Homosexuals trying to force their perverse lifestyle on Hetro majority.

[RealityStrikes]

And to answer your 3 questions.....
1. yes. That is their prerogative.

Oh good! So it's clear then that you should have nothing to do with another person's sexuality. So there's nothing wrong with homosexuality then, right?

2. I guess you haven't seen all the molestation charges against priests in the news.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html
Studies on Priests Molesting Children
Priest who molested boys called to testify in federal investigation of L.A. archdiocese | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times

This proves pedophilia is bad, not homosexuality. Pedophilia is not inherent to any one sexuality, and thus should not be brought up in association with one. So the question then turns to: why bring it up in a thread on homosexuality?

3.Here are the influences you seek:
The US Senate has passed a resolution imploring Ugandan Members of Parliament to withdraw a private member’s Bill that would impose death on gay people.

But will the resolution influence Ugandan MPs currently considering the Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009? Speaker Edward Ssekandi said yesterday that the resolution, passed Tuesday night, will not force Parliament to give in to western pressure and withdraw Ndorwa West MP David Bahati’s controversial Bill.

He told Daily Monitor in a telephone interview that there was no possibility of Parliament “totally rejecting” the proposed law.

“Those against the Bill are entitled to their views,” said Mr Ssekandi, “But what they should do is sensitise our people about the merits or demerits of the Bill.”

He added: “The resolution may influence us but there is no procedure [currently available] that we can take of totally rejecting the Bill.”

International gay rights activists have lauded the Senate, the upper House of the bicameral U.S Congress, for joining the chorus of those cautioning Uganda, and said the resolution expresses the U.S government’s unequivocal opposition to the proposed Bill.

Mr Ssekandi said the Senate “may be right or wrong”, but that is a decision the Uganda Parliament would have to make.

Mr Bahati said yesterday that he would not waiver in his pursuit for the Bill’s enactment despite the amount of condemnation his proposed law has generated.
He suggested, however, that powerful gay lobbyists in the U.S had influenced the Senate’s decision.
actup.org - U.S. Senate asks Uganda to withdraw anti-gay Bill
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/world/europe/sweden/RFSL/gay.lesbian.political.news-22
How have campaign contributions and lobbying efforts influenced policy on an issue you care about? - by David Nuttle - Helium

So you're upset that people promoted a PLEA to another country for human equality? So to summarize:

1. This does not affect American policy whatsoever
2. This does not represent homosexual groups surreptitiously affecting voting Americans
3. This non-policy response to Uganda is fully within America's laws and existing policy on the matter
4. This promotes human equality
5. This discourages mass murder

Remind me why this HORRIBLE act of asking Uganda to stop killing people is a homosexual driven problem? And then you wonder why everyone else in the thread thinks you're a bigot.

Your retarded skull just don't have a clue. Can't you read? I wasn't the one who originally brought up catholic priests, dumb ass. And I NEVER mentioned them being homosexuals. Calling priests sick and disgusting for molesting boys is what i spewed. I brought up examples of how gay lobbyists are influential in politics, and you are calling it a conspiracy. Stop right now or I'm gonna say things to get this thread bumped. You just won't quit. I'll say it once more... If I'm a hick and bigot, you are a punk little b1tch. now squash this thread.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yes, there are lobbyists who are working with the gay agenda..........

Ever heard of "C" street and their influence in Uganda?

 

[bodecea]

Yes, there are lobbyists who are working with the gay agenda..........

Ever heard of "C" street and their influence in Uganda?

Isn't it a puzzlement how such a small minority of people can have so much power? We must be awesome as well as FABULOUS!!!

 

[catzmeow]

Why is the term "homosexual" in the thread title always a tip off that the OP is sexually conflicted?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Save the bull sh1t. A hick is another word for a dumb white person or "white trash." So stop playing ignorant.

According to the English language as defined by any well known dictionary in the world, you're still wrong. You see how I effortlessly use facts to support the things I say instead of making up definitions of words? You should try that some time, my dear hick.

The biotech industry tends to have higher standards when it comes to evidence and citation, which leads me to believe whatever job you hold is not incredibly relevant to such scientific integrity.

Your retarded skull just don't have a clue. Can't you read? I wasn't the one who originally brought up catholic priests, dumb ass. And I NEVER mentioned them being homosexuals. Calling priests sick and disgusting for molesting boys is what i spewed. I brought up examples of how gay lobbyists are influential in politics, and you are calling it a conspiracy. Stop right now or I'm gonna say things to get this thread bumped. You just won't quit. I'll say it once more... If I'm a hick and bigot, you are a punk little b1tch. now squash this thread.

OK so we both agree that pedophilia in any form, regardless of it coming from a religion or not, is an unethical act. Not a single person has disagreed on that point in this thread. You still have yet to make a point past what is already commonly accepted on that topic.

Then you stated that gay lobbyists are pushing the "homosexual agenda" without describing what said agenda is or really how it is being pushed outside of writing letters to politicians, which is common to all political groups regardless of sexuality. In short: I have yet to see what BAD issue is being pushed. Do you disagree that murders should stop in Uganda? Do you think writing letters to politicians should be outlawed? Can you point to a single BAD outcome from ANY homosexual "agenda" focus?

No. No you can't. You have no actual supported point. Just more hot air and misdirection. Lunacy at its dumbest.

 

[Father Time]

Why is the term "homosexual" in the thread title always a tip off that the OP is sexually conflicted?

Because most people use the word gay, those who use homosexual all the time are trying to talk about it as much as possible so they call them something longer.

That's my theory at least.

 

[HUGGY]

Homosexuals trying to force their perverse lifestyle on Hetro majority.

Well of course they are! Pretty soon attending gay weddings will be mandatory ..just like jury duty!

52nd squeak... you do know that almost ALL sexual abuse of a man on boy nature is committed by heterosexual living men...right?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Homosexuals trying to force their perverse lifestyle on Hetro majority.

Well of course they are! Pretty soon attending gay weddings will be mandatory ..just like jury duty!

52nd squeak... you do know that almost ALL sexual abuse of a man on boy nature is committed by heterosexual living men...right?

Actually Huggy, you should have said "closeted gays pretending to be straight".

I mean.......if they didn't have to hide their behavior because most consider it "deviant", don't you think they'd be able to admit that the reason they molest boys is because they actually like dudes?

My opinion? The more homophobic you are, the more likely you are to be closeted.

 

[RealityStrikes]

Basically in a nutshell, I just want to let everyone out there who does not agree with what I had to say, that I'm not a bigot. I don't hate gay people. They have the right to choose whatever path of life that they want, without discrimination or opression. I would just like to understand why telling people to be true to themselves and denying that there is a homosexual gene present at birth is deemed bigotry? Where is the hate in this opinion? Because I seemed to have missed that.

And to BetterThanHick,

According to you, attractions cannot result in temptations. Why? (Because they are synonymous) so they can't be in consequence (resultant) of each other (according to you). Now, if I were to Google the phrase..... "Tempted by attractions." Lets see what turns up. But before we do that, lets confirm the defenition of the word "by". One of the many definitions is: In consequence, or result of. So now if we take a look at the definition and apply it to the phrase..... "Tempted by attractions", it would be the same as.... Tempted as a result of attractions. Those are in consequence (resulant) of each other. So I will ask 1 last time, how are these NOT resultants?

And as far as actions= repercussions.......
How about I do a little edit to my analogy........
Attractions are to temptations as (re)actions are to repercussions.

Even though we all know actions are the same as reactions, someone constantly wants to spit hairs just to be contrary. And though I made this change (which is the same as my first analogy), you will still want to disagree and say it is a poor and false analogy that doesn't work. Why? Because you want to disagree just because you think I hate gays. LMAO

 

[Gadawg73]

Basically in a nutshell, I just want to let everyone out there who does not agree with what I had to say, that I'm not a bigot. I don't hate gay people. They have the right to choose whatever path of life that they want, without discrimination or opression. I would just like to understand why telling people to be true to themselves and denying that there is a homosexual gene present at birth is deemed bigotry? Where is the hate in this opinion? Because I seemed to have missed that.

And to BetterThanHick,

According to you, attractions cannot result in temptations. Why? (Because they are synonymous) so they can't be in consequence (resultant) of each other (according to you). Now, if I were to Google the phrase..... "Tempted by attractions." Lets see what turns up. But before we do that, lets confirm the defenition of the word "by". One of the many definitions is: In consequence, or result of. So now if we take a look at the definition and apply it to the phrase..... "Tempted by attractions", it would be the same as.... Tempted as a result of attractions. Those are in consequence (resulant) of each other. So I will ask 1 last time, how are these NOT resultants?

And as far as actions= repercussions.......
How about I do a little edit to my analogy........
Attractions are to temptations as (re)actions are to repercussions.

Even though we all know actions are the same as reactions, someone constantly wants to spit hairs just to be contrary. And though I made this change (which is the same as my first analogy), you will still want to disagree and say it is a poor and false analogy that doesn't work. Why? Because you want to disagree just because you think I hate gays. LMAO

I believe you do not hate gays.
But you have no respect for them, you do not stand up for their equal rights, you judge them and you label them as sick and perverted.
If I was gay I would rather you just hate me.

 

[rikules]

I think I can understand now why Homosexuals are treated so harshly in many other countries
outside of America.

Here in America homosexuals have been accepted and tolerated. Now, the homosexuals
are trying to force their perverse and immoral lifestyle upon everyone else that is not homosexual.

They want to attend proms, they want to marry, they want to adopt impressionable children and raise them as a normal Man and Wife couple.

So , what we will begin to see now is a backlash against this overt flamboyancy that is being displayed by many homosexuals toady. This is why many homosexuals ,I feel , should keep their homosexuality in the closet. It causes less problems.They are parading their homosexuality in front of the majority hetrosexual society.This will have negative repercussions. :azz:

another freedom hating conservative who wishes America was more like some third world shithole....

so you would have LAWS against homosexuality?


and what would the punishment be?

death?

another "all life is precious" christian conservative who delights to think of killing people he doesn't approve of....

 

[uscitizen]

States still have laws against Sodomy.

The rep led KY senate just passed a law allowing fleons who have served their time to vote again. Unless they were convicted of rape, murder, child abuse or sodomy. A way to keep the gays from voting?
So lots of theives and such will be able to vote again. Look for a rise in Republican voting in KY.

 

[bodecea]

I think I can understand now why Homosexuals are treated so harshly in many other countries
outside of America.

Here in America homosexuals have been accepted and tolerated. Now, the homosexuals
are trying to force their perverse and immoral lifestyle upon everyone else that is not homosexual.

They want to attend proms, they want to marry, they want to adopt impressionable children and raise them as a normal Man and Wife couple.

So , what we will begin to see now is a backlash against this overt flamboyancy that is being displayed by many homosexuals toady. This is why many homosexuals ,I feel , should keep their homosexuality in the closet. It causes less problems.They are parading their homosexuality in front of the majority hetrosexual society.This will have negative repercussions. :azz:

Yeah, and this is a bad thing how?

 

[ABikerSailor]

States still have laws against Sodomy.

The rep led KY senate just passed a law allowing fleons who have served their time to vote again. Unless they were convicted of rape, murder, child abuse or sodomy. A way to keep the gays from voting?
So lots of theives and such will be able to vote again. Look for a rise in Republican voting in KY.

You know....."sodomy" is actually a reference for a very specific sexual act.

Anal intercourse.

I wonder how many of these anti-sodomy people have ever had anal sex?

 

[Father Time]

States still have laws against Sodomy.

The rep led KY senate just passed a law allowing fleons who have served their time to vote again. Unless they were convicted of rape, murder, child abuse or sodomy. A way to keep the gays from voting?
So lots of theives and such will be able to vote again. Look for a rise in Republican voting in KY.

I thought a Supreme Court case forbade them from enforcing sodomy laws.

 

[Gadawg73]

States still have laws against Sodomy.

The rep led KY senate just passed a law allowing fleons who have served their time to vote again. Unless they were convicted of rape, murder, child abuse or sodomy. A way to keep the gays from voting?
So lots of theives and such will be able to vote again. Look for a rise in Republican voting in KY.

I thought a Supreme Court case forbade them from enforcing sodomy laws.

Bowers v. Hardwick
A Georgia case that validated the prosecution.
Lawrence v. Texas
Texas case invalidated all state statutes banning it.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Actually Huggy, you should have said "closeted gays pretending to be straight".

I mean.......if they didn't have to hide their behavior because most consider it "deviant", don't you think they'd be able to admit that the reason they molest boys is because they actually like dudes?

The majority of child sexual abuse is male adults to female children. I think it's safe to say the reason why people molest children is because they're pedophiles, not homosexuals.

Basically in a nutshell, I just want to let everyone out there who does not agree with what I had to say, that I'm not a bigot. I don't hate gay people. They have the right to choose whatever path of life that they want, without discrimination or opression. I would just like to understand why telling people to be true to themselves and denying that there is a homosexual gene present at birth is deemed bigotry? Where is the hate in this opinion? Because I seemed to have missed that.

There's no hate in promoting people to be comfortable with their own sexuality. But all the unsupported conspiracy crap you spew and comments like "homosexual agenda" or "role of the female figure" is bigotry.

According to you, attractions cannot result in temptations. Why? (Because they are synonymous) so they can't be in consequence (resultant) of each other (according to you). Now, if I were to Google the phrase..... "Tempted by attractions." Lets see what turns up. But before we do that, lets confirm the defenition of the word "by". One of the many definitions is: In consequence, or result of. So now if we take a look at the definition and apply it to the phrase..... "Tempted by attractions", it would be the same as.... Tempted as a result of attractions. Those are in consequence (resulant) of each other. So I will ask 1 last time, how are these NOT resultants?

Except you just tried to compare two nouns, being temptation and attraction, to a verb related to a noun, temptED and attraction. Someone can be tempted by temptations. They can be attracted by attractions. They can be tempted by attraction and attracted by temptation. These are verbs referring to nouns. One can similarly be distracted by distraction. These are redundant but legitimate sentences. But comparing temptation and attraction, being two synonymous NOUNS is redundant and NOT resultant.

You failed at understanding the meaning of the words, and now you've failed at understanding the meaning of the elements of grammar. Please, just stop.

How about I do a little edit to my analogy........
Attractions are to temptations as (re)actions are to repercussions.

Hey it looks like you took the hint and produced an analogy that at least makes closer basic grammatical sense. Nonetheless it has absolutely zero point to it with regards to this thread.

Even though we all know actions are the same as reactions, someone constantly wants to spit hairs just to be contrary. And though I made this change (which is the same as my first analogy), you will still want to disagree and say it is a poor and false analogy that doesn't work. Why? Because you want to disagree just because you think I hate gays. LMAO

First off, it's "split hairs" not "spit hairs." Second, actions are not the same as reactions, as still shown by any dictionary in the English language, by denotation or connotation. They are two distinct entities.

Aside from your failure at the English language, you're still a closeted bigot.

 

[RealityStrikes]

Actually Huggy, you should have said "closeted gays pretending to be straight".

I mean.......if they didn't have to hide their behavior because most consider it "deviant", don't you think they'd be able to admit that the reason they molest boys is because they actually like dudes?

The majority of child sexual abuse is male adults to female children. I think it's safe to say the reason why people molest children is because they're pedophiles, not homosexuals.

Basically in a nutshell, I just want to let everyone out there who does not agree with what I had to say, that I'm not a bigot. I don't hate gay people. They have the right to choose whatever path of life that they want, without discrimination or opression. I would just like to understand why telling people to be true to themselves and denying that there is a homosexual gene present at birth is deemed bigotry? Where is the hate in this opinion? Because I seemed to have missed that.

There's no hate in promoting people to be comfortable with their own sexuality. But all the unsupported conspiracy crap you spew and comments like "homosexual agenda" or "role of the female figure" is bigotry.


Except you just tried to compare two nouns, being temptation and attraction, to a verb related to a noun, temptED and attraction. Someone can be tempted by temptations. They can be attracted by attractions. They can be tempted by attraction and attracted by temptation. These are verbs referring to nouns. One can similarly be distracted by distraction. These are redundant but legitimate sentences. But comparing temptation and attraction, being two synonymous NOUNS is redundant and NOT resultant.

You failed at understanding the meaning of the words, and now you've failed at understanding the meaning of the elements of grammar. Please, just stop.

How about I do a little edit to my analogy........
Attractions are to temptations as (re)actions are to repercussions.

Hey it looks like you took the hint and produced an analogy that at least makes closer basic grammatical sense. Nonetheless it has absolutely zero point to it with regards to this thread.

Even though we all know actions are the same as reactions, someone constantly wants to spit hairs just to be contrary. And though I made this change (which is the same as my first analogy), you will still want to disagree and say it is a poor and false analogy that doesn't work. Why? Because you want to disagree just because you think I hate gays. LMAO

First off, it's "split hairs" not "spit hairs." Second, actions are not the same as reactions, as still shown by any dictionary in the English language, by denotation or connotation. They are two distinct entities.

Aside from your failure at the English language, you're still a closeted bigot.

First off, any male who molests another male is a homosexual. These priests who molest little boys aren't just pedophiles, they are homosexual pedophiles.

Why do you continue to sound so pseudo? And purposely wanting to be against the truth? To be honest, you are NoBetterThanHick, and not smarter by any means, if you ask me.
Two synonymous nouns can't be resultants? you are as lame as you are ignorant.

Main Entry: spark
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: flash, trace
Synonyms: atom, beam, fire, flare, flicker, gleam, glint, glitter, glow, hint, jot, nucleus, ray, scintilla, scintillation, scrap, sparkle, spit, vestige

SPARK(noun) and FIRE(noun) both synonymous
As a result of the spark from striking the match, a Fire started.
How on earth can you say two synonymous nouns can't be resultants?

Have you ever heard of the term, temptations due to attractions?? Synonymous nouns resulting in each other? So the author of A Model of Temptation- Induced Compromise Does not know what they are talking about as well? Even though this is reference material from the University of Illinois?

And please by all means explain to me what the hell redundancy has to do with these (synonymous nouns) not being resultants (according to you). Are you trying to say that something redundant is total opposite of a resultant, or can't equate to it? You aren't making any sense. Something redundant is something that is unnecessary or not needed. That word has absolutely nothing to do with what you are trying to argue. So please explain.

And now to actions/reactions:

The third of Newton's laws of motion of classical mechanics states that forces always occur in pairs. Every action is accompanied by a reaction of equal magnitude but opposite direction. This principle is commonly known in the Latin language as actio et reactio. The attribution of which of the two forces is action or reaction is arbitrary. Each of the two forces can be considered the action, the other force is its associated reaction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_(physics)

If each can be considered the action, that means they are the same, but one is moving in the opposite direction as the other.

You are such an idiot, it suits you. You have absolutely no proof or evidence other than your moronic babble, while attempting to refute the truth. Show me evidence that actions are not the same as reactions. Show me evidence that attractions and temptations aren't resultants. Show me evidence that two synonymous nouns can't be resultants. Just like I have shown you my ammo and arsenal, where is yours? Show me and this will be settled once and for all. Until then, you are still a punk little b1tch if I'm a (closet) bigot.

 

[editec]

Recap of this ENTIRE thread"

Gays choose to be gay

No, they don't

Yes, they do

You're dumb

No, you're dumb

(Repeat endlessly)

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know.........I personally think that the people who are most scared of "the gay", who believe that simply by associating with them, that they are the ones who are most closeted. The reason that they act so violently against gays is because they themselves are scared of being "turned" or "converted" because they have some of those feelings towards members of the same sex buried deep inside.

Or, to put it simply, if you believe gays can convert you, you're a bit closeted yourself.