Gay Parents Ready Kids for White House Easter Egg Roll

[OCA]

Oh and has for the sites I guess we can say that any site or link that doesn't agree with your view or Jack and Jilly's view for that matter are going to be deemed biased by you guys.......oh well.

 

[5stringJeff]

What is ad hominem about them? I am not losing my rag. I find his behavior mets the definition of bigot and homophobe. Christ, they ain't exactly the worst words in the world. He says homosexuality is abnormal. I say not. Where does the debate end? Is he going to change my position? No. Me, his? No. Can he prove his point? No. He has an opinion. That is all it is.

Translation: he has an opinion that doesn't agree with the gay agenda; therefore, he's a homophobe and a bigot.

Hell, I don't need to defend OCA; he's fully capable of defending himself. But calling people bigots and homophobes will get you absolutely nowhere around here.

 

[GotZoom]

Translation: he has an opinion that doesn't agree with the gay agenda; therefore, he's a homophobe and a bigot.

Hell, I don't need to defend OCA; he's fully capable of defending himself. But calling people bigots and homophobes will get you absolutely nowhere around here.

So if Grump doesn't agree with OCA (and many others on the board) then he must be a .... heterophobe and a bigot.

I think I just invented a word.

Heterophobe.

I can see his business card now.

Dr. Grump
Heterophobe

I'm Right
You're Wrong
Get Used To It

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Don't tell me you believe the hollywood fallacies about queers perpetuated by shows such as Will and Grace?

What? You don't like jokes?

 

[jillian]

Oh and has for the sites I guess we can say that any site or link that doesn't agree with your view or Jack and Jilly's view for that matter are going to be deemed biased by you guys.......oh well.

Again, how credible would you find moveon or capitalhillblue? Not very, I'd guess.

 

[dilloduck]

Again, how credible would you find moveon or capitalhillblue? Not very, I'd guess.

Links are getting to be like opinions and assholes.

 

[jillian]

Links are getting to be like opinions and assholes.

Ain't that the truth?!?!?!

 

[Annie]

Translation: he has an opinion that doesn't agree with the gay agenda; therefore, he's a homophobe and a bigot.

Hell, I don't need to defend OCA; he's fully capable of defending himself. But calling people bigots and homophobes will get you absolutely nowhere around here.

I'll agree with what Jeff wrote and as for speaking of pm's on the board, not a grand idea. Remember, those that are writing to you have their own agenda.

 

[dilloduck]

I'll agree with what Jeff wrote and as for speaking of pm's on the board, not a grand idea. Remember, those that are writing to you have their own agenda.

speaking of pm's on the board

?

 

[Dr Grump]

Translation: he has an opinion that doesn't agree with the gay agenda; therefore, he's a homophobe and a bigot..

Er, no. He falls under the dictionary definition. I didn't write the dictionary..

 

[Dr Grump]

You see I excel at both ends of the field, I can out debate you in the cleanest manner possible and then if you so desire turn you into a torn rag ready to put the noose on itself. I am a singular sensation here.

Heh

 

[007]

No slick, you busted out the slander when the debate began slipping from your grasp( not that the words bother me, I wear them as ba badge of pride on this topic), it shows you were out of bullets and thought that you would do the typical lib thing and roll in the mud, only it backfired on you.

I'll let you in on a little secret, i'm the board champion flamer and up to now i've been completely gentle and soft with you because I can tell the heat would wither you like a carnation in 110 deggree weather, you owe me.

Oh and by the way newbie, the proof of its abnormality is all over the board archives, its up to you to do the research.

WHAT??!!.......

:teeth:

 

[Kagom]

So if Grump doesn't agree with OCA (and many others on the board) then he must be a .... heterophobe and a bigot.

I think I just invented a word.

Heterophobe.

I can see his business card now.

Dr. Grump
Heterophobe

I'm Right
You're Wrong
Get Used To It

Hey, I'm Heterophobic :<

 

[Nuc]

Hey, I'm Heterophobic :<

I'm Homophobaphobic!

 

[Kagom]

I'm Homophobaphobic!

I've no way to top that...damn you, Nuc, for raising the bar for us all! *Shakes fist in anger*

 

[OCA]

Er, no. He falls under the dictionary definition. I didn't write the dictionary..

I will repeat, if being obviously correct on this issue puts me under the dictionary definition of bigot then I wear it with chest thumping pride.

Now as for the context that bigot was used in this thread it is completely obvious that it was used as a last resort straw grabbing effort, the user in question was being pounded on this subject and lacking any credible argument did the typical lib thing, he tried to slander his opponent, only he failed miserably.

 

[007]

I will repeat, if being obviously correct on this issue puts me under the dictionary definition of bigot then I wear it with chest thumping pride.

Now as for the context that bigot was used in this thread it is completely obvious that it was used as a last resort straw grabbing effort, the user in question was being pounded on this subject and lacking any credible argument did the typical lib thing, he tried to slander his opponent, only he failed miserably.

OCA... brother... NOBODY beats you and me on this board when it comes to a debate about queers... NOBODY!

The facts are on our side pard... it makes it easy.

 

[Emmett]

Imagine actually having the ability or desire to admit one is a homo! I must say that I do not understand. :duh3:

Let me make this clear, I AM homophobic! I DO NOT hate! When I am around an individual that I can plainly see is a homo, I find myself doing nothing but wondering how they could have ended up like that.

When a man acts like a sissy it seems to me that something must have been missing from their upbringing or possibly some other occurance that subjected them to being around weird folks. I tend sometimes to think that it could be a rebellion thing. Sort of like the trenchcoats or the tattoo freaks. Just an incestious desire to be different or get attention. I do think that hating is a bad idea because hate breeds hate.

I was stationed in SF during the 70's at a time when homo's were really starting to build up out there. I had alot of exposure to them. Frankly, I prefer not to be around them and I 'm just as sure they probably don't like being around me since we have so little in common. I do however think that we should just ignore them because all the attention seems to be exactly what they want.

On the parent issue I really tend to agree with the hardliners. I don't see how a homo couple can provide the nurturing and proper parental guidence reqired to produce a NORMAL child. Forcing a child of young age to be subjected to people of the same sex kissing and so forth in front of them in the home is not my idea of NORMAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :kiss2:

My guess is (and I certainly am a guesser) that these children will grow up confused and likely become homo's.

As for molestors - they are homo's. Clear and simple! It is obvious that this subject is a sore spot for the homo's. They know good and well that men who moleste boys are sick shits! They ARE homo's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sugar coat it any way you want!

I've said my little piece.

 

[Dr Grump]

I will repeat, if being obviously correct on this issue puts me under the dictionary definition of bigot then I wear it with chest thumping pride.

As I said... :hail:

 

[Dr Grump]

As for molestors - they are homo's. Clear and simple! .

Look, I dunno if you believe in what you say or whether you're joshing or whatever. Don't know you well enough. Let's look at it logically and we'll even weigh the stats to your side of the argument. Let's say 30% of child molesters are homosexual (I read that figure recently on one of the many links I've discovered on this forum - it was a biased site, but we'll take their word for it). And let's say there are 1,000,000 crimes a year that fit the definition of child molester (I'd be surprised if it was even a 10th of that, but we'll go that way for argument's sake). That means that 300,000 such crimes were carried out by homosexuals. Now, homosexuals would have us believe they make up 10% of the population (I have a hard time believing this - I reckon I have about 90 good friends and family and about 350-400 people I know casually - about three of them are gay, and I honestly believe it is a cross-section of many communities), but we'll use up to 4% argument that some of the right-leaning posters advocate (again from sites linked to by conservatives on these boards). That means just over 11 million Americans are gay. So if 300,000 homosexuals commit child molestation crimes they make up less than 3% of the homosexual population, which means 97% of homsexuals are not child molesters. And if there were only 100,000 such crimes and homosexuals were responsible for 30% ( thus 30,000) AND they do make up 10% of the population (about 280 million people) then just over 0.1% of homosexuals are child molesters and 99.8%+ aren't. Look, I don't know all the stats but do I judge all Dems by Al Sharpton? All GoPers by Pat Robertson or David Duke? All Baptists by Fred Phelps. Seems to me people take the most extreme example and tout it as the norm. Bollocks I say!

Finally re this abnormal business. Michael Jordan is abnormal. Babe Ruth was. Wayne Gretzky was/is. Abonormal ain't a bad thing, it's a state of mind..