psychotic christian maniac, it helps!

Starr
11-16-2006, 12:55 AM
I'm pretty sure 90% of the people "hate" gays because "THEBIBLEANDJESUSANDGOD SAY FAGSAREUNNATURALANDEVIL".

this is a big, factor, yes. You always see people breaking out the bible and throwing out Leviticus 20:13, for example. "An abomination", of course that area of the bible has all kinds of bizarre laws.
It is also a reaction, however to their recent actions and trying to impose their standards on society. I would be very willing to make a bet that "hate" for homosexuals has increased quite a bit in the last 20 years or so.

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
11-16-2006, 12:58 AM
I'm pretty sure 90% of the people "hate" gays because "THEBIBLEANDJESUSANDGOD SAY FAGSAREUNNATURALANDEVIL".
Then explain Josef Stalin. Why did he whipe out faggots?

///M power
11-16-2006, 12:58 AM
this is a big, factor, yes. You always see people breaking out the bible and throwing out Leviticus 20:13, for example.
.

I'm secular, and about the gay issues I'm 100% with the religious people.

Helios Panoptes
11-16-2006, 12:59 AM
I voted "no." I find homosexuality distasteful, personally, but as long as gays do not make public spectacles of themselves, then there is no need for the state to take action against them.

Berianidze
11-16-2006, 01:02 AM
Then explain Josef Stalin. Why did he whipe out faggots?
There's a number of reasons, but I stand in line with Stalin in that I prefer moral cohesion, and furthermore I think the healthiest and most utility-yielding form of lifestyle is that of traditional heterosexual family organization.

WIth Stalin, that could've been just as much his Georgian tradition as well---where a strong tradition of the Georgian Orthodox Church is not exactly welcoming to homosexual relations (Stalin was quite orthodox in a number of his views on humanity in general, and this can be seen in some of his personal correspondances with others such as Molotov, Ordzhonikidze, and others).

brigadier Biggles
11-16-2006, 01:42 AM
I voted "no." I find homosexuality distasteful, personally, but as long as gays do not make public spectacles of themselves, then there is no need for the state to take action against them.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/november2006/141106gays.jpg

Sandee
11-16-2006, 02:11 AM
^ Let them marry (hire a gay priest and perform a gay marriage in a church reserved for gays) and then we wouldn't have to see all that on the mainstream media.

Of course, they shouldn't be allowed to adopt. That's the only thing I'd seriously object to. For adoption, the adoptive family should be a traditionally nuclear one.

Mike
11-16-2006, 02:20 AM
^ Let them marry (hire a gay priest and perform a gay marriage in a church reserved for gays) and then we wouldn't have to see all that on the mainstream media.

Of course, they shouldn't be allowed to adopt. That's the only thing I'd seriously object to. For adoption, the adoptive family should be a traditionally nuclear one.
If you allow gay priests performing gay marriage in gay churches, rest assured that adoption will be the next goal on the agenda. You do not appease these people by giving into their demands. You merely encourage them.

What we should do is publicly hang a few of these particular homosexuals as examples. In addition, we should nationalize the media and then sell if off to responsible parties. Then - I assure you - we wouldn't have to see all that on the mainstream media.

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
11-16-2006, 02:49 AM
There's a number of reasons, but I stand in line with Stalin in that I prefer moral cohesion, and furthermore I think the healthiest and most utility-yielding form of lifestyle is that of traditional heterosexual family organization.

WIth Stalin, that could've been just as much his Georgian tradition as well---where a strong tradition of the Georgian Orthodox Church is not exactly welcoming to homosexual relations (Stalin was quite orthodox in a number of his views on humanity in general, and this can be seen in some of his personal correspondances with others such as Molotov, Ordzhonikidze, and others).
Well we know one thing. You don't have to be a christian zealot or an islamic fundamentalist to be anti-gay.

brigadier Biggles
11-16-2006, 02:54 AM
^ Let them marry (hire a gay priest and perform a gay marriage in a church reserved for gays) and then we wouldn't have to see all that on the mainstream media.

Of course, they shouldn't be allowed to adopt. That's the only thing I'd seriously object to. For adoption, the adoptive family should be a traditionally nuclear one.

Thats the WORST thing you could do, like Mike said theyd see it as giving in and continue on perverted crusade thinking theyre in the right, also gives the wrong impression on small kids they might think this is NORMAL as adults do it.

2 poofs can never be the same as a mum and dad, so i agree with you on that at least.

Arminius
11-16-2006, 03:43 AM
2 poofs can never be the same as a mum and dad, so i agree with you on that at least.

2 loving poofs are better than state or foster care. Let them adopt...

Sandee
11-16-2006, 04:16 AM
2 loving poofs are better than state or foster care. Let them adopt...

Do you think that gays make good parents? Wouldn't those kids have to deal with a lot of social stigmatas? Also, if gays were to raise kids, wouldn't this have an effect on the kid's sexuality later on?

Is it just merely genetic or does the environment play a role too? Or both?

Brechun
11-16-2006, 04:23 AM
To the people who voted yes, or want some homosexuals murdered, "rehabilitated", or anything else you have on your minds, please give me a truly convincing case as to why homosexuality is an abomination above all other sexual preferences and the legalizing of it's marriage or some acceptance of it will lead to the downfall of western institutions and the death of the white race, and rampant pedophilia. Outside mere personal preferences, to be exact.

Mike
11-16-2006, 04:25 AM
What a crazy thing to say! How would you like to have been raised by a couple of lisping, prancing faggots? Do you think a kid will come out of that environment normal? There are always healthy families willing to adopt. We do not need "loving" poofs. Let's get real here.

2 loving poofs are better than state or foster care. Let them adopt...

Starr
11-16-2006, 04:29 AM
To the people who voted yes, or want some homosexuals murdered, "rehabilitated", or anything else you have on your minds, please give me a truly convincing case as to why homosexuality is an abomination above all other sexual preferences and the legalizing of it's marriage or some acceptance of it will lead to the downfall of western institutions and the death of the white race, and rampant pedophilia. Outside mere personal preferences, to be exact.


You are being way over dramatic here.:p but I did already explain this earlier to Heavens to Betsy. the jews are attempting to turn us all into homosexuals in a further attempt to keep us from breeding(just kidding.:p) I don't think anyone said it is going to lead to the death of the white race or rampant pedophila.
I am, however, not one of those who voted, yes.

Giving approval for the homosexual lifestyle and the idea that "all lifestyles are equal" has had a hand in the breakup of traditional lifestyles by redifining our moral codes and reducing traditional lifestyles to just another lifestyle choice equal to all others rather than being the accepted standard. Allowing for gay marriage would continue down this path.

Sandee
11-16-2006, 04:36 AM
Thats the WORST thing you could do, like Mike said theyd see it as giving in and continue on perverted crusade thinking theyre in the right, also gives the wrong impression on small kids they might think this is NORMAL as adults do it.

2 poofs can never be the same as a mum and dad, so i agree with you on that at least.

Hmmm... Come to think of it, I can see why many would want civil marriages (due to the benefits: economic ones, etc):

In the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:

joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;

and more....

Link (http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm)



^ Not all will apply but they would have the right to adopt, etc.

As for the religious gay marriages, that is so ridiculous because in many religions that lifestyle is condemned or at least looked down upon. You'd really have to be a self-hating gay to want to get married this way - especially when the religion disapproves of that lifestyle. You can distort spiritual texts to suit yourself but you can never change the original meaning.

Brechun
11-16-2006, 04:39 AM
Thats the WORST thing you could do, like Mike said theyd see it as giving in and continue on perverted crusade thinking theyre in the right, also gives the wrong impression on small kids they might think this is NORMAL as adults do it.

2 poofs can never be the same as a mum and dad, so i agree with you on that at least.

If growing up with gays makes a kid "perverted" and "degenerate" like you say, you'd never see such perverted degenerates growing up in straight families.

Which happens pretty much all the time, fyi.

Sandee
11-16-2006, 04:42 AM
If growing up with gays makes a kid "perverted" and "degenerate" like you say, you'd never see such perverted degenerates growing up in straight families.

Which happens pretty much all the time, fyi.

That is true.. but don't you think that exposing the kids from an early age to such a lifestyle, will increase the likelihood of them experimenting or turning out the way their parents are?

Brechun
11-16-2006, 04:48 AM
That is true.. but don't you think that exposing the kids from an early age to such a lifestyle, will increase the likelihood of them experimenting or turning out the way their parents are?

I can't say for sure. How do kids who've already been raised by gay couples turn out?

Starr
11-16-2006, 04:49 AM
I do not believe that being raised by homosexual parents is going to neccessarily lead the kids into a gay lifestyle, but I do believe there is a greater likelyhood that since they do not have a traditional moral structure, that they will experiment in other less than decent sexual behaviors.

Arminius
11-16-2006, 05:15 AM
How would you like to have been raised by a couple of lisping, prancing faggots?

I wouldn't mind. Would've been better than a bunch of bigotted evangelical weirdos.

Do you think a kid will come out of that environment normal?

You are saying that he/she will come out gay? If so, I don't accept that.
The way things are going in the US in the area of heterosexual divorce rates, I don't think that type of relationship is very stable either. My family certainly wasn't the ideal situation when growing up. Whose is? This "normal" thing is a myth.

There are always healthy families willing to adopt.

Homosexual households can be as stable and healthy as any. It depends on the case. I would prefer to grow up in a house of loving and stable gays, rather than a alcoholic father and a slut for a mother. Whereas under current law, the latter can adopt, but the former can't.

I don't see the big deal about gays marrying or adopting.

Brechun
11-16-2006, 05:18 AM
I've actually read many times that homosexual couples have far more stable relationships than american straight couples on average. Stigma and the faggotry aside, if being raised by gays meant a more stable, loving family than the average dysfunctional american straight family, then sure, I'll go for the gays.

Sandee
11-16-2006, 05:30 AM
You are saying that he/she will come out gay? If so, I don't accept that.
The way things are going in the US in the area of heterosexual divorce rates, I don't think that type of relationship is very stable either. My family certainly wasn't the ideal situation when growing up. Whose is? This "normal" thing is a myth.

Do you think that gays have more stable relationships than heterosexuals? I have read differently. :confused:

Arminius
11-16-2006, 05:32 AM
Do you think that gays have more stable relationships than heterosexuals? I have read differently. :confused:

Gays can have more stable relationships than heteros, they don't necessarily do.

Australian Power
11-16-2006, 05:33 AM
No I support individual liberty. I don't find homosexuals to be a serious problem. If you can't handle homosexuals that's not my problem and I do not expect to have my rights infringed for your weakness.

Mike
11-16-2006, 05:52 AM
What is your source? A pamphet you received from NAMBLA?

I've actually read many times that homosexual couples have far more stable relationships than american straight couples on average. Stigma and the faggotry aside, if being raised by gays meant a more stable, loving family than the average dysfunctional american straight family, then sure, I'll go for the gays.

Mike
11-16-2006, 05:54 AM
It's unsurprising you'd say that. You're probably a homo yourself.
No I support individual liberty. I don't find homosexuals to be a serious problem. If you can't handle homosexuals that's not my problem and I do not expect to have my rights infringed for your weakness.

Australian Power
11-16-2006, 06:00 AM
It's unsurprising you'd say that. You're probably a homo yourself.

What's your problem? You need protection from me? I will compete with you for females one on one, man to man anytime, anyplace. I am not afraid.

Mike
11-16-2006, 06:17 AM
You may stop pretending you're interested in females. It's not working, as you've already indicated that infringing on homosexuals' rights infringes on your rights.

It reminds me of the ADL's slogan: anti-semitism is anti-me!

What's your problem? You need protection from me? I will compete with you for females one on one, man to man anytime, anyplace. I am not afraid.

Straight Satan
11-16-2006, 06:39 AM
Moral question: should homosexuals be hanged?

Uh, excuse me--they're already hanging. Haven't you heard of "auto-erotic strangulation"?

brigadier Biggles
11-16-2006, 10:42 AM
To the people who voted yes, or want some homosexuals murdered, "rehabilitated", or anything else you have on your minds, please give me a truly convincing case as to why homosexuality is an abomination above all other sexual preferences and the legalizing of it's marriage or some acceptance of it will lead to the downfall of western institutions and the death of the white race, and rampant pedophilia. Outside mere personal preferences, to be exact.

homosexuality is an end in itself, if everyone were this way inclined there would be only un-natural births and un-natural lives.

If growing up with gays makes a kid "perverted" and "degenerate" like you say, you'd never see such perverted degenerates growing up in straight families.

Which happens pretty much all the time, fyi.

there would be an increased number of cases then, its well known gays are extravagant, for males unmasculine etc, kids imitate behaviour we all know that.

straight families are fine as long as the parents are, the disintegration of the family should be addressed first before giving gays the law to do as they please.

VAMPIR
11-16-2006, 04:00 PM
No. As long as they don't engage in that filthy parade crap and keep their urges to themselves and their lovers, and of course stay away from children, they should be ignored. People wo have the urges but don't commit acts of sodomy should definately be left alone, but they're quite rare.
One of the best answers I ever red. 100% agree.

Australian Power
11-16-2006, 04:45 PM
You may stop pretending you're interested in females. It's not working, as you've already indicated that infringing on homosexuals' rights infringes on your rights.

It reminds me of the ADL's slogan: anti-semitism is anti-me!

Ok fine let's cut the crap. I can see that I am making no impression upon you with my falsehoods. I am 100% gay. Heavy petting with an attractive girl sitting in my lap does not even get me hardl and i get uncomfortable and push girls away if they try to go further with me. But still, I'm not as homosexual as your sister, the prolific lesbian porn' movie actress. Huh.

shanemac
11-16-2006, 05:51 PM
Ok fine let's cut the crap. I can see that I am making no impression upon you with my falsehoods. I am 100% gay. Heavy petting with an attractive girl sitting in my lap does not even get me hardl and i get uncomfortable and push girls away if they try to go further with me. But still, I'm not as homosexual as your sister, the prolific lesbian porn' movie actress. Huh.

http://gallery.hd.org/_exhibits/maths/knot-hangmans-noose-black-backdrop-18mm-manila-1-AJHD.jpg

j/k :)

Leshrac
11-16-2006, 05:56 PM
homosexuality is an end in itself, if everyone were this way inclined there would be only un-natural births and un-natural lives.


And why not a natural way to balance earth population ?

Nature is adaptive, so maybe it's just nature throwing dices to prevent massive breeding thus killing it by consumption of ressources.

That's my thought and i'm not promoting it. Keep in mind while screaming in horror that nobody has ever found WHY people are gay or not.

In fact many animals engage in same-sex intercourses, aswell as insects, why would humans be excluded of that ? because OMG WE CIVILIZED ? Nature doesn't give a shit about developement or civilizations, it just regulates itself.

I'm saying it again, you hate them because you are influenced by an uptight puritan background, nothing more.

Boleslaw
11-16-2006, 05:59 PM
No. As long as they don't engage in that filthy parade crap and keep their urges to themselves and their lovers, and of course stay away from children, they should be ignored. People wo have the urges but don't commit acts of sodomy should definately be left alone, but they're quite rare.
Basically my attitude as well.

shanemac
11-16-2006, 06:24 PM
That's my thought and i'm not promoting it. Keep in mind while screaming in horror that nobody has ever found WHY people are gay or not.



I have read that it's due to the hormone-balance being fucked up in the womb. The hormones all come from the mother obviously, and normally her body will send androgenic hormones to a male fetus (as her system responds to a message from the Y chromosome), and vice versa for a female.

The body and brain's development are linked to these hormonal messages. If male-hormones are delivered, a male brain type develops, and vice versa for a female. After birth, the brain structure is pretty much fixed, so a male develops male characteristics and vice versa.

However, if the mother sends the wrong mix of hormones to the developing fetus, the baby, although genetically male (XY chromosome) will have female brain development; and will grow up with a natural tendency to play with dolls, dance at discos, believe in astrology, gossip, fuck men and other acts of faggotry.

General Ivan
11-16-2006, 07:24 PM
I have read that it's due to the hormone-balance being fucked up in the womb. The hormones all come from the mother obviously, and normally her body will send androgenic hormones to a male fetus (as her system responds to a message from the Y chromosome), and vice versa for a female.

The body and brain's development are linked to these hormonal messages. If male-hormones are delivered, a male brain type develops, and vice versa for a female. After birth, the brain structure is pretty much fixed, so a male develops male characteristics and vice versa.

However, if the mother sends the wrong mix of hormones to the developing fetus, the baby, although genetically male (XY chromosome) will have female brain development; and will grow up with a natural tendency to play with dolls, dance at discos, believe in astrology, gossip, fuck men and other acts of faggotry.

What about macho type gays?

Dr. Gutberlet
11-16-2006, 07:30 PM
One of my old neuropsych professors created litters of homosexual rats by flooding them with female hormones while in the womb. When mature, these male rats exhibited female traits such as lordosis. Here are some articles on the subject:

http://psych.unn.ac.uk/users/nick/hormoneswshop04.htm

and a counter argument to this:


http://www.mith2.umd.edu/WomensStudies/ReadingRoom/AcademicPapers/levay-critique

Helios Panoptes
11-16-2006, 07:32 PM
And why not a natural way to balance earth population ?

Nature is adaptive, so maybe it's just nature throwing dices to prevent massive breeding thus killing it by consumption of ressources.

Nature doesn't "work" that way. You speak as though it has intelligence and plans ahead. It does not.

Leshrac
11-16-2006, 10:07 PM
Nature doesn't "work" that way. You speak as though it has intelligence and plans ahead. It does not.

Show me proof.

We don't even know how the brain works, how life is created and stuff. Why wouldn't it be a "conscience" or a least working to preserve itself in its own special way ?

Just because the human definition of life and conscience is in the dictionnary doesn't mean it's an universal fact. Fact is by our own standards life require light, people take it for granted. Wrong. Some bugs and even plants can grow without light and some even die if exposed to it. Here, i just debunked the theory that states light=life/no light=no life, too bad 90% of the average joes will stick to the theory tho.

Helios Panoptes
11-16-2006, 10:23 PM
Show me proof.

You are obviously unfamiliar with basic rules of discourse. When you make an assertion, you substantiate it, then I am either persuaded by your justification or not, and I explain why. You have failed miserably to meet this rudimentary standard.

We don't even know how the brain works, how life is created and stuff.

Translation: we don't know X in its entirety, therefore, my unfounded speculation is accurate. You are a genius. Are you a member of the Mega Foundation?

Why wouldn't it be a "conscience" or a least working to preserve itself in its own special way ?

Why would it, how would it, and what is the evidence of its doing so? It's funny to me that you think you're making points by asking me questions without even having the courtesy to provide evidence in support of your position.

Just because the human definition of life and conscience is in the dictionnary doesn't mean it's an universal fact. Fact is by our own standards life require light, people take it for granted. Wrong. Some bugs and even plants can grow without light and some even die if exposed to it.

This above quote is completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.

What you are proposing is a complete overhaul of modern evolutionary theory. You are suggesting that animals act in such a way as to produce sterile(practically) offspring, which will then have resources devoted to them(a disaster for the evolutionary success of the parent). The reason for this is that it's in the benefit of the species. This makes no sense.

Brechun
11-16-2006, 11:03 PM
Ok fine let's cut the crap. I can see that I am making no impression upon you with my falsehoods. I am 100% gay. Heavy petting with an attractive girl sitting in my lap does not even get me hardl and i get uncomfortable and push girls away if they try to go further with me. But still, I'm not as homosexual as your sister, the prolific lesbian porn' movie actress. Huh.
lol you like men

Starr
11-16-2006, 11:10 PM
lol you like men


I find this to be very telling. You defend homosexuals and then find something amusing in the thought of their lifestyle. You are not as "tolerant" as you think, perhaps.

Anarch
11-17-2006, 12:24 AM
No, because sexuality isn't what defines them even though it's part of their make-up.

Why not? Humans are amazingly adept at killing each other over credit records, moral infringements, ethnic makeup, religous convictions and other reasons - so why not add sexuality to the list? Go teh diversity!!!

Anarch
11-17-2006, 12:28 AM
What is really irritating are the guys that hate male homos with a passion and are turned on and encourage homosexual behavior in women.:whip: I can't even begin to count how many times I have seen this little inconsistency.

It's not inconsistent. Male homosexuality is 'filthy, immoral and perverted', while lesbianism (when the correct term is bisexuality, of course) is 'hot'. How can you call it inconsistent when you fail to grasp the standard behind it? Guys find some things attractive and other things absolutely disgusting.

Anarch
11-17-2006, 12:39 AM
Hanging is for class enemies. I prefer sexual re-orientation camps (mines, sweatshops, chaingangs, etc.) for homosexuals.

Homosexuality is a bourgeois tendency.

Australian Power
11-17-2006, 01:11 AM
It's cool that U.S.S.R. gulags were mixed sex, whereas almost all other prison camps were sex-segregated.

Berianidze
11-17-2006, 01:11 AM
Homosexuality is a bourgeois tendency.
True, but poofters aren't a real threat to the security/existance of the state because...well...they're poofters. Being a threat to the public morale is not deserving of death in itself, but rather hard labour to work them until they'll never think of committing such acts in public ever again.

Real threats, not limp wristed homos, will be executed promptyl after mass-trials.

Berianidze
11-17-2006, 01:12 AM
It's cool that U.S.S.R. gulags were mixed sex, whereas almost all other prison camps were sex-segregated.
That's because segregating by virtue of sex is wrong.

Australian Power
11-17-2006, 01:17 AM
That's because segregating by virtue of sex is wrong.

No, it is right, because it increases efficiency. Males are superior and mixing them with females is degrading. Vice versa for females. I expect that a mixed sex prison camp population was tamer however.

Berianidze
11-17-2006, 01:31 AM
No, it is right, because it increases efficiency. Males are superior and mixing them with females is degrading. Vice versa for females. I expect that a mixed sex prison camp population was tamer however.
Lol who cares if its degrading, they're prisoners...it's more efficient than having to facilitate separate complexes for each sex. Throw them together, shoot them when they refuse to work. It couldn't be any simpler.

By keeping men and women integrated, they can witness the consequences their spouses will suffer if they decide they no longer want to work anymore. It would make a man think twice about slacking off if he knew his wife would pay for his idleness.

brigadier Biggles
11-17-2006, 02:40 AM
I'm saying it again, you hate them because you are influenced by an uptight puritan background, nothing more.

eh no i'm not :confused:.

Anarch
11-17-2006, 02:48 AM
True, but poofters aren't a real threat to the security/existance of the state because...well...they're poofters. Being a threat to the public morale is not deserving of death in itself, but rather hard labour to work them until they'll never think of committing such acts in public ever again.

I disagree - a threat to the public morale is a threat to the stability and the overall power of that society. The state is the right hand of the structure of the community. If the purpose of the politician is to know and then work to achieve what is best for the political community, it follows that deviants must be suppressed. The general consensus is that homosexuals are deviants. How you wish to do this, however, is another question. Being a Marxist, you, I expect, would recognise the revolution necessary to transform this society into a Worker's State would unleash massive forces of violence under the direction of the Party. Sections of society are generally gutted during revolutions, Besoshvili.

Real threats, not limp wristed homos, will be executed promptyl after mass-trials.

Define 'real threats'.

Berianidze
11-17-2006, 02:47 PM
I disagree - a threat to the public morale is a threat to the stability and the overall power of that society. The state is the right hand of the structure of the community. If the purpose of the politician is to know and then work to achieve what is best for the political community, it follows that deviants must be suppressed. The general consensus is that homosexuals are deviants. How you wish to do this, however, is another question. Being a Marxist, you, I expect, would recognise the revolution necessary to transform this society into a Worker's State would unleash massive forces of violence under the direction of the Party. Sections of society are generally gutted during revolutions, Besoshvili.

I don't disagree with you on that point--that threats to public morale are threats to stability and overall power--but I disagree that they deserve execution when they can be imnprisoned and forced to labor for society--thus making a positive contribution and uplifting public morale. I think you misunderstood me, devients should most definitely be suppressed, but I think we disagree as to what should happen to them. The leaders and prominent activists of the gay agenda would certainly go, for they're not willing to keep quiet or contribute in a positive way to society.

While I don't advocate violence for the sake of violence, I recognize that violence is a huge part of any revolution. I expect there to be lots of it, and as unfortunate as that may be its a necessity in establishing a true Workers' state. Don't forget, coercive measures utilizing violence don't always come in the form of execution. I assure you, my GULAGS would be a very unpleasant experience for anybody--particularly poofters.:D



Define 'real threats'.
What I meant by 'real threats' are those elements of society that actively seek to subvert the authority of the state by direct implication of their behavior, such as publication of illicit material, organized cells of terrorists, traitors within the organization (the Party, the military, intelligence agency, secret police), external threats from those citizens who somehow managed to escape our workers' paradise, all class enemies. Homosexuals seem to be most satisfied with whathever their surroundings so long as they can publicly advertise their sick and perverted lifestyle. I consider this an indirect threat at public decency, but I don't see these people as playing an active and direct role in trying to topple the socialist state. Rest assured, they would be punished. Many of them would probably be executed as class enemies without the state ever knowing their sexual orientation.

Also, the state could always round together a bunch of young ideologues, establish a Red Guard, and turn them loose on society and have them liquidate the bourgeois elements themselves. That seems to work well, too. :)

Dr. Gutberlet
11-17-2006, 04:05 PM
Also, the state could always round together a bunch of young ideologues, establish a Red Guard, and turn them loose on society and have them liquidate the bourgeois elements themselves. That seems to work well, too.


I can just picture such a threatening group of warriors. A vast majority being 90 lbs., frail, and seething with impotent anger. :viking:

Berianidze
11-17-2006, 05:07 PM
I can just picture such a threatening group of warriors. A vast majority being 90 lbs., frail, and seething with impotent anger. :viking:
False; I'm picturing criminally insane ideologues seething with malignant narcissism taking out their anger on the public.

Dr. Gutberlet
11-17-2006, 05:50 PM
False; I'm picturing criminally insane ideologues seething with malignant narcissism taking out their anger on the public.

ROFLMAO! Who would be afraid of an army of Mazdaks?:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Hachiko
11-17-2006, 06:19 PM
ROFLMAO! Who would be afraid of an army of Mazdaks?:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
A cadre of Black prostitutes? :D

Leshrac
11-18-2006, 02:18 AM
I can just picture such a threatening group of warriors. A vast majority being 90 lbs., frail, and seething with impotent anger. :viking:

Then you'll have freak like me using intelligence instead of muscle power.

*whooops, who put 1Kg of RDX under their car ?!*

Order by force doesn't work, that's fact.

Daniel Shays
11-18-2006, 05:40 AM
because OMG WE CIVILIZED ?

[...]

I'm saying it again, you hate them because you are influenced by an uptight puritan background, nothing more. We finally have an average Dutch person here to get a glimpse into their depraved hyper-individualist mindset. I wonder if Leshrac can rationalize support for pedophilia and prostitution with similar vague allusions to nature and railings against uptightness. We haven't had anyone defend pedophilia as 'natural' since Eddy stopped posting here.
Order by force doesn't work, that's fact. Untrue. Order is the emanation of force.

Hachiko
11-18-2006, 11:51 AM
shanemac proposed sending all the fags to Antarctica. This has already sent forth a ripple of degeneracy amongst the natives of the region. :mad:
Leifr, you might want to cover your eyes for this one :eek:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2006-11-17-gay-penguins_x.htm?csp=34

Gay penguin book shakes up Illinois school Updated 11/17/2006 7:39 AM ET E-mail | Save | Print | Subscribe to stories like this



By Jim Suhr, Associated Press
SHILOH, Ill. — A picture book about two male penguins raising a baby penguin is getting a chilly reception among some parents who worry about the book's availability to children — and the reluctance of school administrators to restrict access to it.
The concerns are the latest involving And Tango Makes Three, the illustrated children's book based on a true story of two male penguins in New York City's Central Park Zoo that adopted a fertilized egg and raised the chick as their own.

Complaining about the book's homosexual undertones, some parents of Shiloh Elementary School students believe the book — available to be checked out of the school's library in this 11,000-resident town 20 miles east of St. Louis — tackles topics their children aren't ready to handle.

Their request: Move the book to the library's regular shelves and restrict it to a section for mature issues, perhaps even requiring parental permission before a child can check it out.

For now, And Tango Makes Three will stay put, said school district Superintendent Jennifer Filyaw, though a panel she appointed suggested the book be moved and require parental permission to be checked out. The district's attorney said moving it might be construed as censorship.

Filyaw considers the book "adorable" and age appropriate, written for children ages 4 to 8.

"My feeling is that a library is to serve an entire population," she said. "It means you represent different families in a society — different religions, different beliefs."

Lilly Del Pinto thought the book looked charming when her 5-year-old daughter brought it home in September. Del Pinto said she was halfway through reading it to her daughter "when the zookeeper said the two penguins must be in love."

"That's when I ended the story," she said.

Del Pinto said her daughter's teacher told her she was unfamiliar with the book, and the school's librarian directed the mother to Filyaw.

"I wasn't armed with pitchforks or anything. I innocently was seeking answers," Del Pinto said, agreeing with Filyaw's belief that pulling the book from the shelves could constitute censorship.

The book has created similar flaps elsewhere. Earlier this year, two parents voiced concerns about the book with librarians at the Rolling Hills' Consolidated Library's branch in the northwest Missouri town of Savannah.

Barbara Read, Rolling Hills' director, has said she consulted with staff members at the Omaha, and Kansas City zoos and the University of Oklahoma's zoology department, who told her adoptions aren't unusual in the world of penguins.

She said the book was then moved to the non-fiction section because it was based on actual events. In that section, she said, there was less of a chance that the book would "blindside" someone.

MrAngry
11-18-2006, 12:09 PM
shanemac proposed sending all the fags to Antarctica. This has already sent forth a ripple of degeneracy amongst the natives of the region. :mad:
Leifr, you might want to cover your eyes for this one :eek:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2006-11-17-gay-penguins_x.htm?csp=34

Gay penguin book shakes up Illinois school Updated 11/17/2006 7:39 AM ET E-mail | Save | Print | Subscribe to stories like this



By Jim Suhr, Associated Press
SHILOH, Ill. — A picture book about two male penguins raising a baby penguin is getting a chilly reception among some parents who worry about the book's availability to children — and the reluctance of school administrators to restrict access to it.
The concerns are the latest involving And Tango Makes Three, the illustrated children's book based on a true story of two male penguins in New York City's Central Park Zoo that adopted a fertilized egg and raised the chick as their own.

Complaining about the book's homosexual undertones, some parents of Shiloh Elementary School students believe the book — available to be checked out of the school's library in this 11,000-resident town 20 miles east of St. Louis — tackles topics their children aren't ready to handle.

Their request: Move the book to the library's regular shelves and restrict it to a section for mature issues, perhaps even requiring parental permission before a child can check it out.

For now, And Tango Makes Three will stay put, said school district Superintendent Jennifer Filyaw, though a panel she appointed suggested the book be moved and require parental permission to be checked out. The district's attorney said moving it might be construed as censorship.

Filyaw considers the book "adorable" and age appropriate, written for children ages 4 to 8.

"My feeling is that a library is to serve an entire population," she said. "It means you represent different families in a society — different religions, different beliefs."

Lilly Del Pinto thought the book looked charming when her 5-year-old daughter brought it home in September. Del Pinto said she was halfway through reading it to her daughter "when the zookeeper said the two penguins must be in love."

"That's when I ended the story," she said.

Del Pinto said her daughter's teacher told her she was unfamiliar with the book, and the school's librarian directed the mother to Filyaw.

"I wasn't armed with pitchforks or anything. I innocently was seeking answers," Del Pinto said, agreeing with Filyaw's belief that pulling the book from the shelves could constitute censorship.

The book has created similar flaps elsewhere. Earlier this year, two parents voiced concerns about the book with librarians at the Rolling Hills' Consolidated Library's branch in the northwest Missouri town of Savannah.

Barbara Read, Rolling Hills' director, has said she consulted with staff members at the Omaha, and Kansas City zoos and the University of Oklahoma's zoology department, who told her adoptions aren't unusual in the world of penguins.

She said the book was then moved to the non-fiction section because it was based on actual events. In that section, she said, there was less of a chance that the book would "blindside" someone.




I dont think homosexuals should be killed, given hard labour or discriminated agianst in any way, they tend to be nice people generally. However, I do agree that the celebrations and parades of being gay does irritate me. I think if there was a hetrosexual parade the PC brigade would be out in force.

:mad:

Hachiko
11-18-2006, 12:21 PM
I dont think homosexuals should be killed, given hard labour or discriminated agianst in any way, they tend to be nice people generally.
They do indeed tend to be nice people, and they always know where the best restaurants, but they are morally depraved by nature.
Doesn't matter much though, if Muslim aggression and mass immigration isn't curtailed soon (like within the next 50-odd years), the entire world will fall under Islamic law. So now, what exactly do you think will be the fate of the homos then? :)

MrAngry
11-18-2006, 12:28 PM
They do indeed tend to be nice people, and they always know where the best restaurants, but they are morally depraved by nature.
Doesn't matter much though, if Muslim aggression and mass immigration isn't curtailed soon (like within the next 50-odd years), the entire world will fall under Islamic law. So now, what exactly do you think will be the fate of the homos then? :)


So there are no muslim homosexuals? I dont see much evidence of mass genocide of muslim homosexuals unless you can show otherwise.

The majority of Muslims tend to be moderate, considered and tolerant people, why hold up the few fanatics as an example for the whole of Islam? There are christian fundamentalists too, one or two knocking about on this forum, does that mean all christians wear pointy white hats and burn crosses in backyards?:mad:

Ahknaton
11-18-2006, 12:41 PM
So there are no muslim homosexuals? I dont see much evidence of mass genocide of muslim homosexuals unless you can show otherwise.
Are you for real? Homosexuality carries the death penalty in Iran, Saudi Arabia and several other Muslim countries. Were you seriously unaware of this?
The majority of Muslims tend to be moderate, considered and tolerant people, why hold up the few fanatics as an example for the whole of Islam?
Because even if they are a minority, there are enough of them for them to cause problems if Muslims immigrate en masse into Western countries. Also, the "moderate" Muslims cover for them by overreacting to any criticism of Muslim fanatics as if it was an attack on all Muslims, so indirectly they are part of the problem too.
There are christian fundamentalists too, one or two knocking about on this forum, does that mean all christians wear pointy white hats and burn crosses in backyards?:mad:
Well, this is an exaggeration, but even if this were true, they are already living in our countries, so we can't do much about them. On the other hand, we can easily avoid having to deal with Muslim fanatics by stopping them from entering our countries in the first place. Just because there are already religious crazies in Western countries is no justification for inviting more in. Better the devil you know, etc..

Hachiko
11-18-2006, 12:42 PM
So there are no muslim homosexuals? I dont see much evidence of mass genocide of muslim homosexuals unless you can show otherwise.

Go to a predominantly Muslim country and out yourself. I'll use your obituary as proof in future debates along these lines. :D

MrAngry
11-18-2006, 12:54 PM
Are you for real? Homosexuality carries the death penalty in Iran, Saudi Arabia and several other Muslim countries. Were you seriously unaware of this?

Just one execution for this "crime" would result in a media frenzy, and in the last 41 years at least there hasnt been a single one, and in fact its anal sex, be it with females or males that carries the death penalty.

Because even if they are a minority, there are enough of them for them to cause problems if Muslims immigrate en masse into Western countries. Also, the "moderate" Muslims cover for them by overreacting to any criticism of Muslim fanatics as if it was an attack on all Muslims, so indirectly they are part of the problem too.

Because of the generalisations of people like yourself, all Muslims are treated as a potential terrorist, cast your mind back, were all the Irish treated as potential terrorists around the UKwhen the IRA were in full swing?

Well, this is an exaggeration, but even if this were true, they are already living in our countries, so we can't do much about them. On the other hand, we can easily avoid having to deal with Muslim fanatics by stopping them from entering our countries in the first place. Just because there are already religious crazies in Western countries is no justification for inviting more in. Better the devil you know, etc..

Just Muslim fanatics then? Or should that simply read fanatics? :mad:

MrAngry
11-18-2006, 12:55 PM
Go to a predominantly Muslim country and out yourself. I'll use your obituary as proof in future debates along these lines. :D

You go to South Africa and out yourself as a bigoted racist, and I'l go to Iraq and prance about in a tut tut with lipstick............. again :rofl:

Hachiko
11-18-2006, 01:05 PM
You go to South Africa and out yourself as a bigoted racist,
Why should I? I would get killed by senseless animals.
When have I ever said that South Africa is populated by anything other than such?

Ahknaton
11-18-2006, 01:16 PM
UK Muslim Cleric Defends Execution Of Homosexuals (http://sweetness-light.com/archive/uk-muslim-cleric-defends-execution-of-homosexuals)

ironweed
11-19-2006, 11:49 AM
There should be some sort of option for "other."

The best solution to this problem is a nice dose of hypocrisy, like in Victorian England or even Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell," albeit on a much wider scale. I would certainly support criminalizing homosexuality to the extent that we'd never hear another peep about faggot marriages or faggot pride parades or faggot laced sitcoms, but I'd be opposed to otherwise actively seeking them out. In sum, I'd return there activities to what they truly are: the grubby, nasty actions of the depraved lurking in highway men's rooms.

MrAngry
11-19-2006, 12:11 PM
There should be some sort of option for "other."

The best solution to this problem is a nice dose of hypocrisy, like in Victorian England or even Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell," albeit on a much wider scale. I would certainly support criminalizing homosexuality to the extent that we'd never hear another peep about faggot marriages or faggot pride parades or faggot laced sitcoms, but I'd be opposed to otherwise actively seeking them out. In sum, I'd return there activities to what they truly are: the grubby, nasty actions of the depraved lurking in highway men's rooms.


I actually agree with your post however I have edited it where the word are in bold.

:mad:
The best solution to this problem is a nice dose of hypocrisy, like in Victorian England or even Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell," albeit on a much wider scale. I would certainly support criminalizing racism to the extent that we'd never hear another peep about racist propaganda or racist pride parades or racist laced literature, but I'd be opposed to otherwise actively seeking them out. In sum, I'd return there activities to what they truly are: the grubby, nasty actions of the depraved lurking in darkened rooms

EvilRosebuds
02-09-2007, 11:45 AM
No, there is nothing "morally" wrong with homosexuals this is nature laws clashing with mans created laws.

Are you homosexual?

Dragonair
02-09-2007, 12:31 PM
No, I don't want to see Europe becoming Iran-like.

Steppenwolf
02-09-2007, 04:59 PM
No; they should accompany soldiers on their military campaigns and serve them when need be.

J Van Der Meyde
02-09-2007, 05:36 PM
People are too harsh on faggots IMO.

What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is no ones business.

That being said if my son turns into one I will kill him.

Helios Panoptes
02-10-2007, 01:03 AM
No; they should accompany soldiers on their military campaigns and serve them when need be.

Why not send female whores if need be?

Keystone
02-10-2007, 01:14 AM
No, because sexuality isn't what defines them even though it's part of their make-up.
This is the reasoning I hear all the time, and I still can't believe people use it.

They identify as homosexuals! They have homosexual, parades, homosexual theater, homosexual lobbyists lobbying for homosexual interests, homosexual days at Disneyworld and homosexual cruises to the Bahamas!

Am I missing something here?

Starr
02-10-2007, 02:41 AM
they celebrate their homosexuality and revel in the victim status that comes with it. They have been taught to see themselves as a special people who deserve special rights. If they do not view their homosexuality as an important part of who they are, they would not have parades or flaunt it to the world(this is also probably the result of their feminine flair for attention taken to an extreme degree) "I am here and I am queer",etc They would keep it behind closed doors.

Steppenwolf
02-10-2007, 09:43 AM
Why not send female whores if need be?
Yes, they should also be sent. However, I suspect that sexual acts with unwilling, submissive males will generate in soldiers more feeling of power.

Vasily Zaitsev
03-21-2007, 04:35 AM
http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/2961/ixazd4.jpg

Kim Jong Tha Illest
03-21-2007, 04:37 AM
You have given out too much reputation in the past 24 hours. Please try again later.

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
03-21-2007, 04:52 AM
Here's the question...why does he still have 14704 posts now and at the time of the screenshot...when the post was allegedly made 3 years ago?

If the post is accurate, it means it would have had to have been discovered in the last few weeks, as a few weeks ago, Ixa DID post. Otherwise its fake.
http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/

delete
03-21-2007, 05:03 AM
Here's the question...why does he still have 14704 posts now and at the time of the screenshot...when the post was allegedly made 3 years ago?

Because the html-code is generated from a database, and it shows the total number of posts, not the number of that particular post.

It is the same here on the phora.

Helios Panoptes
03-21-2007, 05:09 AM
Here's the question...why does he still have 14704 posts now and at the time of the screenshot...when the post was allegedly made 3 years ago?

For the same reason why if you find the first post I ever made with this account, you will see that I have over 5000 posts.

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
03-21-2007, 05:11 AM
But why NOW is it being discovered if its been there for so long?

I know how the forum works, but that is what I was hinting at. If you read my entire post, you should have got what I was hinting at.

Vasily Zaitsev
03-21-2007, 05:17 AM
But why NOW is it being discovered if its been there for so long?

I know how the forum works, but that is what I was hitting at. If you read my entire post, you should have got what I was hinting at.

A vast conspiracy, Kane.

"Oy ze persecution" isn't just for Jews.

Mike
03-21-2007, 06:08 AM
Forum pages are dynamically generated from a database, jackass. I normally wouldn't call anyone a "jackass" for not understanding this, but I gather your field is supposedly computers. I'd hire a Hindu if I wanted this sort of incompetence.

Double anti-kudos for obliquely suggesting VZ might be disingenuous wrt a sc. Not very likely.

Here's the question...why does he still have 14704 posts now and at the time of the screenshot...when the post was allegedly made 3 years ago?

If the post is accurate, it means it would have had to have been discovered in the last few weeks, as a few weeks ago, Ixa DID post. Otherwise its fake.
http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
03-21-2007, 06:11 AM
No.

You missed the point, you idiot. The point was why has the post been there for so long and it now has just been discovered? I understand if you found it now that's how it would look. WHY is it being found NOW?

I don't want to have to repeat myself again.

Mike
03-21-2007, 06:23 AM
No.

You missed the point, you idiot. The point was why has the post been there for so long and it now has just been discovered? I understand if you found it now that's how it would look. WHY is it being found NOW?

I don't want to have to repeat myself again.That's not you wrote. What you wrote is:

why does he still have 14704 posts now and at the time of the screenshot...when the post was allegedly made 3 years ago?Answer: Because the post totals displayed on forum pages are dynamically recalculated from the db.

Either that or: Speak English much?

When I think about you, sometimes I visualize you as being unique for being the only Down Syndrome sufferer in America in the field of computers.

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
03-21-2007, 06:24 AM
READ THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF MY FIRST POST
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=330278&postcount=182

Helios Panoptes
03-21-2007, 06:37 AM
No.

You missed the point, you idiot. The point was why has the post been there for so long and it now has just been discovered? I understand if you found it now that's how it would look. WHY is it being found NOW?

I don't want to have to repeat myself again.

What is alarming about this? Somebody probably searched Ixa's username for his comments on homosexuality and found this.

Spark, can you link to the thread?

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
03-21-2007, 06:40 AM
What is alarming about this?
i'm trying to give neo-galtonian the benefit of the doubt here. I see no link, and the source code could easily have been edited.

Look at what I did to Burrhus.
http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n273/austin2359/burhous.jpg
He didn't write that, I hacked it. The same thing could be done to neo-galtonian

Helios Panoptes
03-21-2007, 06:47 AM
This is flagrantly homosexual: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=69556

I'm sure the only reason it's still there is because Ix is banned from there and cannot remove it.

Zubenelgenubi
03-21-2007, 06:52 AM
Also: Why paedophilia is not bad (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=61837) (as Huzington)

also, in case of denial (http://soviet-empire.politicsforum.org/ussr/viewtopic.php?t=29450&sid=3f24e4992ed1e6d3e2da1033d6d2e492):
It is I, Ixabert, from PoliticsForum.org. A few people here may recognise me. I was formerly Huzington, but that account seems to have been deactivated.

Thanks to Vasily Zaitsev

Ahknaton
03-21-2007, 07:02 AM
To play Jugaloo's advocate here, God123123 is correct on this occasion.

If Ix posted recently, and the post count in the screen shot is the same as Ix's current post count, it implies that the screen shot was taken some time after Ix's most recent post.

Helios Panoptes
03-21-2007, 07:07 AM
It is difficult to tell when Ix last posted because I cannot view his profile. I cannot remember my PoFo name and pass.

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
03-21-2007, 07:09 AM
http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/search.php?search_author=Ixa

This should tell you that.

Here is his last post
http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1135970&highlight=&sid=3459cc769533c3b2580bab2902ba2af8#1135970

Helios Panoptes
03-21-2007, 07:14 AM
Right. So, quite a bit of time has elapsed since he last posted.

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
03-21-2007, 07:16 AM
Yes, a few weeks.

But even since he's last posted, if this was "discovered" the day after that, that still is a long time after 2004. It's just wierd. Maybe he posted it, I'm having trouble finding it.

Oblisk
03-21-2007, 08:06 AM
I'm going to explain everything here.

I was the one that took the screenshot. And yes, it is real. I will not be linking to the specific thread, as this will cause even more problems. A user with even the slightest computing skills will be able to find the thread, though.

I came across the post while I was searching for old PoFo threads, regarding the "I found Ixa's picture" thread on here. The post was certainly surprising. I took the screenshot for future reference, hiding the thread URL. Then I showed Spark (Who is the sole person on my AIM that is a member of Phora) the picture asking for his opinion. I asked him not to publicize that I was the one who took the screenshot if he were to post the picture here, since I wished to remain anonymous. He did make a thread about it (Without me being mentioned), only to have the thread deleted without reason.

Spark, aka Star can verify this.

I am sure Ixa is not what he says in the post, but I am curious as to why he posted in such style.




I have no quarrels with Ixa.

Jake Featherston
03-21-2007, 08:31 AM
Yes, they should also be sent. However, I suspect that sexual acts with unwilling, submissive males will generate in soldiers more feeling of power.

Probably, but also psychopathy, general derangement, and an amoral, sadistic, criminal-like mentality that will be lots of fun to deal with when they return. As if we didn't already have enough problems with returning vets. As if a goofball proposal like this deserved a serious reply....

Jake Featherston
03-21-2007, 08:34 AM
No.

You missed the point, you idiot. The point was why has the post been there for so long and it now has just been discovered? I understand if you found it now that's how it would look. WHY is it being found NOW?

I don't want to have to repeat myself again.

'Cause now is when somebody looked?

Jake Featherston
03-21-2007, 08:38 AM
This is flagrantly homosexual: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=69556

I'm sure the only reason it's still there is because Ix is banned from there and cannot remove it.

OKay, then. Ix is gay. That's kind of funny (not exactly a shocker, though).

EDIT: Of course, it is possible Ix was only pretending to lust after that young man. He lies an awful lot, and in ways that simply wouldn't occur to most poeple.

Oblisk
03-21-2007, 09:02 AM
OKay, then. Ix is gay. That's kind of funny (not exactly a shocker, though).

EDIT: Of course, it is possible Ix was only pretending to lust after that young man. He lies an awful lot, and in ways that simply wouldn't occur to most poeple.
Did you read my post in the previous page?


edit:
I'm going to explain everything here.

I was the one that took the screenshot. And yes, it is real. I will not be linking to the specific thread, as this will cause even more problems. A user with even the slightest computing skills will be able to find the thread, though.

I came across the post while I was searching for old PoFo threads, regarding the "I found Ixa's picture" thread on here. The post was certainly surprising. I took the screenshot for future reference, hiding the thread URL. Then I showed Spark (Who is the sole person on my AIM that is a member of Phora) the picture asking for his opinion. I asked him not to publicize that I was the one who took the screenshot if he were to post the picture here, since I wished to remain anonymous. He did make a thread about it (Without me being mentioned), only to have the thread deleted without reason.

Spark, aka Star can verify this.

I am sure Ixa is not what he says in the post, but I am curious as to why he posted in such style.




I have no quarrels with Ixa.

antibuddha
03-21-2007, 09:07 AM
He mostly likely simply gets off on the feeling of power that comes on the one hand from being able to manipulate people so effectively and have them guessing, particularly on a topic like pedophilia, and on the other, by the same token, feeling capable of out-debating people on a subject such as that as well when he chooses to. This could also possibly explain the apparently constantly changing political opinions judging from what I've seen, particularly his highly affected writing style, attraction towards controversial subjects, and generally pompous character. However, now I'm psychologizing and thus a crypto-jew so I shall stop.

SlagMaster
03-21-2007, 10:02 AM
How do you try to recruit Homosexuals? :confused:


Force Homo Activity on a child in the bath room of a bus station. Or other
typically vile actions they carry out to spread and instill their putrid
demeanor, to the vulnerable of society.

Ahknaton
03-21-2007, 11:05 AM
I don't have a positive attitude towards homosexuality in general, but in a certain sense promiscuous homosexual sex does not have certain moral strikes against it that heterosexual promiscuity has, such as abortions and unplanned children raised without fathers.

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
03-21-2007, 05:06 PM
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's not like that in real life and either was fooling around in the past or seriously changed the way he viewed the world.

I understand he posted some stuff on other forums but he isn't doing it now and he isn't doing it here and I'll assume its for one of the above reasons.

Berianidze
03-21-2007, 05:35 PM
I don't have a positive attitude towards homosexuality in general, but in a certain sense promiscuous homosexual sex does not have certain moral strikes against it that heterosexual promiscuity has, such as abortions and unplanned children raised without fathers.
I don't think the moral strikes against heterosexual promiscuity that give it certain grave consequences for society necessitates that we neglect the moral implications of homosexuality and the homosexual agenda. If anything, both should be addressed -- and the problems with heterosexual promiscuity, like the act of whoring oneself out, alongside with these implications (abortion used as a means of birth control, and fatherless children) should be addressed as real threats on social morale and material well-being... homosexuality (regardless of the fact that children are simply not involved - biologically anyway) has its own consequences on society and should definitely be addressed as well. I just don't think the moral situation of x implies a lesser concern for moral situation y. It's not exclusive.

Afrikaner
03-21-2007, 10:59 PM
No. As long as they don't engage in that filthy parade crap and keep their urges to themselves and their lovers, and of course stay away from children, they should be ignored. People wo have the urges but don't commit acts of sodomy should definately be left alone, but they're quite rare.

this how I feel mostly. I don't want them in the public eye at all. :mad:

Dodge Viper
03-21-2007, 11:28 PM
Lets not kill Homosexuals, just kill the perverted actions that seed the twisted desire.

Nyx
03-22-2007, 12:45 AM
Because the mental always creates the physical, homosexuality is physiognomatic of the homosexual. It is an outwardly visible deformity, clearly evident in the physiognomy and deportment of the homosexual. He is a thing of repulsion, physically malformed, like the cripple or the hunchback. He is incapable of walking straight. He continually walks bent over, like the cripple. He has minor physical anomalies on his face, for he is a sexually intermediate type and has both masculine and feminine facial features. However, unlike the onanist, the homosexual's disorder does not produce a sense of physical sickness; for he has a different original sin. In a civilised society, sexual inversion would be punishable by death. It is the greatest of all modern sins. It is not only harmful to the homosexual himself, but to the rest of society

delete
03-22-2007, 04:35 AM
Because the mental always creates the physical, homosexuality is physiognomatic of the homosexual. It is an outwardly visible deformity, clearly evident in the physiognomy and deportment of the homosexual. He is a thing of repulsion, physically malformed, like the cripple or the hunchback. He is incapable of walking straight. He continually walks bent over, like the cripple. He has minor physical anomalies on his face, for he is a sexually intermediate type and has both masculine and feminine facial features. However, unlike the onanist, the homosexual's disorder does not produce a sense of physical sickness; for he has a different original sin. In a civilised society, sexual inversion would be punishable by death. It is the greatest of all modern sins. It is not only harmful to the homosexual himself, but to the rest of society

Can we wait with the killing of homosexuals until after islam is killed?

I think homosexuals like Bruce Bawer and Hege Storhaug is a great help in the fight against Islam.

http://www.brucebawer.com/

http://www.rights.no/in_english/hrs_06.00_050401_101.htm