The Sanctuary
Ego => Bitch & Moan => Topic started by: Zero on October 07, 2014, 10:12:12 pm
-
Nothing better than smashing a fag's face in to make myself feel better. I mean, why on earth would you want to have sex with another man? It's just sick and morally wrong. How can you live with yourself knowing that God doesn't love you?
I think it's every homosexuals' duty to rape a Paki, drink drain cleaner, or just shoot themselves in the face, (preferably all 3). Scientists have already proven that fags share the same genes as child molesters, how fucked up is that? And the way the US media glamorizes these sodomites makes me fucking sick, i can't watch one show without some effeminate nob jockey showing his ugly face, trying to subliminally convert the masses with their gayness. As if it's normal to stick your dick up another man's arse, urgh!
There is clearly no room in this world for these sinful devil slatterns, they all must be exterminated, God willing.
-
Only man on man.
-
I never understood fags... what drives another male to want another males dick? It just sucks having to be forced to tolerate this stupid shit nowadays.
-
I never understood fags... what drives another male to want another males dick? It just sucks having to be forced to tolerate this stupid shit nowadays.
what drove you to make that post?
-
Needs more edge.
-
I never understood fags... what drives another male to want another males dick? It just sucks having to be forced to tolerate this stupid shit nowadays.
what drove you to make that post?
What do you mean, I've never liked them
-
I never understood fags... what drives another male to want another males dick? It just sucks having to be forced to tolerate this stupid shit nowadays.
what drove you to make that post?
What do you mean, I've never liked them
right. what drove you to that mind state?
-
It's 2014, guys. Gay bashing was decades ago.
-
It's 2014, guys. Gay bashing was decades ago.
(http://i.imgur.com/Lq45bxVs.png)
-
I never understood fags... what drives another male to want another males dick? It just sucks having to be forced to tolerate this stupid shit nowadays.
what drove you to make that post?
What do you mean, I've never liked them
right. what drove you to that mind state?
Fucking fags, they're the one's who made me hate them.
-
It's 2014, guys. Gay bashing was decades ago.
Unfortunately this decade is about gay pride and women empowerment.
-
Scientists have already proven that fags share the same genes as child molesters
Source?
It's 2014, guys. Gay bashing was decades ago.
Heh, this post reminds me of this post:
http://www.intosanctuary.com/index.php?topic=2511.msg30885#msg30885
-
Scientists have already proven that fags share the same genes as child molesters
Source?
It's 2014, guys. Gay bashing was decades ago.
Heh, this post reminds me of this post:
http://www.intosanctuary.com/index.php?topic=2511.msg30885#msg30885
;D
But seriously. Proponents of "traditional marriage" are often told they're "on the wrong side of history" these days, and I think that's fair. At least in first world western culture.
It'd be interesting to know which of these posters meant what they said. And more interesting to know why :)
-
I never understood fags... what drives another male to want another males dick? It just sucks having to be forced to tolerate this stupid shit nowadays.
what drove you to make that post?
What do you mean, I've never liked them
right. what drove you to that mind state?
Fucking fags, they're the one's who made me hate them.
so the existence of fags is what makes you hate them
much the same that the existence of another guy's cock makes fags love cock
neither of those make sense. you don't just 'hate' a thing without some sort of validation, and same with love.
in other words, men fuck other men and go on dates with other men and have intimate relationships with other men, just to piss you off.
-
Homophobes are solipsists. That's a new one.
I like it :tup:
-
Fags don't really bother me. If someone has a sick fetish like fucking another man, cornholing a donkey, or having sex with fat women.. that's their business. Just as long as they do it out of plain sight where I won't see it.
-
and when they say they're bothered by displays of heterosexuality in plain sight?
-
and when they say they're bothered by displays of heterosexuality in plain sight?
Why would they be bothered by something that's normal? ???
-
and when they say they're bothered by displays of heterosexuality in plain sight?
Why would they be bothered by something that's normal? ???
same reason you are ;D
-
I never understood fags... what drives another male to want another males dick? It just sucks having to be forced to tolerate this stupid shit nowadays.
what drove you to make that post?
What do you mean, I've never liked them
right. what drove you to that mind state?
Fucking fags, they're the one's who made me hate them.
so the existence of fags is what makes you hate them
much the same that the existence of another guy's cock makes fags love cock
neither of those make sense. you don't just 'hate' a thing without some sort of validation, and same with love.
in other words, men fuck other men and go on dates with other men and have intimate relationships with other men, just to piss you off.
Well it's more of how they carry themselves. They talk so much about wanting to fit in and equality yet they're flamboyant and always stick out in a crowd. I was on the bus and this gay dude gets on and he's dressed like a teen girl, and wearing headphones singing to himself and rocking his hips. I really don't want to see all of that...
-
I don't talk to fags. I don't care if they fuck other fags, but if they talk about it or are one of those flamboyant fucking she males I won't talk to you. Keep that shit to yourself, you tell me gay shit we won't talk again. Fags throw the word homophobic out there, I'm not fucking scared of you I just want nothing to do with you. You're a mentally I'll pervert.
-
Scientists have already proven that fags share the same genes as child molesters
Source?
I don't know about a genetic correlation but it appears to be true that paedophilic tendencies are more likely to be found amongst homosexuals relative to hetrosexuals1,2. The arguments that homosexual paedophilic behaviour is distinct from someone's adult sexuality are painful to listen to. One of these arguments, amongst others, it that as long as you don't identify as gay, you cannot be a gay paedophile regardless of how many underage sphincters you expand or molest; you are a paedophile who has a preference for boys3. This kind of semanticism along with attempts to distance homosexuality from other paraphilias, mainly by conveniently recategorizing them such that there is technically no such thing as a gay paedophile4,5 is used to brush under the carpet the fact that the significantly more diseased6,7,8 homosexual and bisexual community engages in more promiscuous sexual deviancy('liberal' sexual behaviours)9 than its hetrosexual counterpart, including but not limited to, same-sex paedophilia.
1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756
2) http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=is02e3
3) http://www.joekort.com/articles50.htm
4) http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-012-9900-3#
5) http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths#.UcEnhvlJOAh
6) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6893897
7) http://www.aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/statistics/
8 ) http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm
9) http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00926239708404418
-
and when they say they're bothered by displays of heterosexuality in plain sight?
Who gives a fuck? They are in the vast MINORITY, and already are proven to have their brains wired differently than normal folks or else they wouldn't have homosexual tendencies. That's like saying..."well what if a psychopath is bothered by clean necks that haven't been slit yet?" Again, who gives a fuck?
But seriously. Proponents of "traditional marriage" are often told they're "on the wrong side of history" these days, and I think that's fair. At least in first world western culture.
It'd be interesting to know which of these posters meant what they said. And more interesting to know why :)
Shut the fuck up already. People aren't often told that hippy trippy nonsense....its the gay agenda that runs around with nonsensical feel good rhetoric trying to justify their cause. Feigning the hubris of "culture evolution" just like you did above. No, normal people don't think that way....and sure as fuck don't make such comments publicly.
As for who "means what they say".....I wouldn't exactly describe my story as "gay bashing" since I didn't initiate the fisticuffs but I did beat the shit out of a queer back in high school. This guy was already a bit of a loner weirdo, back then he would have been described as a skater/punk....nowadays probably goth/emo. Word got out that he got caught giving head to some other dude, either at a party or in the bathroom or whatever.
This went on for months, and one day while classes were changing I was leaning against the lockers in the hallway talking to a friend when he walked by us after leaving the bathroom. It all must have been too much for him and he must have had a real bad day, because after I called him a "faggot" (which he probably heard a couple hundred times by now) he reached out with his left hand and grabbed me by the throat pinning me against the lockers. He then came at me with one of the sloppiest/laziest right hooks ever, and when I easily dodged that I proceeded to pound him repeatedly into the floor until a couple of teachers pulled me off of him.
Somehow one of my contact lens popped out in the fray and that is the only damage I took. Amusingly enough that was the first time I was ever charged by the police....receiving a disorderly conduct citation after they were called, along with getting a 3-day suspension from school.
Oddly enough and even a bit silly...when I did return to school after my suspension, I had a whole mess of some of the tougher black kids in school who never gave me any trouble or really paid me any mind at all treat me like I actually "did something". Some would walk by me and say "Sup Mr. Guru"....or start telling me how nice of a beatdown I gave the kid since they witnessed the altercation. I kinda thought the whole thing was absurd in my eyes, that somehow my "street cred" got inflated just for beating the shit out of a queer....since it wasn't even a real "fight" in the the traditional sense.
Too bad there was no WorldStarHipHop back then. :P
-
Nothing better than smashing a fag's face in to make myself feel better. I mean, why on earth would you want to have sex with another man? It's just sick and morally wrong. How can you live with yourself knowing that God doesn't love you?
I think it's every homosexuals' duty to rape a Paki, drink drain cleaner, or just shoot themselves in the face, (preferably all 3). Scientists have already proven that fags share the same genes as child molesters, how fucked up is that? And the way the US media glamorizes these sodomites makes me fucking sick, i can't watch one show without some effeminate nob jockey showing his ugly face, trying to subliminally convert the masses with their gayness. As if it's normal to stick your dick up another man's arse, urgh!
There is clearly no room in this world for these sinful devil slatterns, they all must be exterminated, God willing.
Come see me in Amsterdam then, faggot.
-
and when they say they're bothered by displays of heterosexuality in plain sight?
Who gives a fuck? They are in the vast MINORITY, and already are proven to have their brains wired differently than normal folks or else they wouldn't have homosexual tendencies. That's like saying..."well what if a psychopath is bothered by clean necks that haven't been slit yet?" Again, who gives a fuck?
But seriously. Proponents of "traditional marriage" are often told they're "on the wrong side of history" these days, and I think that's fair. At least in first world western culture.
It'd be interesting to know which of these posters meant what they said. And more interesting to know why :)
Shut the fuck up already. People aren't often told that hippy trippy nonsense....its the gay agenda that runs around with nonsensical feel good rhetoric trying to justify their cause. Feigning the hubris of "culture evolution" just like you did above. No, normal people don't think that way....and sure as fuck don't make such comments publicly.
As for who "means what they say".....I wouldn't exactly describe my story as "gay bashing" since I didn't initiate the fisticuffs but I did beat the shit out of a queer back in high school. This guy was already a bit of a loner weirdo, back then he would have been described as a skater/punk....nowadays probably goth/emo. Word got out that he got caught giving head to some other dude, either at a party or in the bathroom or whatever.
This went on for months, and one day while classes were changing I was leaning against the lockers in the hallway talking to a friend when he walked by us after leaving the bathroom. It all must have been too much for him and he must have had a real bad day, because after I called him a "faggot" (which he probably heard a couple hundred times by now) he reached out with his left hand and grabbed me by the throat pinning me against the lockers. He then came at me with one of the sloppiest/laziest right hooks ever, and when I easily dodged that I proceeded to pound him repeatedly into the floor until a couple of teachers pulled me off of him.
Somehow one of my contact lens popped out in the fray and that is the only damage I took. Amusingly enough that was the first time I was ever charged by the police....receiving a disorderly conduct citation after they were called, along with getting a 3-day suspension from school.
Oddly enough and even a bit silly...when I did return to school after my suspension, I had a whole mess of some of the tougher black kids in school who never gave me any trouble or really paid me any mind at all treat me like I actually "did something". Some would walk by me and say "Sup Mr. Guru"....or start telling me how nice of a beatdown I gave the kid since they witnessed the altercation. I kinda thought the whole thing was absurd in my eyes, that somehow my "street cred" got inflated just for beating the shit out of a queer....since it wasn't even a real "fight" in the the traditional sense.
Too bad there was no WorldStarHipHop back then. :P
Well that wasn't very nice, now was it? Hopefully you don't call people fags anymore. We all made unfortunate mistakes in high school, but at some point you cross the line into "asshole" territory.
-
you cross the line into "asshole" territory.
But...but, don't faggots think assholes are a good thing?
-
But seriously. Proponents of "traditional marriage" are often told they're "on the wrong side of history" these days, and I think that's fair. At least in first world western culture.
It'd be interesting to know which of these posters meant what they said. And more interesting to know why :)
The sanctity of marriage was long ago raped by the divorce rate in America well before the zionist backed LGBT agenda got their mitts on it.
That being said, I generally have no problems with pyscho-sexually defunct people as long as they keep it all behind closed doors. One should still have reasonable expectations to do what they do in the privacy of their own home. I went to highschool with this guy that came out of the closet to me; saying he believed he was a girl trapped in a guys body. First words out of my mouth were "Don't hit on me, and we're cool." I told him it didn't really change the way I perceived him because I knew he was a pretty chill person.
Truth be told I could always tell there was something off bout him, but I could never put my finger on it, like he could either be gay or the next columbine orchestrator, so him coming out as a nancy was a tad comforting knowing why he was so odd, as opposed to wondering what he's hiding underneath that trench coat.
-
you cross the line into "asshole" territory.
Butt...butt, don't faggots think assholes are a good thing?
FTFY, faggot.
-
and when they say they're bothered by displays of heterosexuality in plain sight?
Who gives a fuck? They are in the vast MINORITY, and already are proven to have their brains wired differently than normal folks or else they wouldn't have homosexual tendencies. That's like saying..."well what if a psychopath is bothered by clean necks that haven't been slit yet?" Again, who gives a fuck?
Funny to head a pedophile taking shit on gays. The "weirdly differently than normal" argument is stupid. Left handed people's brains are "wired differently" but that doesn't mean we should go out of our way to reduce the number of things than can be operated equally well with either hand dominance.
-
FTFY, faggot.
:tup:
-
Well that wasn't very nice, now was it? Hopefully you don't call people fags anymore. We all made unfortunate mistakes in high school, but at some point you cross the line into "asshole" territory.
You are right, it wasn't very nice of him to put his hands on another human being all over some meager words....and hopefully he learned his lesson that day. You'll be happy to know I didn't hold a grudge however, as years later he used to run with a crew that managed to sell some pretty decent acid and I didn't let his past transgressions get in the way of our business deal.
Funny to head a pedophile taking shit on gays. The "weirdly differently than normal" argument is stupid. Left handed people's brains are "wired differently" but that doesn't mean we should go out of our way to reduce the number of things than can be operated equally well with either hand dominance.
Good ole Lanny, talking about adult sexuality....and YET AGAIN his deviant mind goes right to kid fucking. :'(
In regards to your left-handed drivel as a comparision....its funny how there are a lot more lefties than queers in the world, but we don't turn the rest of the world upside to accommodate their needs in some absurd pursuit of "equality". Go ahead, go to any sports store and see how many lefty golf clubs or baseball gloves there are in regard to lefties vs righties. How about just finding a spiral notebook to write in? How about the configuration of desks or using simple office tools like a mouse?
Funny, as inconvenient as we make the world for left handed people....you never hear them soapbox and whine nearly as much as gay folks do. They just DEAL with life and go on their merry way without whining, crying and trying to change the world...all for their own selfish gain.
As usual Lanny, your empty rhetoric is just nonsensical feel good silliness....and has little to no practical applications in the REAL world.
-
You are right, it wasn't very nice of him to put his hands on another human being all over some meager words....and hopefully he learned his lesson that day. You'll be happy to know I didn't hold a grudge however, as years later he used to run with a crew that managed to sell some pretty decent acid and I didn't let his past transgressions get in the way of our business deal.
You're a real class act, DaGuru :D
EDIT: man my phone sucks at Sancutary
-
Good ole Lanny, talking about adult sexuality....and YET AGAIN his deviant mind goes right to kid fucking. :'(
stay mad pedo
In regards to your left-handed drivel as a comparision....its funny how there are a lot more lefties than queers in the world, but we don't turn the rest of the world upside to accommodate their needs in some absurd pursuit of "equality". Go ahead, go to any sports store and see how many lefty golf clubs or baseball gloves there are in regard to lefties vs righties. How about just finding a spiral notebook to write in? How about the configuration of desks or using simple office tools like a mouse?
You've completely changed the analogy though. I was responding to someone who wanted gays not to do anything to let people know they're gay in public (in the same way heterosexual couples let their orientation be known without anyone caring or even noticing). So the analogy would be actively working to diminish left handed people's ability to participate in society (by taking normally operable things and rendering them inoperable to left handed people). No one is talking about "turning the world upside down", I'm taking about the right of a person to express their sexuallity in non destructive ways (a right afforded to heterosexuals).
Funny, as inconvenient as we make the world for left handed people....you never hear them soapbox and whine nearly as much as gay folks do. They just DEAL with life and go on their merry way without whining, crying and trying to change the world...all for their own selfish gain.
DaGuru making fun of someone for getting up on a soapbox. Lol.
-
___
-
I don't think being denied the right to get married or to make health decisions for a loved one is the same as not having a lefty glove.
These days there's not much difference
-
You've completely changed the analogy though. I was responding to someone who wanted gays not to do anything to let people know they're gay in public (in the same way heterosexual couples let their orientation be known without anyone caring or even noticing). So the analogy would be actively working to diminish left handed people's ability to participate in society (by taking normally operable things and rendering them inoperable to left handed people). No one is talking about "turning the world upside down", I'm taking about the right of a person to express their sexuallity in non destructive ways (a right afforded to heterosexuals).
You are such a fuckin idiot Lanny, its YOU that changed the conversation into...."Herp Derp, left handed operating things equally well"...and because I blew even THAT nonsensical argument out of the water you want to go back to "participating in society".
I realize someone as spoiled and selfish so stuck into YOUR agenda can't think outside of your own condition for 5 minutes...but the fact is there are loads and loads of behaviors/standards normal heterosexual people have to adhere to that they may not like or be against if they want to "fit into" society without being an outcast or pariah. Queers don't have some monopoly on the ideology..."but I WANT that"...the difference being they whine and complain and really believe the world SHOULD be turned upside down for them.
Personally I'd love to smoke a joint on a park bench all the while not bothering else, but I can't. I'd also like to be able to cuss like a sailor wherever I go in public...and not have prudish people get so uptight over my personal choice of verbiage...but I can't. I'd love to be able to walk into a job interview in a hoodie and shorts instead of wearing some bullshit suit and tie monkey outift that has the same exact look and functionality as the Victorian Era....but I can't. These are ALL outwards behaviors/self expressions that go against mainstream standards and acceptance, and as someone that still needs to coexist in a society with some BASIC set of rules....I just grin and bear it because that is the logical, sane, common sense approach.
Its called maturity and environmental awareness....and its funny that so many queers refuse to adopt that easily understood simple life lesson, and cry like little bitches.
-
I'll respond to you if you can make an argument instead of call me names and appeal to common sense.
I don't think being denied the right to get married or to make health decisions for a loved one is the same as not having a lefty glove.
Who are you responding to? If it's me then I'm not arguing for left handed rights, my point is that non-majority brain structure is not a basis for denying someone rights (because we don't deny left handed people rights due to their non-majority brain structure).
-
I'll respond to you if you can make an argument instead of call me names .
Says the guy who calls every one of his enemies "pedo" because he's such a spastic and emotional wreck and can't help lashing out like a petulant little child. What's the matter Lanny, you got a glass jaw? You can give a punch but can't take one? ELL OH FUCKIN ELL @ yet ANOTHER "special set" of rules this little turdling wants to play by.
-
There's nothing wrong with being gay or wanting to marry someone you love. I have absolutely no problem with anyone wanting to do that. I'm of the opinion that go forth and God bless. However, DaGuru also echoed a lot of the sentiments I have. I just find it bizarre that just because some people are gay, they feel they must act a particular way that coincides with their sexual desires.
-
I'll respond to you if you can make an argument instead of call me names .
Says the guy who calls every one of his enemies "pedo" because he's such a spastic and emotional wreck and can't help lashing out like a petulant little child. What's the matter Lanny, you got a glass jaw? You can give a punch but can't take one? ELL OH FUCKIN ELL @ yet ANOTHER "special set" of rules this little turdling wants to play by.
Nice non-argument you've got there mate
-
___
-
Yeah
Quit shoving that gay shit up my arse hole. The gays are just a failed science experiment
Let them all die
-
Yeah
Quit shoving that gay shit up my arse hole. The gays are just a failed science experiment
Let them all die
(http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/scale_small/1/12070/378345-edgeville.png)
-
Goddamn some of you must be fucking idiots if you aren't trolling. :facepalm:
-
Gays are vile and depraved for preferring to rub their genitalia vigorously against the inside of another man's excretory organs, and using this friction to achieve sexual stimulation. Not much else needs to be said.
-
Gays are vile and depraved for preferring to rub their genitalia vigorously against the inside of another man's excretory organs, and using this friction to achieve sexual stimulation. Not much else needs to be said.
because heterosexual anal sex totally isn't a thing...
-
because heterosexual anal sex totally isn't a thing...
quit 'moving the goalposts' Lanny
another man's
-
it becomes "depraved" when it's with a man because...?
-
Every needs to excuse Lanny for his confusion....he spent so many years pretending to be a girl and has such comfort switching between male and female roles, he now can't even tell the anatomical differences apart. ;D
-
suck my fat dick you disgusting pedophile. At least fags don't try to force themselves on children you sick fuck
-
suck my fat dick you disgusting pedophile. At least fags don't try to force themselves on children you sick fuck
Poor Lanny, loses yet another argument and made to look the fool....he goes right back to his techy toys to vent, like a frustrated infant shaking his rattle because no one will change his soiled diaper.
-
stay mad pedophile, every moment you waste responding to me just just one moment closer to the grave and maybe a child I've saved from your deranged immoral and disgusting clutches
-
stay mad pedophile, every moment you waste responding to me just just one moment closer to the grave and maybe a child I've saved from your deranged immoral and disgusting clutches
*yawn*
Same repetitive predictable spamming with his nerd toys. All because the sad little bitch fails in Biology 101, and is desperate to the get the last word in.
-
it becomes "depraved" when it's with a man because...?
Because, as a man, I am not wired to understand what makes men attractive sexually. So, when men are sexually gratifying themselves with other men, it is 'depraved', 'wrong', 'sick', 'unhealthy', or any number of other adjectives that I can come up with to describe something out of the ordinary and taboo at the same time.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
Gee, who here does something that a large percentage of the population would consider 'depraved', 'wrong', 'sick', or 'unhealthy'? :rolleyes:
-
Gee, who here does something that a large percentage of the population would consider 'depraved', 'wrong', 'sick', or 'unhealthy'? :rolleyes:
faggots?
-
Gee, who here does something that a large percentage of the population would consider 'depraved', 'wrong', 'sick', or 'unhealthy'? :rolleyes:
faggots?
Seeing as you've admitted to recreational drug use, you're on the same level.
-
Seeing as you've admitted to recreational drug use, you're on the same level.
LOL! First Lanny doesn't understand the difference between having sexual relations with mature adults vs. having sexual relations with actual children. Now he equates someone putting chemicals in their own body on the same level as man-on-man sex. Exactly what color is the sky above the planet you are from, anyhow? What a confused, backwards weirdo.....
InB4 Lanny plays with his techy toys again. 8)
-
your rage sustains me pedo faggot
-
Seeing as you've admitted to recreational drug use, you're on the same level.
I will never be on the same level as faggots who dip their genitals into other males' cloaca
-
right, because you're already far worse
-
How am I far worse? I am a monogamous heterosexual, so I am already far more human than two legged beasts who use their genitals in all sorts of hedonistic, impulsive ways. Most faggots cannot even stay faithful to one partner, they cannot control their own sexual impulses, so they are animals, not people.
-
How am I far worse?
Well you're a fucking idiot for one.
-
Well you're a fucking idiot for one.
go on.....
-
Well, in addition to being an idiot you don't seem to realize that disqualifies you from feeling superior to people who aren't hurting anyone against their will. Like if you were just dumb and realized that, that's OK I guess, but you go from being an idiot to moralizing on the basis of being an idiot
-
Well, in addition to being an idiot you don't seem to realize that disqualifies you from feeling superior to people who aren't hurting anyone against their will. Like if you were just dumb and realized that, that's OK I guess, but you go from being an idiot to moralizing on the basis of being an idiot
I am not saying I am superior to anyone. Not even animals, which is what faggots basically are.
-
Seeing as you've admitted to recreational drug use, you're on the same level.
I will never be on the same level as faggots who dip their genitals into other males' cloaca
-
Seeing as you've admitted to recreational drug use, you're on the same level.
I will never be on the same level as faggots who dip their genitals into other males' cloaca
Just because defiling oneself and others when one should be civilized enough to know better is on a different 'level' than recreational drug use, does not in any way imply 'superiority'. Culpability in acts of perversion and taboo practices is another story.
-
I'm pro gay. :tup:
-
I'm pro gay. :tup:
I really honestly do not give a fuck what people do, but I know that faggotry is wrong. Now, lesbians, that is another story.
:cosby:
-
I'm pro gay. :tup:
I really honestly do not give a fuck what people do, but I know that faggotry is wrong. Now, lesbians, that is another story.
:cosby:
Are you being serious? Why would one be okay, but not the other?
-
Imagine the tip of a penis touching your upper lip and a single drop of pre-cum flows into your mouth all the way to the back and makes you gag a little bit.
-
Are you being serious? Why would one be okay, but not the other?
Just because I am sexually aroused by women entwined in wet lust and exploring each others bodies, does not mean that I will ever get a chance to express my 'sexual preference' in real life (well, I could hire some prostitutes). I can control my sexual urges, and when I am in a relationship, I am monogamous. I may like lesbians, but I do not go out and hire whores to express my 'sexual identity'.
And yes, I am very much implying that faggots are incapable of being monogamous. Show me a monogamous faggot, and I will show you a pair of AIDS patients that hooked up because they are both immune.
They are also incapable of controlling their sexual urges...just because one is 'gay' does not mean one has to go out and act on their 'sexual preference'.
-
Are you being serious? Why would one be okay, but not the other?
Just because I am sexually aroused by women entwined in wet lust and exploring each others bodies, does not mean that I will ever get a chance to express my 'sexual preference' in real life (well, I could hire some prostitutes). I can control my sexual urges, and when I am in a relationship, I am monogamous. I may like lesbians, but I do not go out and hire whores to express my 'sexual identity'.
And yes, I am very much implying that faggots are incapable of being monogamous. Show me a monogamous faggot, and I will show you a pair of AIDS patients that hooked up because they are both immune.
While obviously false that homosexuals can't have monogamous relationships, it's unclear how being in a non-monogamous relationship is indicative of a lack of impulse control. Consider this study:
http://ftfhalland.se/filer/MongamyArticlePublished.pdf
That not only finds monogamous and faithful gay couples exist, but also that there's no evidence that open gay relationships are damaged by non-monogamy.
They are also incapable of controlling their sexual urges...just because one is 'gay' does not mean one has to go out and act on their 'sexual preference'.
Just because you're straight doesn't mean you have to go out and act on it, and yet you do and presumably you don't expect to be criticized for it.
-
Are you being serious? Why would one be okay, but not the other?
Just because I am sexually aroused by women entwined in wet lust and exploring each others bodies, does not mean that I will ever get a chance to express my 'sexual preference' in real life (well, I could hire some prostitutes). I can control my sexual urges, and when I am in a relationship, I am monogamous. I may like lesbians, but I do not go out and hire whores to express my 'sexual identity'.
And yes, I am very much implying that faggots are incapable of being monogamous. Show me a monogamous faggot, and I will show you a pair of AIDS patients that hooked up because they are both immune.
They are also incapable of controlling their sexual urges...just because one is 'gay' does not mean one has to go out and act on their 'sexual preference'.
"Liking lesbians" can't really be compared to exclusively being attracted to one sex over the other. And you still never reconciled your double standard. If it's wrong for men to have sex with each other, wouldn't lesbianism be wrong too? I guess maybe you're saying that it's wrong because they're incapable of monogamy, but that's an unfounded (and untrue) generalization.
But yeah you're totally getting fetish and sexual preference confused.
-
"obviously false that homosexuals can't have monogamous relationships"
:jerkoff:
-
nice scientific denialism there m8
-
nice scientific denialism there m8
Now faggotry is 'scientific'. There is 'scientific evidence' that it is ok. Get the fuck outta here, you gotta be kidding me.
I am sure there are a tiny minority, maybe like 1%, of 'gays' that are monogamous. Just enough that you can dredge one up and dust it off as an example to 'prove' that multiple sexual partners is not the norm in the 'gay' 'community'.
-
maybe like 1%, of 'gays' that are monogamous.
Nice claim, now can you back it up? And you still haven't addressed the fact that you can't make a jump from a descriptive claim about monogamy in homosexual populations to a normative claim about the permissibility of homosexuality.
-
GOD HATES FAGS
-
you can't make a jump from a descriptive claim about monogamy in homosexual populations to a normative claim about the permissibility of homosexuality.
I did, though. It relates to being able to control ones' sexual urges, which monogamy is a perfect example of. If one cannot control oneself, I consider that type of action to be on the wrong end of the morality scale.
-
I did, though. It relates to being able to control ones' sexual urges, which monogamy is a perfect example of. If one cannot control oneself, I consider that type of action to be on the wrong end of the morality scale.
Monogamy is not the only possible display of impulse control nor is the absence of the former evidence for absence of the latter. If you want to claim that's the case then you have to show that.
Also you haven't come up with evidence for your 1% figure.
-
Monogamy is not the only possible display of impulse control nor is the absence of the former evidence for absence of the latter. If you want to claim that's the case then you have to show that.
Also you haven't come up with evidence for your 1% figure.
I am sorry, the results of my sociological research study on monogamy in the faggot community is not yet complete, so you will have to wait on the results of that, for, like, well, like forever.
Split hairs all you want, you know what I am saying is true. All of humanity knows it is true. That is why it is an insult to call someone a 'faggot' etc. No one calls people 'lesbians' or 'dykes' to insult them, because everyone knows that shit is fucking awesome. Except for like eileen wuornos-type lesbians, those are unacceptible as well.
-
So what you're saying is that you have no solid evidence? And that you're "derp fags r bad" position is just a faith claim? Well I can't say it surprises me.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/0yKc9.gif)
-
So what you're saying is that you have no solid evidence? And that you're "derp fags r bad" position is just a faith claim? Well I can't say it surprises me.
I could probably dredge up more than one link that supports my position, but I never do that in an argument. If one has to pull up links to back up what they are saying then they have already lost the argument.
I could probably find a link that says sasquatch is real or that the tooth fairy exists, what the fuck good does a link do? If someone reading this wants to look it up for themselves, what is stopping them? You know as well as I do that most gays are not monogamous, you just want to play splitting hairs games where you will claim victory if I cannot find 'evidence' online that only 1% , and exactly 1%, of gays are monogamous.
-
I could probably dredge up more than one link that supports my position, but I never do that in an argument. If one has to pull up links to back up what they are saying then they have already lost the argument.
"As soon as you have to present evidence you've lost the argument"
lol
You know as well as I do that most gays are not monogamous, you just want to play splitting hairs games where you will claim victory if I cannot find 'evidence' online that only 1% , and exactly 1%, of gays are monogamous.
No, it could be true or it could not be, I don't know. Since I'm not fucking retarded I'm going to base my judgment on evidence once I have it.
-
"As soon as you have to present evidence you've lost the argument"
lol
As soon as I present evidence you will resort to attacking the validity of the evidence. I know how arguing works, and I really don't feel like sparring with you over the subject of why faggotry is wrong. It will go nowhere because the best minds in the world have not solved the problem of rampant faggotry, so how are we going to here in a forum?
-
As soon as I present evidence you will resort to attacking the validity of the evidence. I know how arguing works, and I really don't feel like sparring with you over the subject of why faggotry is wrong.
"I'm afraid my evidence is so shitty that it'll trivially knocked over". If your evidence is invalid then of course I'm going to point that out. If it isn't then fine, I'll accept it. You're so afraid you might be wrong you won't even try, that's the only example of degeneracy here.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/0yKc9.gif)
You are one disturbed individual, you know that?
-
"I'm afraid my evidence is so shitty that it'll trivially knocked over". If your evidence is invalid then of course I'm going to point that out. If it isn't then fine, I'll accept it. You're so afraid you might be wrong you won't even try, that's the only example of degeneracy here.
Nah, I am just lazy. Why don't you come up with links to prove me wrong, instead? I really could give a shit either way. Anyone reading this can go find out for themselves, so, like, whatever, man.
-
Why don't you come up with links to prove me wrong, instead?
Because you're the one making a positive claim, so the burden of proof is on you to defend it.
-
Because you're the one making a positive claim, so the burden of proof is on you to defend it.
Its your burden not mine. You are the only one demanding that I come up with 'citations' and that I 'prove' minor parts of my statements as if you are attempting to dismantle my argument or something. Even if you do 'win by technicality', it doesn't make you 'right' in the grand scheme of things.
-
Its your burden not mine.
No, see Russell's Teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot)
-
No, see Russell's Teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot)
My claim is not nearly as outlandish as a teapot floating in space
-
The the point is the same, you're making the claim so the burden is on you to defend it.
Consider if I claimed that gays make better parents: they are less likely to abuse their children, tend to be more affluent, tend to live in areas with better public education, etc... and then said "now prove me wrong". That's not how it works, I could just drown you in a deluge of difficult to disprove claims.
The burden is clearly on the person making the claim.
-
:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
:facepalm::facepalm:
:facepalm:
:facepalm::facepalm:
:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
-
went out to eat and saw a dude kiss a dude this evening. now I feel bad about all of my vomit that some poor busboy is gonna have to mop up.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/0yKc9.gif)
You are one disturbed individual, you know that?
I think I'm the sanest person I know. :suspect:
-
By 2013 the researchers project that the total population of HIV-positive people attending NHS services will reach 78,370 and that in 2013 HIV treatment and care services will cost between £720 million and £758 million. But this would increase to as much as £1,065 million when the cost of social and community care was included.
Source. (http://mobile.aidsmap.com/Annual-UK-HIV-treatment-and-care-costs-could-reach-750-million-by-2013/page/1618137)
Also, the number of new cases of HIV has actually fallen, however, a cause for concern is the increase in the number of new cases among men who have sex with men, and now accounts for approximately 50% of all new cases of HIV.
Source. (http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/11November/Pages/HIV-in-gay-men-at-record-high.aspx)
It's just as well hair stylists are worth their weight in gold.
-
HOLY SHIETTT
-
Love always wins in the end :)
-
Love always wins in the end :)
You mean lust
-
Love always wins in the end :)
*cuts jugular vein*
-
Love always wins in the end :)
You mean lust
I said what I meant :mad:
-
I said what I meant :mad:
No, I said what you meant
-
(http://i.imgur.com/zeDV0ue.jpg)
-
By 2013 the researchers project that the total population of HIV-positive people attending NHS services will reach 78,370 and that in 2013 HIV treatment and care services will cost between £720 million and £758 million. But this would increase to as much as £1,065 million when the cost of social and community care was included.
Source. (http://mobile.aidsmap.com/Annual-UK-HIV-treatment-and-care-costs-could-reach-750-million-by-2013/page/1618137)
Also, the number of new cases of HIV has actually fallen, however, a cause for concern is the increase in the number of new cases among men who have sex with men, and now accounts for approximately 50% of all new cases of HIV.
Source. (http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/11November/Pages/HIV-in-gay-men-at-record-high.aspx)
It's just as well hair stylists are worth their weight in gold.
Love always wins in the end :)
There's something that for a while has irked me slightly about the way you post, Equanimity.
I know several people have claimed you're Zek. I had no dealings with Zek back in the day so I'm not in a position to comment directly on his post style or identity. So far I've resisted passing any comment at all on the matter. However you do have this habit of typing material that sounds like it's been written by a man trying to understand how a teenage girl thinks and would therefore type. The result frequently being some grotesque parody of femininity; the vacuous and brain-dead kind of 'Barbie logic' you'd might expect to find on the Disney channel.
Which brings us back to the accusations of being Zek, a person allegedly trapped in a gender twilight zone. Maybe I'm way off the mark and you're just a women with an unfortunate habit of posting trite and saccharine nonsense.
Or maybe that's just how Sausage Barbie rolls?
-
There's something that for a while has irked me slightly about the way you post, Equanimity.
I know several people have claimed you're Zek. I had no dealings with Zek back in the day so I'm not in a position to comment directly on his post style or identity. So far I've resisted passing any comment at all on the matter. However you do have this habit of typing material that sounds like it's been written by a man trying to understand how a teenage girl thinks and would therefore type. The result frequently being some grotesque parody of femininity; the vacuous and brain-dead kind of 'Barbie logic' you'd might expect to find on the Disney channel.
Which brings us back to the accusations of being Zek, a person allegedly trapped in a gender twilight zone. Maybe I'm way off the mark and you're just a women with an unfortunate habit of posting trite and saccharine nonsense.
Or maybe that's just how Sausage Barbie rolls?
Hah pure gold
-
There's something that for a while has irked me slightly about the way you post, Equanimity.
I know several people have claimed you're Zek. I had no dealings with Zek back in the day so I'm not in a position to comment directly on his post style or identity. So far I've resisted passing any comment at all on the matter. However you do have this habit of typing material that sounds like it's been written by a man trying to understand how a teenage girl thinks and would therefore type. The result frequently being some grotesque parody of femininity; the vacuous and brain-dead kind of 'Barbie logic' you'd might expect to find on the Disney channel.
Which brings us back to the accusations of being Zek, a person allegedly trapped in a gender twilight zone. Maybe I'm way off the mark and you're just a women with an unfortunate habit of posting trite and saccharine nonsense.
Or maybe that's just how Sausage Barbie rolls?
Hope you're not too annoyed. "Gay bashing" and homophobia in general is ridiculous subject matter, at least as it's being presented here. To me the obvious "answer" in this mess of trolls and unfortunate ignorance is that it's just fine to love who you will. And when I say love always wins in the end? It's true.
As much as we pretend otherwise, it's human nature for love to win out over delusion and hate. Much as interracial love was once taboo and is now largely celebrated the world over, homosexual and even polygamous or open love will eventually be accepted as normal and the homophobes will go down in history as the misguided bad guys. You can't stand up against natural human love and expect to win. The most you'll do is prolong the inevitable.
If believing and trusting in love is trite, then I'll be your unapologetic cliché ;)
-
Maybe I'm way off the mark
Nope.....like a special ops sniper you hit your mark right between the eyes with deadly accuracy. Confirmed kill ;)
-
Hope you're not too annoyed. "Gay bashing" and homophobia in general is ridiculous subject matter, at least as it's being presented here. To me the obvious "answer" in this mess of trolls and unfortunate ignorance is that it's just fine to love who you will. And when I say love always wins in the end? It's true.
As much as we pretend otherwise, it's human nature for love to win out over delusion and hate. Much as interracial love was once taboo and is now largely celebrated the world over, homosexual and even polygamous or open love will eventually be accepted as normal and the homophobes will go down in history as the misguided bad guys. You can't stand up against natural human love and expect to win. The most you'll do is prolong the inevitable.
If believing and trusting in love is trite, then I'll be your unapologetic cliché ;)
Hey MISTER moderator....save us the hippy trippy feel good rhetoric that has ZERO practical application in the real world...and go do your fuckin job. Scroll back and witness there is still PI in this thread....remove it, or else further the notion of how utterly useless and incompetent you are in your position.
-
Hope you're not too annoyed. "Gay bashing" and homophobia in general is ridiculous subject matter, at least as it's being presented here. To me the obvious "answer" in this mess of trolls and unfortunate ignorance is that it's just fine to love who you will. And when I say love always wins in the end? It's true.
As much as we pretend otherwise, it's human nature for love to win out over delusion and hate. Much as interracial love was once taboo and is now largely celebrated the world over, homosexual and even polygamous or open love will eventually be accepted as normal and the homophobes will go down in history as the misguided bad guys. You can't stand up against natural human love and expect to win. The most you'll do is prolong the inevitable.
If believing and trusting in love is trite, then I'll be your unapologetic cliché ;)
Hey MISTER moderator....save us the hippy trippy feel good rhetoric that has ZERO practical application in the real world...and go do your fuckin job. Scroll back and witness there is still PI in this thread....remove it, or else further the notion of how utterly useless and incompetent you are in your position.
It has been discussed and taken care of, though maybe I should remove it for being spam.
-
it's human nature for love to win out over delusion and hate.
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/blstr.gif)
-
I opened the last page of this thread and assumed I'd accidentally opened some shitty tumblr
-
it's human nature for love to win out over delusion and hate.
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/blstr.gif)
If the opposite were true, the human race wouldn't have lasted this long. Most of us are the result of individual acts of human love.
-
If the opposite were true, the human race wouldn't have lasted this long. Most of us are the result of individual acts of human love.
you mean like rape?
-
If the opposite were true, the human race wouldn't have lasted this long. Most of us are the result of individual acts of human love.
Even though I agree somewhat with that. There are bacteria and viruses and other very "loveless" life forms which are much older then the human race and will most likely outlive us without the need for love,
Plus, if it truly was "human nature for love to win" we would live in Utopia and not in Reality land were people kill out of joy and greed. We'd just all love each other which is clearly not the case in the real world.
The progress you described is nothing new either. Many empires had more open minded views on sexuality and love then the modern western world. Look at India today and you'll see a bunch of sick shit on every corner. The same goes for China.
Much as interracial love was once taboo and is now largely celebrated the world over
Interracial love is nowhere "celebrated" let alone all over the world. Maybe in some hipster cities in the US and Europe but the rest of the world hates that shit.
homosexual and even polygamous or open love will eventually be accepted as normal and the homophobes will go down in history as the misguided bad guys.
That's just wishfull thinking on your part.
-
That's just wishfull thinking on your part.
I especially like how it is implied that if we are not 100% accepting of faggotry, that we are 'homophobes'.
-
By 2013 the researchers project that the total population of HIV-positive people attending NHS services will reach 78,370 and that in 2013 HIV treatment and care services will cost between £720 million and £758 million. But this would increase to as much as £1,065 million when the cost of social and community care was included.
Source. (http://mobile.aidsmap.com/Annual-UK-HIV-treatment-and-care-costs-could-reach-750-million-by-2013/page/1618137)
Also, the number of new cases of HIV has actually fallen, however, a cause for concern is the increase in the number of new cases among men who have sex with men, and now accounts for approximately 50% of all new cases of HIV.
Source. (http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/11November/Pages/HIV-in-gay-men-at-record-high.aspx)
It's just as well hair stylists are worth their weight in gold.
HIV is obviously a legitimate concern both in the direct deaths it produces and the societal burden imposed by those who have it. The higher frequency of HIV among gay men also can't be ignored. But I suspect what you want to say is more than "aids is bad, gays have aids". If HIV just didn't exist would you consider homosexuality perfectly permissible?
-
If the opposite were true, the human race wouldn't have lasted this long. Most of us are the result of individual acts of human love.
Even though I agree somewhat with that. There are bacteria and viruses and other very "loveless" life forms which are much older then the human race and will most likely outlive us without the need for love,
Plus, if it truly was "human nature for love to win" we would live in Utopia and not in Reality land were people kill out of joy and greed. We'd just all love each other which is clearly not the case in the real world.
The progress you described is nothing new either. Many empires had more open minded views on sexuality and love then the modern western world. Look at India today and you'll see a bunch of sick shit on every corner. The same goes for China.
I'm not talking about non-human organisms right now, though some of them apply maybe. That utopia is where we're headed, but first we have to realize we're running around in circles and make the conscious decision to move forward. It's coming, but very likely not in our lifetimes.
Yes, we've celebrated weird sex at various times and places throughout human history. Until we stopped for whatever reasons we invented. This refers back to the running in circles thing.
Interracial love is nowhere "celebrated" let alone all over the world. Maybe in some hipster cities in the US and Europe but the rest of the world hates that shit.
I guess that's fair. But we've made tons of progress in the world I live in. Let's hope we make that progress last this time. If we don't it won't be a huge deal in the grand (grandest!) scheme of things, because we'll make it back there eventually. Love is always the eventuality.
That's just wishfull thinking on your part.
You think so? We're living in an exciting age of progress, and as we move forward fewer and fewer groups are holding tightly to the "gays = bad" view. Even the Mormons and Catholics are going forward, albeit slowly.
-
By 2013 the researchers project that the total population of HIV-positive people attending NHS services will reach 78,370 and that in 2013 HIV treatment and care services will cost between £720 million and £758 million. But this would increase to as much as £1,065 million when the cost of social and community care was included.
Source. (http://mobile.aidsmap.com/Annual-UK-HIV-treatment-and-care-costs-could-reach-750-million-by-2013/page/1618137)
Also, the number of new cases of HIV has actually fallen, however, a cause for concern is the increase in the number of new cases among men who have sex with men, and now accounts for approximately 50% of all new cases of HIV.
Source. (http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/11November/Pages/HIV-in-gay-men-at-record-high.aspx)
It's just as well hair stylists are worth their weight in gold.
HIV is obviously a legitimate concern both in the direct deaths it produces and the societal burden imposed by those who have it. The higher frequency of HIV among gay men also can't be ignored. But I suspect what you want to say is more than "aids is bad, gays have aids".
And I suspect you'd like to drag my post into the moral quagmire of human sexuality to such an extent that you can triumphantly denounce me as an 'ignorant homophobe', because you currently have no grounds to denounce what I've said.
Instead I suggest you practice what you preach and stick to what you can prove.
If HIV just didn't exist would you consider homosexuality perfectly permissible?
What privately occurs between two or more consenting adults is not my direct concern. When I have to pay taxes to fund the aftermeath of their lifestyles then it becomes my direct concern. In this case I object to funding the treatment of the STD-riddled homosexual community (the issue is not confined to HIV) as a consequence of their comparatively selfish, indulgent and feckless sexual relationships.
-
I'm not talking about non-human organisms right now, though some of them apply maybe. That utopia is where we're headed, but first we have to realize we're running around in circles and make the conscious decision to move forward. It's coming, but very likely not in our lifetimes
:jerkoff:
-
And it's not a "utopia", as such. More like a society largely comprised of enlightened individuals, celebrating human expression and practicing gentle harmony.
-
And I suspect you'd like to drag my post into the moral quagmire of human sexuality to such an extent that you can triumphantly denounce me as an 'ignorant homophobe', because you currently have no grounds to denounce what I've said.
I don't really know what you're talking about here dude. It seems like the theme of the thread has been the morality of a particular class of human sexuality so I don't know why you're acting like I'm trying to trick you or something. I'm asking what your position is so I can address it instead of trying to guess.
If HIV just didn't exist would you consider homosexuality perfectly permissible?
What privately occurs between two or more consenting adults is not my direct concern. When I have to pay taxes to fund the aftermeath of their lifestyles then it becomes my direct concern. In this case I object to funding the treatment of the STD-riddled homosexual community (the issue is not confined to HIV) as a consequence of their comparatively selfish, indulgent and feckless sexual relationships.
So that's a yes?
-
And it's not a "utopia", as such. More like a society largely comprised of enlightened individuals, celebrating human expression and practicing gentle harmony.
are you for fucking real with this shit?
-
And it's not a "utopia", as such. More like a society largely comprised of enlightened individuals, celebrating human expression and practicing gentle harmony.
are you for fucking real with this shit?
Of course. Why wouldn't I be?
It's kinda sad that you think this isn't even a possibility. People accepting each other's differences, and working to understand them before making the move toward judgement. Working issues out politely and respectfully. Teaching their children that calm minds and open hearts are admirable qualities.
What's so strange about that?
-
If HIV just didn't exist would you consider homosexuality perfectly permissible?
What privately occurs between two or more consenting adults is not my direct concern. When I have to pay taxes to fund the aftermeath of their lifestyles then it becomes my direct concern. In this case I object to funding the treatment of the STD-riddled homosexual community (the issue is not confined to HIV) as a consequence of their comparatively selfish, indulgent and feckless sexual relationships.
So that's a yes?
I fail to see why you think I'd find homosexuality 'perfectly permissible' given what I just said. After all that has happened in the last 30 years, the continued very significantly-greater spread of HIV through the homosexual community is symptomatic of the mindset behind that community; that many clearly don't give a flying fuck about the burden their actions place on wider society. Their rights as a special status group are what really matter. HIV/AIDS merely highlights this attitude.
An attitude that I find grossly unacceptable.
-
Of course. Why wouldn't I be?
It's kinda sad that you think this isn't even a possibility. People accepting each other's differences, and working to understand them before making the move toward judgement. Working issues out politely and respectfully. Teaching their children that calm minds and open hearts are admirable qualities.
What's so strange about that?
Nothing is strange about wanting such a world, but to think that it is actually a physical possibility? Sheer madness, or the wishfullest of wishful thinking.
-
After all that has happened in the last 30 years, the continued very significantly-greater spread of HIV through the homosexual community is symptomatic of the mindset behind that community; that many clearly don't give a flying fuck about the burden their actions place on wider society.
There are very few groups that give a flying fuck about the burden their actions place on the wider society. Drive a car? Looks like you don't give a fuck about how your actions affect society. Work at or give your patronage to fast food restaurants? You don't give a fuck about the wider society. Smoke, tobacco or otherwise? You're basically trying to destroy society.
Their rights as a special status group are what really matter. HIV/AIDS merely highlights this attitude.
An attitude that I find grossly unacceptable.
What special status? The special status of being social pariahs or the special status of being the target of hate crimes?
-
physical possibility
I don't think that means what you think it means.
-
physical possibility
I don't think that means what you think it means.
Having a possibility of becoming a physical reality? I know exactly what I typed.
-
lol, so what is physically impossible about the society equanimity has described?
-
lol, so what is physically impossible about the society equanimity has described?
potentially nothing, but since it has never happened in the natural world, like, not ever...
-
lol, so what is physically impossible about the society equanimity has described?
potentially nothing
So it's a physical possibility then? Well I'm glad we cleared that up.
-
So it's a physical possibility then? Well I'm glad we cleared that up.
Ok you are right, it is physically possible, but the beings engaging in such behavior would have to be robots. No living thing could survive in these conditions:
"a society largely comprised of enlightened individuals, celebrating human expression and practicing gentle harmony."
-
After all that has happened in the last 30 years, the continued very significantly-greater spread of HIV through the homosexual community is symptomatic of the mindset behind that community; that many clearly don't give a flying fuck about the burden their actions place on wider society.
There are very few groups that give a flying fuck about the burden their actions place on the wider society. Drive a car? Looks like you don't give a fuck about how your actions affect society. Work at or give your patronage to fast food restaurants? You don't give a fuck about the wider society. Smoke, tobacco or otherwise? You're basically trying to destroy society.
Yes, there are other groups of selfish shits who cause economic harm to the country. As much as you might like it to be this thread isn't about them. Even if it were you're implying that homosexuals do not belong to these groups as much as heterosexuals, which is the only way these comparisons would be relevant.
Nice try.
Their rights as a special status group are what really matter. HIV/AIDS merely highlights this attitude.
An attitude that I find grossly unacceptable.
What special status? The special status of being social pariahs or the special status of being the target of hate crimes?
It didn't take you long to reach for your professionally tear-stained Gay Victim Card.
Homosexuals are increasingly becoming part of the mainstream. Despite this they are many instances of them showing no sign of wishing to surrender the permanent victim status, which you so helpfully and swiftly demonstrate in the face of valid criticism of gay culture. To the absurd extent you're prepared to use a fast food worker as a meaningful counter example to a HIV-infected homosexual spreading the disease. Shitting on other disadvantaged groups is all part of victim privilege. Feel free to support your comparison with economic evidence1 and, more importantly, explain why a shit-tier job typically unwillingly take by the economically disadvantaged, uneducated or young first-time employee2 is comparable to to a lifestyle choice re: promiscuous unprotected sex in the first place. And smokers, gay/bi or straight, whilst more likely to need medical care at some point in their lives due to their addiction, pay for that addiction in the form of heavy taxation3,4. Homosexuals don't pay a bean into the system every time they get a raw cornholing from a new piece of fresh meat, even with all the medical risks that it involves.
From a social perspective it is an irredeemably selfish act. And all you can do is whine about being persecuted.
1) That is to say, Lanny, why according to you the meal I bought from McDonald's two weeks ago was meaningfully equivalent to having unprotected gay anal sex in terms of what it will cost the healthcare system.
2) http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/pdf/2013/fast_food_poverty_wages.pdf
3) http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/economics/trends/index.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cdc%2FGEla+(CDC+-+Smoking+and+Tobacco+Use+-+Main+Feed)
4) https://www.gov.uk/alcohol-and-tobacco-excise-duty
-
I dunno if you guys have already been there or not, but what about the money fat people are costing you? Seems like a logical next step for your conversation. Dunno about where you guys live, but in my country the number one cause of death is heart disease, with diabetes being somewhere up there too. These aren't inexpensive ways to die, and generally the cause is poor diet, lack of exercise and extreme apathy. We don't place "sin taxes" on fast food or potato chips, but I'd be very surprised if HIV/AIDs treatment was costing us anywhere near the amount that junk food addicts do.
Cancer is another big one. You know the best way to treat cancer on the societal level? Preventative care. If you take care of yourself, don't eat processed foods, exercise, stay away from radioactive material (I know a guy who used to handle nuclear fuel rods with his bare hands- he's in a bad way) and all that good stuff you're much less likely to get cancer. This sensible nutrition and treating your body well thing goes far. If you're really talking about "unnecessary" medical costs due to "lifestyle choices" this is THE big one.
But this is all a bit silly. Why does it matter if certain people are costing us more than others? We're all people, and we all deserve quality and compassionate care regardless of what health issues we have. Right? Otherwise why would such systems even exist? When we want to pick and choose who deserves medical care we're in a dangerous place, as evidenced by Slave's discriminatory attitude toward a particular group.
-
Yes, there are other groups of selfish shits who cause economic harm to the country. As much as you might like it to be this thread isn't about them. Even if it were you're implying that homosexuals do not belong to these groups as much as heterosexuals, which is the only way these comparisons would be relevant.
The comparisons are relevant because if other groups commit the same offence then they ought to be treated the same to whatever degree they violated the principle that, according to you, makes homosexuality unacceptable.
Presumably you think the state ought to stop participating in the treatment of STDs in gay populations. By that logic it ought to also stop treating people with heart disease and stop sending ambulances to the scene of vehicular collisions.
It didn't take you long to reach for your professionally tear-stained Gay Victim Card.
"derp derp, didn't take you long to play the gay supremacy movement card, derp", try being a little less passive aggressive, it'll make you a lot more pleasant.
Homosexuals are increasingly becoming part of the mainstream. Despite this they are many instances of them showing no sign of wishing to surrender the permanent victim status, which you so helpfully and swiftly demonstrate in the face of valid criticism of gay culture.
The reason homosexuals have a "victim status" is, surprise, because homosexuals are statistically more frequently victims than the mainstream.
To the absurd extent you're prepared to use a fast food worker as a meaningful counter example to a HIV-infected homosexual spreading the disease. Shitting on other disadvantaged groups is all part of victim privilege.
lol, please point out where I was shitting on any disadvantaged group. Maybe you didn't figure out how that fastfood worker comparison works. Fastfood workers are part of the process that puts a burden on society (the sale of unhealthy food) yet most reasonable people, including myself, don't think they're culpable for that burden. Likewise people with AIDS and the section of the gay population that's at increased risk of contracting AIDS puts a burden on society, but that alone does not make their sexual preference impermissible (just as heat disease and obesity along does not make working in the fast food industry impermissible)
explain why a shit-tier job typically unwillingly take by the economically disadvantaged, uneducated or young first-time employee2 is comparable to to a lifestyle choice re: promiscuous unprotected sex in the first place.
Promiscuous unprotected sex is neither descriptive of the entire gay community nor is it exclusive to that community. If we want to start making criticisms of "the group of people who engage in unprotected sex" then sweet, I'm right there with you. I'm not sure "let them die out from STDs and the burden of unplanned pregnancies" is going to be the optimal solution, maybe sex ed and programs to make protection available would be a better fix.
-
I dunno if you guys have already been there or not, but what about the money fat people are costing you? Seems like a logical next step for your conversation. Dunno about where you guys live, but in my country the number one cause of death is heart disease, with diabetes being somewhere up there too. These aren't inexpensive ways to die, and generally the cause is poor diet, lack of exercise and extreme apathy. We don't place "sin taxes" on fast food or potato chips, but I'd be very surprised if HIV/AIDs treatment was costing us anywhere near the amount that junk food addicts do.
Well then more fool you.
Cancer is another big one. You know the best way to treat cancer on the societal level? Preventative care. If you take care of yourself, don't eat processed foods, exercise, stay away from radioactive material (I know a guy who used to handle nuclear fuel rods with his bare hands- he's in a bad way) and all that good stuff you're much less likely to get cancer. This sensible nutrition and treating your body well thing goes far. If you're really talking about "unnecessary" medical costs due to "lifestyle choices" this is THE big one.
That's hilarious, albeit highly irrelevant for the vast majority of the population. I hope Mr Simpson dies quickly.
As for the rest of your comments some cancers are strongly linked with the lifestyle choices you mention. In contrast denying cancer patients treatment where there is no clear carcinogenic factor(s) in their lifestyle, but just because you believe they might not have done enough star jumps 35 years ago, is moronic.
But this is all a bit silly. Why does it matter if certain people are costing us more than others? We're all people, and we all deserve quality and compassionate care regardless of what health issues we have. Right? Otherwise why would such systems even exist? When we want to pick and choose who deserves medical care we're in a dangerous place, as evidenced by Slave's discriminatory attitude toward a particular group.
Wrong, Tinkerbell, unless you have an orchard of money trees at the end of that rainbow coming out of your arsehole. The problem with socialist systems of healthcare is that they are particularly open to gross abuse by the self indulgent, greedy and stupid. Unless you want such systems to either collapse or offer a shit service to everyone, because of the number of idiots abusing the system, you'll be needing horrible people like me discriminating against those who absolve themselves of responsibility and expect others to pick up the tab.
Yes, there are other groups of selfish shits who cause economic harm to the country. As much as you might like it to be this thread isn't about them. Even if it were you're implying that homosexuals do not belong to these groups as much as heterosexuals, which is the only way these comparisons would be relevant.
The comparisons are relevant because if other groups commit the same offence then they ought to be treated the same to whatever degree they violated the principle that, according to you, makes homosexuality unacceptable.
Presumably you think the state ought to stop participating in the treatment of STDs in gay populations. By that logic it ought to also stop treating people with heart disease and stop sending ambulances to the scene of vehicular collisions.
The major cause of HIV infection in gay men is bareback fucking. Which unlike having heart disease or being in a car crash, with the obvious exception of male-male rape and split condoms, is entirely optional.
Your comparison fails. Or rather your excuse for why homosexuals automatically have the right to be treated for HIV fails.
]It didn't take you long to reach for your professionally tear-stained Gay Victim Card.
"derp derp, didn't take you long to play the gay supremacy movement card, derp", try being a little less passive aggressive, it'll make you a lot more pleasant.
Pleasant? This is B&M. The box of tissues is behind you.
At least you didn't deny your move.
Homosexuals are increasingly becoming part of the mainstream. Despite this they are many instances of them showing no sign of wishing to surrender the permanent victim status, which you so helpfully and swiftly demonstrate in the face of valid criticism of gay culture.
The reason homosexuals have a "victim status" is, surprise, because homosexuals are statistically more frequently victims than the mainstream.
Getting HIV from unprotected sex doesn't make you a victim of anything other than your own stupidity. Gay men seem largely incapable of grasping this concept. Welcome to the mainstream.
To the absurd extent you're prepared to use a fast food worker as a meaningful counter example to a HIV-infected homosexual spreading the disease. Shitting on other disadvantaged groups is all part of victim privilege.
lol, please point out where I was shitting on any disadvantaged group. Maybe you didn't figure out how that fastfood worker comparison works. Fastfood workers are part of the process that puts a burden on society (the sale of unhealthy food) yet most reasonable people, including myself, don't think they're culpable for that burden. Likewise people with AIDS and the section of the gay population that's at increased risk of contracting AIDS puts a burden on society, but that alone does not make their sexual preference impermissible (just as heat disease and obesity along does not make working in the fast food industry impermissible)
As I referenced, many fast food workers are often poor people (clearly that doesn't make disadvantaged enough for you) who take on low paid, unskilled work in order to survive. They are not doing it for shits and fucking giggles.
With the possible exception of being a rentboy, taking raw loads in your ass is not required for survival of any kind. Shit n' giggles all the way.
And smokers, gay/bi or straight, whilst more likely to need medical care at some point in their lives due to their addiction, pay for that addiction in the form of heavy taxation3,4. Homosexuals don't pay a bean into the system every time they get a raw cornholing from a new piece of fresh meat, even with all the medical risks that it involves.
From a social perspective it is an irredeemably selfish act. And all you can do is whine about being persecuted.
Oh, and maybe you could confirm for me that I've understood correctly how your smoker comparison works too? That unlike smokers, unprotected butt-fucking homo's don't directly pay a single penny for their potentially self-inflicted harmful activities. You appear to have avoided commenting on it, so I assume the answer is yes.
explain why a shit-tier job typically unwillingly take by the economically disadvantaged, uneducated or young first-time employee2 is comparable to to a lifestyle choice re: promiscuous unprotected sex in the first place.
Promiscuous unprotected sex is neither descriptive of the entire gay community nor is it exclusive to that community. If we want to start making criticisms of "the group of people who engage in unprotected sex" then sweet, I'm right there with you. I'm not sure "let them die out from STDs and the burden of unplanned pregnancies" is going to be the optimal solution...
I never said it was. I said the homosexual community is far more diseased than the hetrosexual community due to lifestyle choices which are far more prevalent in the homo-group. Of course you'd like to talk in terms of "the group of people who engage in unprotected sex" and acquire STDs as a result, because that would allow to to avoid talking about the fact that they are very disproportionately homosexual. Don't cry to me about individual cases, they are irrelevant when talking about populations.
...maybe sex ed and programs to make protection available would be a better fix.
In the UK we're knee-deep in condoms and fucking sex ed', the problem is there's nothing to teach homosexuals about barebacking that a 30 year AIDS epidemic hasn't.
Apart from the fact that 95%+ hetero society will foot the bill for you when it all goes to shit.
-
You can be proud of your race as long as you aren't white. You can be proud of your sexuality, as long as you aren't heterosexual. You can be proud of your sex, as long as you aren't male. If I claim to be a proud white heterosexual male, then I am evil.
-
You can be proud of your race as long as you aren't white. You can be proud of your sexuality, as long as you aren't heterosexual. You can be proud of your sex, as long as you aren't male. If I claim to be a proud white heterosexual male, then I am evil.
InB4 Equanimity beats you to death with a winged unicorn horn.
-
You can be proud of your race as long as you aren't white. You can be proud of your sexuality, as long as you aren't heterosexual. You can be proud of your sex, as long as you aren't male. If I claim to be a proud white heterosexual male, then I am evil.
InB4 Equanimity beats you to death with a winged unicorn horn.
Does it help if I say that the poor, white, heterosexual male is the most discriminated class?
-
You can be proud of your race as long as you aren't white. You can be proud of your sexuality, as long as you aren't heterosexual. You can be proud of your sex, as long as you aren't male. If I claim to be a proud white heterosexual male, then I am evil.
InB4 Equanimity beats you to death with a winged unicorn horn.
Does it help if I say that the poor, white, heterosexual male is the most discriminated class?
No. That will make it worse. Much, much worse.
-
Yes, there are other groups of selfish shits who cause economic harm to the country. As much as you might like it to be this thread isn't about them. Even if it were you're implying that homosexuals do not belong to these groups as much as heterosexuals, which is the only way these comparisons would be relevant.
The comparisons are relevant because if other groups commit the same offence then they ought to be treated the same to whatever degree they violated the principle that, according to you, makes homosexuality unacceptable.
Presumably you think the state ought to stop participating in the treatment of STDs in gay populations. By that logic it ought to also stop treating people with heart disease and stop sending ambulances to the scene of vehicular collisions.
The major cause of HIV infection in gay men is bareback fucking. Which unlike having heart disease or being in a car crash, with the obvious exception of male-male rape and split condoms, is entirely optional.
Your comparison fails. Or rather your excuse for why homosexuals automatically have the right to be treated for HIV fails.
[/quote]
You're shifting goalposts now. You started with a supposed argument on why homosexuality was unacceptable, now you're trying to change it to why we shouldn't offer healthcare people who got HIV from unprotected sex (a population which, again, is not exclusively gay). Incidentally I disagree with you on that issue as well, but that's besides the point for the moment at least.
Getting HIV from unprotected sex doesn't make you a victim of anything other than your own stupidity.
That's not how we use the term "victim" in common usage but it doesn't matter since I was never talking about homosexuals being victims of HIV.
Gay men seem largely incapable of grasping this concept. Welcome to the mainstream.
Lol, I'm sure we all appreciate your analysis of the thought process of gay men. I'm sure you have some keen insights on that particular subject.
As I referenced, many fast food workers are often poor people (clearly that doesn't make disadvantaged enough for you) who take on low paid, unskilled work in order to survive. They are not doing it for shits and fucking giggles.
With the possible exception of being a rentboy, taking raw loads in your ass is not required for survival of any kind. Shit n' giggles all the way.
I never denied that fast food workers were generally low income and disadvantaged. That's clearly not why we abstain from holding them accountable for the damage to societal health they facilitate. Do their actions become wrong if they had an opportunity to take a job at a call center instead but opted for the fast food job? Because that would invalidate the "gotta make fast food to survive" argument.
Oh, and maybe you could confirm for me that I've understood correctly how your smoker comparison works too? That unlike smokers, unprotected butt-fucking homo's don't directly pay a single penny for their potentially self-inflicted harmful activities. You appear to have avoided commenting on it, so I assume the answer is yes.
Smokers generally fail to cover the cost of their habit (http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases/category/item/smoking-costs-1374-billion-a-year-tobacco-duty-needs-to-rise-to-reflect-this-says-think-tank). In cases where smokers really do cover the full cost of smoking then perhaps the analogy fails but English smokers don't seem particularly more villainous than those in a country with higher smoking taxes.
I never said it was. I said the homosexual community is far more diseased than the hetrosexual community due to lifestyle choices which are far more prevalent in the homo-group. Of course you'd like to talk in terms of "the group of people who engage in unprotected sex" and acquire STDs as a result, because that would allow to to avoid talking about the fact that they are very disproportionately homosexual. Don't cry to me about individual cases, they are irrelevant when talking about populations.
And I never said there isn't a disproportionate rate of HIV in gay populations. I freely admit that is an issue in the gay community and something that we need to do something about. That does not make homosexuality unacceptable however. Homosexuality does not imply risky behaviours. All you've done it criticize unsafe sexual practices, we can trivially imagine both being homosexual and not engaging in any unsafe sexual practices.
-
You can be proud of your race as long as you aren't white. You can be proud of your sexuality, as long as you aren't heterosexual. You can be proud of your sex, as long as you aren't male. If I claim to be a proud white heterosexual male, then I am evil.
InB4 Equanimity beats you to death with a winged unicorn horn.
Unicorn horns are illegal, and for good reason. You monster :(
It's one thing to talk about taxing people for making unhealthy choices (like buying tobacco products), but when you talk about excluding an entire group of people from healthcare services they need that's quite different. If it were not possible to tax people for tobacco habits, those people then should be denied care for cancer, heart and lung problems? What even is the purpose of health care if it's not to care for the sick? :/
It shouldn't matter why they require care. Not when determining who gets it. They say a society's greatness can be measured by how it treats its sick and elderly. I'm inclined to agree. Medications and treatments aren't things you withhold from people in need because they made mistakes in the past. That's cruel, and to value a relatively small amount of money over human life is awful.
-
Everyone is discriminated against, thus no one is. Stop being babies; sticks n stones. If someone calls you a faggot call them a shitkicking redneck or something idk. Goddamn. Just don't come on the internet and say someone was mean to you. People are mean to all of us.
-
Everyone is discriminated against, thus no one is. Stop being babies; sticks n stones. If someone calls you a faggot call them a shitkicking redneck or something idk. Goddamn. Just don't come on the internet and say someone was mean to you. People are mean to all of us.
Who are you even talking to?
We never talk anymore CFL :(
-
homosexuals are weird. so are you and so am I. are you scared of being weird?
-
What's with all the in-depth arguments that are going off on tangents? There's only one question here: and that is... THEY ARE FAGGOTS!!!!
-
What's with all the in-depth arguments that are going off on tangents? There's only one question here: and that is... THEY ARE FAGGOTS!!!!
(http://i.imgur.com/221hzwh.png?1)
-
I walked down the hall earlier, headed toward my complex's laundry room, when this gay individual stopped in front me. He looked at me with a queer eye and didn't say anything, just smiled. I backed off a bit and asked him what his deal was. He says to me "you gay?" I chortled and said "huh?" He says again "you gay dude? I want that cock." I laughed again and bludgeoned him to death with my interlaced hands.
-
Everyone is discriminated against, thus no one is. Stop being babies; sticks n stones. If someone calls you a faggot call them a shitkicking redneck or something idk. Goddamn. Just don't come on the internet and say someone was mean to you. People are mean to all of us.
Who are you even talking to?
We never talk anymore CFL :(
I was responding solely to the thread title. I didn't read anything. That's part of my charm.
-
^Doesn't sound very trustworthy to me
-
I walked down the hall earlier, headed toward my complex's laundry room, when this gay individual stopped in front me. He looked at me with a queer eye and didn't say anything, just smiled. I backed off a bit and asked him what his deal was. He says to me "you gay?" I chortled and said "huh?" He says again "you gay dude? I want that cock." I laughed again and bludgeoned him to death with my interlaced hands.
Interlaced? Like the Stark Trek double-fisted strike?
(http://www.startrek.com/uploads/assets/articles/fight6.jpg)
^Doesn't sound very trustworthy to me
Well I never pretended to be a girl on the internet.
-
Your handle used to be The Trusted Doctor Watson didn't it?
-
Your handle used to be The Trusted Doctor Watson didn't it?
Affirmative.
-
Chemical formula love!
-
Chemical formula love!
There you go, we'll pump them full of chemicals until they turn straight or die. Whichever, comes first.
-
Chemical formula love!
That too.
-
Yes, there are other groups of selfish shits who cause economic harm to the country. As much as you might like it to be this thread isn't about them. Even if it were you're implying that homosexuals do not belong to these groups as much as heterosexuals, which is the only way these comparisons would be relevant.
The comparisons are relevant because if other groups commit the same offence then they ought to be treated the same to whatever degree they violated the principle that, according to you, makes homosexuality unacceptable.
Presumably you think the state ought to stop participating in the treatment of STDs in gay populations. By that logic it ought to also stop treating people with heart disease and stop sending ambulances to the scene of vehicular collisions.
The major cause of HIV infection in gay men is bareback fucking. Which unlike having heart disease or being in a car crash, with the obvious exception of male-male rape and split condoms, is entirely optional.
Your comparison fails. Or rather your excuse for why homosexuals automatically have the right to be treated for HIV fails.
You're shifting goalposts now. You started with a supposed argument on why homosexuality was unacceptable, now you're trying to change it to why we shouldn't offer healthcare people who got HIV from unprotected sex (a population which, again, is not exclusively gay). Incidentally I disagree with you on that issue as well, but that's besides the point for the moment at least.
You can't even get a reliable poll as to who is gay. The numbers fluctuate wildly. 1% 5% 15%. No one knows. They lie. So expecting gay men to honestly say how many times, and by whom, they been buttfucked without protection in the last 12 months is a sexual-disease statistican's fantasy. All you are left with is the fact that HIV-transmission rates, amongst several other STDs, are grossly higher in those that do identify as gay. That, unfortunately, is why I would treat the gay community as a homogenous block is terms of how 'permissable' I think it should be regarded.
Gay men seem largely incapable of grasping this concept. Welcome to the mainstream.
Lol, I'm sure we all appreciate your analysis of the thought process of gay men. I'm sure you have some keen insights on that particular subject.
Ah, the desperate 'I'll imply you're an undercover homosexual' card. I was wondering how long it would take.
As I referenced, many fast food workers are often poor people (clearly that doesn't make disadvantaged enough for you) who take on low paid, unskilled work in order to survive. They are not doing it for shits and fucking giggles.
With the possible exception of being a rentboy, taking raw loads in your ass is not required for survival of any kind. Shit n' giggles all the way.
I never denied that fast food workers were generally low income and disadvantaged. That's clearly not why we abstain from holding them accountable for the damage to societal health they facilitate. Do their actions become wrong if they had an opportunity to take a job at a call center instead but opted for the fast food job? Because that would invalidate the "gotta make fast food to survive" argument.
Again you are directly equating having a tax-paying job, working for a tax paying corporation to engaging in unprotected gay male sex.
Is bareback ass-fucking a tax paying job?
No.
Oh, and maybe you could confirm for me that I've understood correctly how your smoker comparison works too? That unlike smokers, unprotected butt-fucking homo's don't directly pay a single penny for their potentially self-inflicted harmful activities. You appear to have avoided commenting on it, so I assume the answer is yes.
Smokers generally fail to cover the cost of their habit (http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases/category/item/smoking-costs-1374-billion-a-year-tobacco-duty-needs-to-rise-to-reflect-this-says-think-tank). In cases where smokers really do cover the full cost of smoking then perhaps the analogy fails but English smokers don't seem particularly more villainous than those in a country with higher smoking taxes.
Did I say smokers entirely cover the costs of their habit? No.
Did I say, unlike smokers, homosexuals pay no taxes for barebacking? Yes.
Does your post invalidate either of the above statements? No.
Getting HIV from unprotected sex doesn't make you a victim of anything other than your own stupidity.
That's not how we use the term "victim" in common usage but it doesn't matter since I was never talking about homosexuals being victims of HIV.
I never said it was. I said the homosexual community is far more diseased than the hetrosexual community due to lifestyle choices which are far more prevalent in the homo-group. Of course you'd like to talk in terms of "the group of people who engage in unprotected sex" and acquire STDs as a result, because that would allow to to avoid talking about the fact that they are very disproportionately homosexual. Don't cry to me about individual cases, they are irrelevant when talking about populations.
And I never said there isn't a disproportionate rate of HIV in gay populations. I freely admit that is an issue in the gay community and something that we need to do something about. That does not make homosexuality unacceptable however. Homosexuality does not imply risky behaviours. All you've done it criticize unsafe sexual practices, we can trivially imagine both being homosexual and not engaging in any unsafe sexual practices.
You're ignoring reality by treating gay anal sex as if it takes place in a sanitized vacuum, rather than taking place within the context of homo-cultural sexual practices; for the disease occurence I've already posted some stats, but will do so again1,2,3. Those correlations are very significant. They do not occur by magic or by the actions of a small handful.
And for the record I wouldn't treat anyone who's got HIV. Isolate and quarantine with pallative care. Morphine is cheap. I wouldn't let HIV carriers into the country (HIV figures in the UK are largely a consequence of the joys of African immigration). Obviously this will disportionately affect the gay and African community, because the gay and African community is disproportionately affected by HIV/AIDS. And if you seriously think this wouldn't result if a wave of 'muh gay rights, you closet gay homophobic racist' cries you are deluded. Shit, you've already played two of those cards. Gay rights campaigners would not treat HIV-gays as being fundamentally distinct from the rest of the gay community. In fact they've been embracing them, excuse the pun, since the 80s.
1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6893897
2) http://www.aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/statistics/
3) http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm
-
Faggot
-
You can't even get a reliable poll as to who is gay. The numbers fluctuate wildly. 1% 5% 15%. No one knows. They lie. So expecting gay men to honestly say how many times, and by whom, they been buttfucked without protection in the last 12 months is a sexual-disease statistican's fantasy. All you are left with is the fact that HIV-transmission rates, amongst several other STDs, are grossly higher in those that do identify as gay. That, unfortunately, is why I would treat the gay community as a homogenous block is terms of how 'permissable' I think it should be regarded.
So what? Again, I'm not talking about policy (and even if I was I would reject your conclusion here), I'm talking about the permissibility of being gay. Drunk drivers overwhelmingly own cars, that isn't a condemnation car ownership because owning a car may be a necessary condition to drunk driving but is not sufficient. Likewise being gay is not a sufficient condition for engaging in risky sexual behaviours.
Again you are directly equating having a tax-paying job, working for a tax paying corporation to engaging in unprotected gay male sex.
Is bareback ass-fucking a tax paying job?
No.
Lol, and your story changes again. Now it's paying taxes on a thing that makes it permissible. Hah.
Did I say smokers entirely cover the costs of their habit? No.
Did I say, unlike smokers, homosexuals pay no taxes for barebacking? Yes.
Does your post invalidate either of the above statements? No.
What was the point of the statements then? Seemingly the reason you (claim) to be opposed to homosexuality is that it represents a burden upon society. If sin tax doesn't cover the burden of smokers upon society then smokers likewise represent a burden upon society.
And I never said there isn't a disproportionate rate of HIV in gay populations. I freely admit that is an issue in the gay community and something that we need to do something about. That does not make homosexuality unacceptable however. Homosexuality does not imply risky behaviours. All you've done it criticize unsafe sexual practices, we can trivially imagine both being homosexual and not engaging in any unsafe sexual practices.
You're ignoring reality by treating gay anal sex as if it takes place in a sanitized vacuum, rather than taking place within the context of homo-cultural sexual practices; for the disease occurence I've already posted some stats, but will do so again1,2,3. Those correlations are very significant. They do not occur by magic or by the actions of a small handful.
If simple correlation is enough to condemn a group then both people in their 20s and whites living in asian majority countries are somehow doing something wrong by merit of their age and ethnicity (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/).
-
Gays are gross and/or insane for desiring disgusting and horrifying male genitalia.
Women, too, are gross and/or insane for desiring disgusting and horrifying male genitalia.