Homosexuals trying to force their perverse lifestyle on Hetro majority.

[High_Gravity]

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.

You have a point just like some of the leading KKK guys have been caught with black mistresses.

 

[rdean]

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.

You have a point just like some of the leading KKK guys have been caught with black mistresses.

Those that are afraid of being "turned" are only afraid because they know they can be.

 

[High_Gravity]

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.

You have a point just like some of the leading KKK guys have been caught with black mistresses.

Those that are afraid of being "turned" are only afraid because they know they can be.

Yes they are scared of the temptation, any straight man secure in his sexuality has no worries.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You have a point just like some of the leading KKK guys have been caught with black mistresses.

Those that are afraid of being "turned" are only afraid because they know they can be.

Yes they are scared of the temptation, any straight man secure in his sexuality has no worries.

You know.....both you and rdean are right HG.

Me? I've know that I like females since I was 7. How? Simple......some of my friends when I was younger and spending the night over at their house offered to experiment. It felt really wrong that they suggested it to me, and I left and went back home. On the other side of the spectrum, I was molested by my 14 year old baby sitter the same year, and yes, we did have sex, which felt really "right" to me.

Armed with that knowledge at a rather young age, I never questioned if I was straight or not, because I knew that I was.

However, when I joined the Navy, I was friends with a few people who were gay. One of 'em was a dude named Paul who would go out on liberty with me (dude was a freaking chick MAGNET), and then he'd steer the girls my way.

I also went out with him on occasion to watch the female impersonator shows, and lemmie tell ya, some of those dudes look EXACTLY, as well as sound EXACTLY like the singer that they're trying to imitate, and some of 'em look really good. Does this mean that I'm gay? No. I'm comfortable in my own sexuality because I know who and what I am, but I still appreciate people that can entertain others like that, no matter what their gender.

And.........I've never been scared that a gay dude would ever try to convert me. I've had some guys proposition me on occasion, because they thought I was good looking, but I never regarded it as a threat, just a really nice (if a bit unusual) compliment about me.

 

[High_Gravity]

Those that are afraid of being "turned" are only afraid because they know they can be.

Yes they are scared of the temptation, any straight man secure in his sexuality has no worries.

You know.....both you and rdean are right HG.

Me? I've know that I like females since I was 7. How? Simple......some of my friends when I was younger and spending the night over at their house offered to experiment. It felt really wrong that they suggested it to me, and I left and went back home. On the other side of the spectrum, I was molested by my 14 year old baby sitter the same year, and yes, we did have sex, which felt really "right" to me.

Armed with that knowledge at a rather young age, I never questioned if I was straight or not, because I knew that I was.

However, when I joined the Navy, I was friends with a few people who were gay. One of 'em was a dude named Paul who would go out on liberty with me (dude was a freaking chick MAGNET), and then he'd steer the girls my way.

I also went out with him on occasion to watch the female impersonator shows, and lemmie tell ya, some of those dudes look EXACTLY, as well as sound EXACTLY like the singer that they're trying to imitate, and some of 'em look really good. Does this mean that I'm gay? No. I'm comfortable in my own sexuality because I know who and what I am, but I still appreciate people that can entertain others like that, no matter what their gender.

And.........I've never been scared that a gay dude would ever try to convert me. I've had some guys proposition me on occasion, because they thought I was good looking, but I never regarded it as a threat, just a really nice (if a bit unusual) compliment about me.

Its all about security in yourself, from your experiences you know you are straight. For some people sexuality can be something that is a question, one of my girlfriends guy friends is a guy who "used to be gay", now he is married and has 2 children! He said he experimented with a guy when he was 14 and ended up liking it and thought he was gay, he stayed like that until he was in college and at a drunken party ended up fucking a hot red headed co-ed, for some people its a journey. I never questioned myself because I always knew I liked girls from the third grade, other people are not so sure because they run into situations where they experiment with another guy and like it. I definently believe the people that are really anti gay and spitting fire and brime stone are definently in a battle with their sexuality.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

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.

Let's get things straight, since you have such a habit of muddying the waters. Sexual attraction to a member of the same sex is homosexuality. Sexual attraction to children is pedophilia. The two CAN overlap just as heterosexual and pedophile can, but do not inherently do so.

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?

So you're saying a spark is both fire and makes fire, and temptation is to attraction as spark is to fire? Do you really want to go into those semantics further? And again I ask: what is your point? You have yet to make one.

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.
Reaction (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good think human acts do not follow reaction physics. I don't think you've quite picked up on that fact yet. If someone throws a rock through your window, the FORCES are equal but opposite, and that's it. There is no inherent reaction to the decision to throw, the act of throwing, or the after-effects past the physical forces exerted. Or do you believe human actions such as homosexual acts have an equal but opposite force? Again, you seem to have a hard time of figuring out how concepts are actual applied to situations.

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

Again, do you really believe there is an equal but opposite "reaction" to homosexual acts? The idea is ridiculous. Stop applying Newtonian physics to psychology and decision making. It doesn't apply in the least.

So, are you going to explain your ideas about the "homosexual agenda" or "role of the female figure", dear closeted bigot? Or just more inane drivel into semantics that have no point? I look forward to more hick responses.

 

[shintao]

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:

But what should we do about uncircumcised males, and their throw back cock of the primitive apes? They want to copulate with females in our society, and scare women with their ugly fore skins, and go against god and everything Holy. They are Satan's primitive children. We are already seeing women reject uncircumcised males and run off with other women, and who can blame them?? No wonder our society is adrift in Lesbians.

 

[RealityStrikes]

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.

Let's get things straight, since you have such a habit of muddying the waters. Sexual attraction to a member of the same sex is homosexuality. Sexual attraction to children is pedophilia. The two CAN overlap just as heterosexual and pedophile can, but do not inherently do so.

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?

So you're saying a spark is both fire and makes fire, and temptation is to attraction as spark is to fire? Do you really want to go into those semantics further? And again I ask: what is your point? You have yet to make one.

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.
Reaction (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good think human acts do not follow reaction physics. I don't think you've quite picked up on that fact yet. If someone throws a rock through your window, the FORCES are equal but opposite, and that's it. There is no inherent reaction to the decision to throw, the act of throwing, or the after-effects past the physical forces exerted. Or do you believe human actions such as homosexual acts have an equal but opposite force? Again, you seem to have a hard time of figuring out how concepts are actual applied to situations.

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

Again, do you really believe there is an equal but opposite "reaction" to homosexual acts? The idea is ridiculous. Stop applying Newtonian physics to psychology and decision making. It doesn't apply in the least.

So, are you going to explain your ideas about the "homosexual agenda" or "role of the female figure", dear closeted bigot? Or just more inane drivel into semantics that have no point? I look forward to more hick responses.

Just as I thought. You have no proof or evidence other than your pointless, "rock through a window" analogy. It's so redundant, you should be ashamed of yourself. By the way, that is the correct usage of the word, and not comparing it to resultants.

First off, please disagree that sparks are synonymous to fires. I'm interested in knowing whether or not you do.

Second, I'm talking about the forces, not the objects. So a rock(object) and window(object) are pointless in this discussion. The forces between them are what we are discussing, LMAO. Attractions and temptations are forces, not objects/matter. You don't have a clue. Of course a rock won't bounce back if you hit a window dummy. And the "act of throwing the rock" is "redundant", pretty much pointless in this discussion. Reactions from objects is not the argument here. We are only focused on forces. And the same force it takes for you to throw the rock through the window, is the exact same force which shatters(breaks) it. And that's what we are discussing. The forces between each object/matter.You are basically indirectly explaining your analogy correct in a hilarious way. Let me explain...... your analogy is shattered like the window and flying right out of it like the rock.

The whole homosexual agenda is to try to get everyone 100% on their side, or else you are labeled the enemy, even if you have impartial ( neutral views). And also to forcefully push homosexuality on all kids in school here in the Bay Area, AS EARLY AS KINDERGARTEN!!!!!AND HETEROSEXUAL PARENTS HAVE NO SAY!!!!!!! When our rights are taken away IN FAVOR OF YOUR FEELINGS GETTING HURT BY AN OPINION THAT YOU ARE AFRAID MAY BE TRUE!!!!!!!!, that's an agenda. Because if you were so confident in your belief, you wouldn't care what anyone else thinks. It's called living in a state of denial. And It is NOT bigotry to say so. Please explain what message you are getting from millions of people who say it's a choice? Show us your jaded perceptions please. We are all bigots. Apparently, believing that being gay is a choice=hatred, discrimination and bigotry. Please by all means, take the stage and educate us on your perception of hate.

And here are examples of that agenda.
School District Forces Kindergartners to Embrace Homosexuality
CULTURE NEWS: Homosexual Indoctrination Mandated for Schools

When you are forced to apologize for an opinion that doesn't show any forms of hatred. Saying..."It's a choice" is a form of hatred an bigotry? You gays are so sensitive, you are insane. There is not one drop of hatred in that phrase.
CNN apologizes for interviewing gay ‘cure’ expert*|*Raw Replay
ThinkProgress » CNN’s Kyra Phillips apologizes for hosting discredited ‘ex-gay’ guest: He wasn’t an ‘appropriate’ choice.
CNN's John King Apologizes For Guest Using Word "Crosshairs"

These are all violations of civil rights. We are NOT allowed to express any neutral or opposite opinions that gays have OR ELSE!!!!

And as far as the female role goes.......
Females are females. And if they portray a male, then they obviously hate being female. That means they hate themselves. We should all love and accept who we are and be proud. And it further shows contradiction. If you promote same sex, then be the same sex. Don't try to imitate heterosexual relationships where one plays a male role and the other a female role. Its nothing to do with bigotry to say this and all to do with self esteem and contradiction. Promoting the act of BEING TRUE TO YOURSELF IS NOT BIGOTRY!!!!!

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

Let's get things straight, since you have such a habit of muddying the waters. Sexual attraction to a member of the same sex is homosexuality. Sexual attraction to children is pedophilia. The two CAN overlap just as heterosexual and pedophile can, but do not inherently do so.


So you're saying a spark is both fire and makes fire, and temptation is to attraction as spark is to fire? Do you really want to go into those semantics further? And again I ask: what is your point? You have yet to make one.


Good think human acts do not follow reaction physics. I don't think you've quite picked up on that fact yet. If someone throws a rock through your window, the FORCES are equal but opposite, and that's it. There is no inherent reaction to the decision to throw, the act of throwing, or the after-effects past the physical forces exerted. Or do you believe human actions such as homosexual acts have an equal but opposite force? Again, you seem to have a hard time of figuring out how concepts are actual applied to situations.

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

Again, do you really believe there is an equal but opposite "reaction" to homosexual acts? The idea is ridiculous. Stop applying Newtonian physics to psychology and decision making. It doesn't apply in the least.

So, are you going to explain your ideas about the "homosexual agenda" or "role of the female figure", dear closeted bigot? Or just more inane drivel into semantics that have no point? I look forward to more hick responses.

Just as I thought. You have no proof or evidence other than your pointless, "rock through a window" analogy. It's so redundant, you should be ashamed of yourself. By the way, that is the correct usage of the word, and not comparing it to resultants.

First off, please disagree that sparks are synonymous to fires. I'm interested in knowing whether or not you do.

Second, I'm talking about the forces, not the objects. So a rock(object) and window(object) are pointless in this discussion. The forces between them are what we are discussing, LMAO. Attractions and temptations are forces, not objects/matter. You don't have a clue. Of course a rock won't bounce back if you hit a window dummy. And the "act of throwing the rock" is "redundant", pretty much pointless in this discussion. Reactions from objects is not the argument here. We are only focused on forces. And the same force it takes for you to throw the rock through the window, is the exact same force which shatters(breaks) it. And that's what we are discussing. The forces between each object/matter.You are basically indirectly explaining your analogy correct in a hilarious way. Let me explain...... your analogy is shattered like the window and flying right out of it like the rock.

The whole homosexual agenda is to try to get everyone 100% on their side, or else you are labeled the enemy, even if you have impartial ( neutral views). And also to forcefully push homosexuality on all kids in school here in the Bay Area, AS EARLY AS KINDERGARTEN!!!!!AND HETEROSEXUAL PARENTS HAVE NO SAY!!!!!!! When our rights are taken away IN FAVOR OF YOUR FEELINGS GETTING HURT BY AN OPINION THAT YOU ARE AFRAID MAY BE TRUE!!!!!!!!, that's an agenda. Because if you were so confident in your belief, you wouldn't care what anyone else thinks. It's called living in a state of denial. And It is NOT bigotry to say so. Please explain what message you are getting from millions of people who say it's a choice? Show us your jaded perceptions please. We are all bigots. Apparently, believing that being gay is a choice=hatred, discrimination and bigotry. Please by all means, take the stage and educate us on your perception of hate.

And here are examples of that agenda.
School District Forces Kindergartners to Embrace Homosexuality
CULTURE NEWS: Homosexual Indoctrination Mandated for Schools

When you are forced to apologize for an opinion that doesn't show any forms of hatred. Saying..."It's a choice" is a form of hatred an bigotry? You gays are so sensitive, you are insane. There is not one drop of hatred in that phrase.
CNN apologizes for interviewing gay ‘cure’ expert*|*Raw Replay
ThinkProgress » CNN’s Kyra Phillips apologizes for hosting discredited ‘ex-gay’ guest: He wasn’t an ‘appropriate’ choice.
CNN's John King Apologizes For Guest Using Word "Crosshairs"

These are all violations of civil rights. We are NOT allowed to express any neutral or opposite opinions that gays have OR ELSE!!!!

And as far as the female role goes.......
Females are females. And if they portray a male, then they obviously hate being female. That means they hate themselves. We should all love and accept who we are and be proud. And it further shows contradiction. If you promote same sex, then be the same sex. Don't try to imitate heterosexual relationships where one plays a male role and the other a female role. Its nothing to do with bigotry to say this and all to do with self esteem and contradiction. Promoting the act of BEING TRUE TO YOURSELF IS NOT BIGOTRY!!!!!

I could care less if you like homosexuals or not. I agree that teaching 5 year olds about any sexuality is too early.
I do not like a lot of people.
But remember you are in The United States of America. A country where The United States Constitution, not your beliefs, is the law. Your beliefs be they religous or not do not matter.
Concerning your beliefs on gay marriage as one of your examples of the so called "homosexual agenda". We have all these problems in America that I know you will agree with me that are important: taxes, education, the deficit, the war, jobs,capital growth, infrastructure, drugs, tax reform, obesity, health care and on and on. Now why would anyone, anywhere worry about if there are 2 women or 2 men somewhere in this great country, founded and governed BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOT YOUR OF MY BELIEFS, and if they want to marry? With all of these IMPORTANT ISSUES we have in America why do you lose any sleep on gay marriage? Because of your BELIEFS. I am not saying they are wrong but they are not founded ON THE LAW.
When you want to ban gay marriage you are stating we do not needtax reform, we don't need to end the deficit, better education and health care and address all of the other problems we have.
Again, go ahead and have whatever beliefs you want on gays and gay marriage as the example I gave. But do not call yourself an American patriot and defender of freedom and The Constitution as you do. A defender SEEKS TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THOSE THEY MAY DESPISE THE MOST. That is how it works in America with The Constitution.
But is amazing you folks that want to ban gay marriage with a Constitutional Amendment for example. A conservative seeks TO LIMIT THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT.
YOU and your supporters want to use THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, a document that is DEDICATED to the preservation of our inalienable rights, TO TELL A CERTAIN GROUP OF PEOPLE (gays and lesbians) what they CAN NOT DO, RATHER THAN TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO.
And that is against everything this great nation was founded on.
And that has NEVER BEEN DONE in America or to THE CONSTITUTION EVER.
So go ahead and believe what you want. Fine with me but DO NOT seek the assistance of government and THE LAW to support YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM.

 

[RealityStrikes]

Let's get things straight, since you have such a habit of muddying the waters. Sexual attraction to a member of the same sex is homosexuality. Sexual attraction to children is pedophilia. The two CAN overlap just as heterosexual and pedophile can, but do not inherently do so.


So you're saying a spark is both fire and makes fire, and temptation is to attraction as spark is to fire? Do you really want to go into those semantics further? And again I ask: what is your point? You have yet to make one.


Good think human acts do not follow reaction physics. I don't think you've quite picked up on that fact yet. If someone throws a rock through your window, the FORCES are equal but opposite, and that's it. There is no inherent reaction to the decision to throw, the act of throwing, or the after-effects past the physical forces exerted. Or do you believe human actions such as homosexual acts have an equal but opposite force? Again, you seem to have a hard time of figuring out how concepts are actual applied to situations.


Again, do you really believe there is an equal but opposite "reaction" to homosexual acts? The idea is ridiculous. Stop applying Newtonian physics to psychology and decision making. It doesn't apply in the least.

So, are you going to explain your ideas about the "homosexual agenda" or "role of the female figure", dear closeted bigot? Or just more inane drivel into semantics that have no point? I look forward to more hick responses.

Just as I thought. You have no proof or evidence other than your pointless, "rock through a window" analogy. It's so redundant, you should be ashamed of yourself. By the way, that is the correct usage of the word, and not comparing it to resultants.

First off, please disagree that sparks are synonymous to fires. I'm interested in knowing whether or not you do.

Second, I'm talking about the forces, not the objects. So a rock(object) and window(object) are pointless in this discussion. The forces between them are what we are discussing, LMAO. Attractions and temptations are forces, not objects/matter. You don't have a clue. Of course a rock won't bounce back if you hit a window dummy. And the "act of throwing the rock" is "redundant", pretty much pointless in this discussion. Reactions from objects is not the argument here. We are only focused on forces. And the same force it takes for you to throw the rock through the window, is the exact same force which shatters(breaks) it. And that's what we are discussing. The forces between each object/matter.You are basically indirectly explaining your analogy correct in a hilarious way. Let me explain...... your analogy is shattered like the window and flying right out of it like the rock.

The whole homosexual agenda is to try to get everyone 100% on their side, or else you are labeled the enemy, even if you have impartial ( neutral views). And also to forcefully push homosexuality on all kids in school here in the Bay Area, AS EARLY AS KINDERGARTEN!!!!!AND HETEROSEXUAL PARENTS HAVE NO SAY!!!!!!! When our rights are taken away IN FAVOR OF YOUR FEELINGS GETTING HURT BY AN OPINION THAT YOU ARE AFRAID MAY BE TRUE!!!!!!!!, that's an agenda. Because if you were so confident in your belief, you wouldn't care what anyone else thinks. It's called living in a state of denial. And It is NOT bigotry to say so. Please explain what message you are getting from millions of people who say it's a choice? Show us your jaded perceptions please. We are all bigots. Apparently, believing that being gay is a choice=hatred, discrimination and bigotry. Please by all means, take the stage and educate us on your perception of hate.

And here are examples of that agenda.
School District Forces Kindergartners to Embrace Homosexuality
CULTURE NEWS: Homosexual Indoctrination Mandated for Schools

When you are forced to apologize for an opinion that doesn't show any forms of hatred. Saying..."It's a choice" is a form of hatred an bigotry? You gays are so sensitive, you are insane. There is not one drop of hatred in that phrase.
CNN apologizes for interviewing gay ‘cure’ expert*|*Raw Replay
ThinkProgress » CNN’s Kyra Phillips apologizes for hosting discredited ‘ex-gay’ guest: He wasn’t an ‘appropriate’ choice.
CNN's John King Apologizes For Guest Using Word "Crosshairs"

These are all violations of civil rights. We are NOT allowed to express any neutral or opposite opinions that gays have OR ELSE!!!!

And as far as the female role goes.......
Females are females. And if they portray a male, then they obviously hate being female. That means they hate themselves. We should all love and accept who we are and be proud. And it further shows contradiction. If you promote same sex, then be the same sex. Don't try to imitate heterosexual relationships where one plays a male role and the other a female role. Its nothing to do with bigotry to say this and all to do with self esteem and contradiction. Promoting the act of BEING TRUE TO YOURSELF IS NOT BIGOTRY!!!!!

I could care less if you like homosexuals or not. I agree that teaching 5 year olds about any sexuality is too early.
I do not like a lot of people.
But remember you are in The United States of America. A country where The United States Constitution, not your beliefs, is the law. Your beliefs be they religous or not do not matter.
Concerning your beliefs on gay marriage as one of your examples of the so called "homosexual agenda". We have all these problems in America that I know you will agree with me that are important: taxes, education, the deficit, the war, jobs,capital growth, infrastructure, drugs, tax reform, obesity, health care and on and on. Now why would anyone, anywhere worry about if there are 2 women or 2 men somewhere in this great country, founded and governed BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOT YOUR OF MY BELIEFS, and if they want to marry? With all of these IMPORTANT ISSUES we have in America why do you lose any sleep on gay marriage? Because of your BELIEFS. I am not saying they are wrong but they are not founded ON THE LAW.
When you want to ban gay marriage you are stating we do not needtax reform, we don't need to end the deficit, better education and health care and address all of the other problems we have.
Again, go ahead and have whatever beliefs you want on gays and gay marriage as the example I gave. But do not call yourself an American patriot and defender of freedom and The Constitution as you do. A defender SEEKS TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THOSE THEY MAY DESPISE THE MOST. That is how it works in America with The Constitution.
But is amazing you folks that want to ban gay marriage with a Constitutional Amendment for example. A conservative seeks TO LIMIT THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT.
YOU and your supporters want to use THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, a document that is DEDICATED to the preservation of our inalienable rights, TO TELL A CERTAIN GROUP OF PEOPLE (gays and lesbians) what they CAN NOT DO, RATHER THAN TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO.
And that is against everything this great nation was founded on.
And that has NEVER BEEN DONE in America or to THE CONSTITUTION EVER.
So go ahead and believe what you want. Fine with me but DO NOT seek the assistance of government and THE LAW to support YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM.

You know what? I totally agree with most of what you are saying. However, just like gays have their rights to their sexual orientation and beliefs, so do those who are religious and have their beliefs. If I were to be disrespectful and bigoted towards gays, I would call them derogatory names that reflect their orientation. I would wish bad things on them and show them absolutely no remorse, telling them just how despicable they are as a whole, and not just the child molesting priests. Bashing would be just the tip of the iceberg. But as you can see, none of that has happened here in this case. There was not an ounce of disrespect on my part, or the parts of many govt. politicians who were forced to apologize based on their opinion (which could be true).

There are many gays on here who deny God, and religion as a whole. Are Gays bigots for saying there is no God? But we are bigots if we believe there's no homosexual gene present at birth. I believe gays need to reevaluate the word "bigot" or "discrimination" when referring to the belief of homosexuality being a choice. Your sensitivity overwhelms you to the point that you blow your bigot alert whistles at the drop of a dime. Our sovereignty is being diminished and this country is slowly being shifted towards a 100% pro gay society where you are condemned if you disagree with them. So tell me, if the laws are here to protect all, why are rights of heterosexual parents being taken away in favor of pushing homosexuality on kindergartners?

 

[rdean]

You have a point just like some of the leading KKK guys have been caught with black mistresses.

Those that are afraid of being "turned" are only afraid because they know they can be.

Yes they are scared of the temptation, any straight man secure in his sexuality has no worries.

It's not even a matter of "being secure in your sexuality". If you're straight, what's the chance of giving even the slightest thought to sex with another dude?

I just like to tweak right wingers because many find the gays irresistibly delectable. Pardon the phrase, "Forbidden Fruit" and oh so tempting. Once you go down, you will always "turn 'round".

 

[rdean]

Just as I thought. You have no proof or evidence other than your pointless, "rock through a window" analogy. It's so redundant, you should be ashamed of yourself. By the way, that is the correct usage of the word, and not comparing it to resultants.

First off, please disagree that sparks are synonymous to fires. I'm interested in knowing whether or not you do.

Second, I'm talking about the forces, not the objects. So a rock(object) and window(object) are pointless in this discussion. The forces between them are what we are discussing, LMAO. Attractions and temptations are forces, not objects/matter. You don't have a clue. Of course a rock won't bounce back if you hit a window dummy. And the "act of throwing the rock" is "redundant", pretty much pointless in this discussion. Reactions from objects is not the argument here. We are only focused on forces. And the same force it takes for you to throw the rock through the window, is the exact same force which shatters(breaks) it. And that's what we are discussing. The forces between each object/matter.You are basically indirectly explaining your analogy correct in a hilarious way. Let me explain...... your analogy is shattered like the window and flying right out of it like the rock.

The whole homosexual agenda is to try to get everyone 100% on their side, or else you are labeled the enemy, even if you have impartial ( neutral views). And also to forcefully push homosexuality on all kids in school here in the Bay Area, AS EARLY AS KINDERGARTEN!!!!!AND HETEROSEXUAL PARENTS HAVE NO SAY!!!!!!! When our rights are taken away IN FAVOR OF YOUR FEELINGS GETTING HURT BY AN OPINION THAT YOU ARE AFRAID MAY BE TRUE!!!!!!!!, that's an agenda. Because if you were so confident in your belief, you wouldn't care what anyone else thinks. It's called living in a state of denial. And It is NOT bigotry to say so. Please explain what message you are getting from millions of people who say it's a choice? Show us your jaded perceptions please. We are all bigots. Apparently, believing that being gay is a choice=hatred, discrimination and bigotry. Please by all means, take the stage and educate us on your perception of hate.

And here are examples of that agenda.
School District Forces Kindergartners to Embrace Homosexuality
CULTURE NEWS: Homosexual Indoctrination Mandated for Schools

When you are forced to apologize for an opinion that doesn't show any forms of hatred. Saying..."It's a choice" is a form of hatred an bigotry? You gays are so sensitive, you are insane. There is not one drop of hatred in that phrase.
CNN apologizes for interviewing gay ‘cure’ expert*|*Raw Replay
ThinkProgress » CNN’s Kyra Phillips apologizes for hosting discredited ‘ex-gay’ guest: He wasn’t an ‘appropriate’ choice.
CNN's John King Apologizes For Guest Using Word "Crosshairs"

These are all violations of civil rights. We are NOT allowed to express any neutral or opposite opinions that gays have OR ELSE!!!!

And as far as the female role goes.......
Females are females. And if they portray a male, then they obviously hate being female. That means they hate themselves. We should all love and accept who we are and be proud. And it further shows contradiction. If you promote same sex, then be the same sex. Don't try to imitate heterosexual relationships where one plays a male role and the other a female role. Its nothing to do with bigotry to say this and all to do with self esteem and contradiction. Promoting the act of BEING TRUE TO YOURSELF IS NOT BIGOTRY!!!!!

I could care less if you like homosexuals or not. I agree that teaching 5 year olds about any sexuality is too early.
I do not like a lot of people.
But remember you are in The United States of America. A country where The United States Constitution, not your beliefs, is the law. Your beliefs be they religous or not do not matter.
Concerning your beliefs on gay marriage as one of your examples of the so called "homosexual agenda". We have all these problems in America that I know you will agree with me that are important: taxes, education, the deficit, the war, jobs,capital growth, infrastructure, drugs, tax reform, obesity, health care and on and on. Now why would anyone, anywhere worry about if there are 2 women or 2 men somewhere in this great country, founded and governed BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOT YOUR OF MY BELIEFS, and if they want to marry? With all of these IMPORTANT ISSUES we have in America why do you lose any sleep on gay marriage? Because of your BELIEFS. I am not saying they are wrong but they are not founded ON THE LAW.
When you want to ban gay marriage you are stating we do not needtax reform, we don't need to end the deficit, better education and health care and address all of the other problems we have.
Again, go ahead and have whatever beliefs you want on gays and gay marriage as the example I gave. But do not call yourself an American patriot and defender of freedom and The Constitution as you do. A defender SEEKS TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THOSE THEY MAY DESPISE THE MOST. That is how it works in America with The Constitution.
But is amazing you folks that want to ban gay marriage with a Constitutional Amendment for example. A conservative seeks TO LIMIT THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT.
YOU and your supporters want to use THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, a document that is DEDICATED to the preservation of our inalienable rights, TO TELL A CERTAIN GROUP OF PEOPLE (gays and lesbians) what they CAN NOT DO, RATHER THAN TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO.
And that is against everything this great nation was founded on.
And that has NEVER BEEN DONE in America or to THE CONSTITUTION EVER.
So go ahead and believe what you want. Fine with me but DO NOT seek the assistance of government and THE LAW to support YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM.

You know what? I totally agree with most of what you are saying. However, just like gays have their rights to their sexual orientation and beliefs, so do those who are religious and have their beliefs. If I were to be disrespectful and bigoted towards gays, I would call them derogatory names that reflect their orientation. I would wish bad things on them and show them absolutely no remorse, telling them just how despicable they are as a whole, and not just the child molesting priests. Bashing would be just the tip of the iceberg. But as you can see, none of that has happened here in this case. There was not an ounce of disrespect on my part, or the parts of many govt. politicians who were forced to apologize based on their opinion (which could be true).

There are many gays on here who deny God, and religion as a whole. Are Gays bigots for saying there is no God? But we are bigots if we believe there's no homosexual gene present at birth. I believe gays need to reevaluate the word "bigot" or "discrimination" when referring to the belief of homosexuality being a choice. Your sensitivity overwhelms you to the point that you blow your bigot alert whistles at the drop of a dime. Our sovereignty is being diminished and this country is slowly being shifted towards a 100% pro gay society where you are condemned if you disagree with them. So tell me, if the laws are here to protect all, why are rights of heterosexual parents being taken away in favor of pushing homosexuality on kindergartners?

There are probably way more "atheists" and "married swingers" than gays. After all, there are "swingers clubs" in every state in the union, some boasting membership in more than 30 countries.

With a 50% divorce rate and skyrocketing numbers of children in poverty, seems right wingers should worry less about a mere 5% of the population, less than half of which even want to get married. Gawd you guys are dumb.

 

[Gadawg73]

Just as I thought. You have no proof or evidence other than your pointless, "rock through a window" analogy. It's so redundant, you should be ashamed of yourself. By the way, that is the correct usage of the word, and not comparing it to resultants.

First off, please disagree that sparks are synonymous to fires. I'm interested in knowing whether or not you do.

Second, I'm talking about the forces, not the objects. So a rock(object) and window(object) are pointless in this discussion. The forces between them are what we are discussing, LMAO. Attractions and temptations are forces, not objects/matter. You don't have a clue. Of course a rock won't bounce back if you hit a window dummy. And the "act of throwing the rock" is "redundant", pretty much pointless in this discussion. Reactions from objects is not the argument here. We are only focused on forces. And the same force it takes for you to throw the rock through the window, is the exact same force which shatters(breaks) it. And that's what we are discussing. The forces between each object/matter.You are basically indirectly explaining your analogy correct in a hilarious way. Let me explain...... your analogy is shattered like the window and flying right out of it like the rock.

The whole homosexual agenda is to try to get everyone 100% on their side, or else you are labeled the enemy, even if you have impartial ( neutral views). And also to forcefully push homosexuality on all kids in school here in the Bay Area, AS EARLY AS KINDERGARTEN!!!!!AND HETEROSEXUAL PARENTS HAVE NO SAY!!!!!!! When our rights are taken away IN FAVOR OF YOUR FEELINGS GETTING HURT BY AN OPINION THAT YOU ARE AFRAID MAY BE TRUE!!!!!!!!, that's an agenda. Because if you were so confident in your belief, you wouldn't care what anyone else thinks. It's called living in a state of denial. And It is NOT bigotry to say so. Please explain what message you are getting from millions of people who say it's a choice? Show us your jaded perceptions please. We are all bigots. Apparently, believing that being gay is a choice=hatred, discrimination and bigotry. Please by all means, take the stage and educate us on your perception of hate.

And here are examples of that agenda.
School District Forces Kindergartners to Embrace Homosexuality
CULTURE NEWS: Homosexual Indoctrination Mandated for Schools

When you are forced to apologize for an opinion that doesn't show any forms of hatred. Saying..."It's a choice" is a form of hatred an bigotry? You gays are so sensitive, you are insane. There is not one drop of hatred in that phrase.
CNN apologizes for interviewing gay ‘cure’ expert*|*Raw Replay
ThinkProgress » CNN’s Kyra Phillips apologizes for hosting discredited ‘ex-gay’ guest: He wasn’t an ‘appropriate’ choice.
CNN's John King Apologizes For Guest Using Word "Crosshairs"

These are all violations of civil rights. We are NOT allowed to express any neutral or opposite opinions that gays have OR ELSE!!!!

And as far as the female role goes.......
Females are females. And if they portray a male, then they obviously hate being female. That means they hate themselves. We should all love and accept who we are and be proud. And it further shows contradiction. If you promote same sex, then be the same sex. Don't try to imitate heterosexual relationships where one plays a male role and the other a female role. Its nothing to do with bigotry to say this and all to do with self esteem and contradiction. Promoting the act of BEING TRUE TO YOURSELF IS NOT BIGOTRY!!!!!

I could care less if you like homosexuals or not. I agree that teaching 5 year olds about any sexuality is too early.
I do not like a lot of people.
But remember you are in The United States of America. A country where The United States Constitution, not your beliefs, is the law. Your beliefs be they religous or not do not matter.
Concerning your beliefs on gay marriage as one of your examples of the so called "homosexual agenda". We have all these problems in America that I know you will agree with me that are important: taxes, education, the deficit, the war, jobs,capital growth, infrastructure, drugs, tax reform, obesity, health care and on and on. Now why would anyone, anywhere worry about if there are 2 women or 2 men somewhere in this great country, founded and governed BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOT YOUR OF MY BELIEFS, and if they want to marry? With all of these IMPORTANT ISSUES we have in America why do you lose any sleep on gay marriage? Because of your BELIEFS. I am not saying they are wrong but they are not founded ON THE LAW.
When you want to ban gay marriage you are stating we do not needtax reform, we don't need to end the deficit, better education and health care and address all of the other problems we have.
Again, go ahead and have whatever beliefs you want on gays and gay marriage as the example I gave. But do not call yourself an American patriot and defender of freedom and The Constitution as you do. A defender SEEKS TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THOSE THEY MAY DESPISE THE MOST. That is how it works in America with The Constitution.
But is amazing you folks that want to ban gay marriage with a Constitutional Amendment for example. A conservative seeks TO LIMIT THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT.
YOU and your supporters want to use THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, a document that is DEDICATED to the preservation of our inalienable rights, TO TELL A CERTAIN GROUP OF PEOPLE (gays and lesbians) what they CAN NOT DO, RATHER THAN TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO.
And that is against everything this great nation was founded on.
And that has NEVER BEEN DONE in America or to THE CONSTITUTION EVER.
So go ahead and believe what you want. Fine with me but DO NOT seek the assistance of government and THE LAW to support YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM.

You know what? I totally agree with most of what you are saying. However, just like gays have their rights to their sexual orientation and beliefs, so do those who are religious and have their beliefs. If I were to be disrespectful and bigoted towards gays, I would call them derogatory names that reflect their orientation. I would wish bad things on them and show them absolutely no remorse, telling them just how despicable they are as a whole, and not just the child molesting priests. Bashing would be just the tip of the iceberg. But as you can see, none of that has happened here in this case. There was not an ounce of disrespect on my part, or the parts of many govt. politicians who were forced to apologize based on their opinion (which could be true).

There are many gays on here who deny God, and religion as a whole. Are Gays bigots for saying there is no God? But we are bigots if we believe there's no homosexual gene present at birth. I believe gays need to reevaluate the word "bigot" or "discrimination" when referring to the belief of homosexuality being a choice. Your sensitivity overwhelms you to the point that you blow your bigot alert whistles at the drop of a dime. Our sovereignty is being diminished and this country is slowly being shifted towards a 100% pro gay society where you are condemned if you disagree with them. So tell me, if the laws are here to protect all, why are rights of heterosexual parents being taken away in favor of pushing homosexuality on kindergartners?

No one forces any parent to send their kid TO ANY SCHOOL.
Where is that law and where is that IN THE CONSTITUTION?
I have not blown any bigot alert.
God is not part of the LAW.
Your claim that "why are the rights of heterosexual parents being taken away in favor of pushing homosexuality on kindergartners" is bogus and has never happened.
YOU have choices. Make them and quit blaming others for your lack of action. No one is forced to send their child to any specific school. Don't like it? MOVE ON.
No cry babies. You live in America.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Just as I thought. You have no proof or evidence other than your pointless, "rock through a window" analogy. It's so redundant, you should be ashamed of yourself. By the way, that is the correct usage of the word, and not comparing it to resultants.

I don't think you understand what the word redundant means, because you're not using it correctly. Perhaps you should avoid attempting to use words that I have when you don't know what they mean. As for the "rock through a window" example with regards to equal but opposite forces, the CONCEPT we are discussing is Newton's laws of MOTION. Note how Newton did not name them "laws of the universe" or "laws that apply to humans." They are properties that apply to physics, not human emotion. Even the wikipedia article on the topic states it is one of the "physical laws that form the basis for classical mechanics." Note once again that it applies to mechanics, not human interactions, psychology, justice, politics, or any other topic.

It's clear to me at this point that you really don't understand half of the things you're saying. My guess is that you hear phrases here or there and without knowing the underlying concept, try to pull your own inane interpretations form them. This explains both your inability to grasp the meanings of words, grammatical usage of words, and principles such as Newton's laws of motion.

First off, please disagree that sparks are synonymous to fires. I'm interested in knowing whether or not you do.

Yes, you seemed to have mildly redeemed your silly tangent in finding a self-perpetuating example. Fire is synonymous with "fire" which also creates fire. This still does not support your point, seeing as you have yet to make one regarding the original analogy.

Second, I'm talking about the forces, not the objects. So a rock(object) and window(object) are pointless in this discussion. The forces between them are what we are discussing, LMAO. Attractions and temptations are forces, not objects/matter. You don't have a clue. Of course a rock won't bounce back if you hit a window dummy.

Once again, you appear to have a complete lack of knowledge on this physics topic, as you are trying to apply a loosely defined lay interpretation onto a specific scientific field. A FORCE in physics, as described by Newton and outlined in the above-cited Wikipedia article, is comprised of an acceleration applied to a mass. A mass is another word for those "object" things you just thought didn't apply. This definition of Force is the second of Newton's three laws of motion, where the one that speaks on action and reaction is the third.

With that being said, REaction does not mean things always "bounce." Reaction simply refers to an equal but opposite force, as still defined by acceleration applied to a mass. In other words, the force of the rock on the windows is the same but opposite force as that of the window on the rock.

You keep saying I don't have a clue, and yet I appear to continually support my "clues" with actual science that makes relevant sense, whereas you continue to make a fool of yourself.

So no, attraction and temptation are not forces that apply to Newton's third law. That's moronic.

The whole homosexual agenda is to try to get everyone 100% on their side, or else you are labeled the enemy, even if you have impartial ( neutral views). And also to forcefully push homosexuality on all kids in school here in the Bay Area, AS EARLY AS KINDERGARTEN!!!!!AND HETEROSEXUAL PARENTS HAVE NO SAY!!!!!!! When our rights are taken away IN FAVOR OF YOUR FEELINGS GETTING HURT BY AN OPINION THAT YOU ARE AFRAID MAY BE TRUE!!!!!!!!, that's an agenda. Because if you were so confident in your belief, you wouldn't care what anyone else thinks. It's called living in a state of denial. And It is NOT bigotry to say so.

The same bigotry was applied to African Americans half a century ago. People claimed it was their "right" to believe that blacks were not equal to whites in this country, even though integrated public schools were teaching it differently "AND WHITE PARENTS HAVE NO SAY!!!!! When [their] rights are taken away IN FAVOR OF YOUR FEELINGS GETTING HURT BY AN OPINION THAT YOU ARE AFRAID MAY BE TRUE!!!!!" Note how easily I just turned your own words about this topic around on you and applied it to a previous act of bigotry.

Females are females. And if they portray a male, then they obviously hate being female. That means they hate themselves. We should all love and accept who we are and be proud. And it further shows contradiction. If you promote same sex, then be the same sex. Don't try to imitate heterosexual relationships where one plays a male role and the other a female role. Its nothing to do with bigotry to say this and all to do with self esteem and contradiction. Promoting the act of BEING TRUE TO YOURSELF IS NOT BIGOTRY!!!!!

You seem to have a poor grasp of sexuality, gender identity, and basic psychology. I ask you what the female role is, and you respond by saying "females are females." Very thorough answer. The problem with promoting "being true to self" is that certain people do not believe themselves to truly be the gender they were born. If someone feels like they are truly a male, but they are trapped in a female body, then assuming male characteristics IS being true to self. No, what you're saying is "you should be forced to stick with whatever you have without question." People are born of one religion and choose another all the time. Should they be forced to stay in the religion they were born into simply because it is "being true to who they are?" The idea is ridiculous.

Secondly, changing a personal preference in no way means you suddenly hate the previous setup. If a woman takes on male characteristics, it could simply be because HE likes being a HE, and has zero association with being female, let alone hatred for it. In this ignorance you constantly manifest lies your bigotry. It's like believing black people don't have souls and then being offended for holding onto that "innocent" belief.

Again I would ask you to cite your sources for this completely fabricated information, but I really don't want to read more private blog stories from authors named "H8LIBERALS" on random websites.

Please explain what message you are getting from millions of people who say it's a choice? Show us your jaded perceptions please. We are all bigots. Apparently, believing that being gay is a choice=hatred, discrimination and bigotry. Please by all means, take the stage and educate us on your perception of hate.
Who cares if it's a choice or people are born with it. No public school in this country teaches either idea. Schools do however teach equality. Justice. Social responsibility. These are the things you are against. You may not have come to this thread claiming to hate gays, but by directly stating you believe a different set of social norms, rules, and judgments apply to homosexuals, you ARE promoting bigotry. It's the same bigotry that has eroded equality in countless civilizations, be it gender, sexuality, religion, race, or personal beliefs.

There are two options on the table before you: civil equality and human rights for all, or bigotry. The choice is yours. But the fact that you came into this thread, accused me of being homosexual simply because I defend the former option, despite the fact that I am a proud ally and not homosexual myself, shows your prejudice.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

You're a better troll than 52ndStreet. This is highly amusing now.

just like gays have their rights to their sexual orientation and beliefs, so do those who are religious and have their beliefs.

Yes, so long as your beliefs do not infringe upon the civil rights and human equalities of others. If schools teach that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle BECAUSE IT IS, it may disagree with your belief but it does not threaten your liberties or rights. If schools teach that homosexuality is an abomination that should be scorned and outcast, it directly leads to the immediate infringement on the rights and liberties of that group.

If you want to hold fast to your bigoted opinions, you certainly have the right to do so, but you should limits the practice of that bigotry to the privacy of your own home.

There are many gays on here who deny God, and religion as a whole. Are Gays bigots for saying there is no God? But we are bigots if we believe there's no homosexual gene present at birth. I believe gays need to reevaluate the word "bigot" or "discrimination" when referring to the belief of homosexuality being a choice.

Once again I find you don't actually know the meaning of words, so I think you should be the first one to re-evaluate the word "bigot" and figure out its actual meaning. It does not mean difference of opinion, as you suggest when you ask if gays are bigots for denying God, which is in and of itself a misguided statement. Homosexuality does not preclude anyone from believing in and practicing religion. Suggesting such once again shows your own prejudices.

Our sovereignty is being diminished and this country is slowly being shifted towards a 100% pro gay society where you are condemned if you disagree with them. So tell me, if the laws are here to protect all, why are rights of heterosexual parents being taken away in favor of pushing homosexuality on kindergartners?

Which rights are being taken away? None. You can't point to a single law or policy that is being violated by promoting human equality. Not a single one. You're just flipping out because it threatens your archaic religious beliefs and hurts your feelings, which is ironic based on what you said in your previous post about feelings being hurt. So what if society was 100% pro-civil liberties? 100% pro-equality? What if such things were taught to children regardless of their parents' prejudices? What is actually wrong with that?

 

[RealityStrikes]

I could care less if you like homosexuals or not. I agree that teaching 5 year olds about any sexuality is too early.
I do not like a lot of people.
But remember you are in The United States of America. A country where The United States Constitution, not your beliefs, is the law. Your beliefs be they religous or not do not matter.
Concerning your beliefs on gay marriage as one of your examples of the so called "homosexual agenda". We have all these problems in America that I know you will agree with me that are important: taxes, education, the deficit, the war, jobs,capital growth, infrastructure, drugs, tax reform, obesity, health care and on and on. Now why would anyone, anywhere worry about if there are 2 women or 2 men somewhere in this great country, founded and governed BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOT YOUR OF MY BELIEFS, and if they want to marry? With all of these IMPORTANT ISSUES we have in America why do you lose any sleep on gay marriage? Because of your BELIEFS. I am not saying they are wrong but they are not founded ON THE LAW.
When you want to ban gay marriage you are stating we do not needtax reform, we don't need to end the deficit, better education and health care and address all of the other problems we have.
Again, go ahead and have whatever beliefs you want on gays and gay marriage as the example I gave. But do not call yourself an American patriot and defender of freedom and The Constitution as you do. A defender SEEKS TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THOSE THEY MAY DESPISE THE MOST. That is how it works in America with The Constitution.
But is amazing you folks that want to ban gay marriage with a Constitutional Amendment for example. A conservative seeks TO LIMIT THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT.
YOU and your supporters want to use THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, a document that is DEDICATED to the preservation of our inalienable rights, TO TELL A CERTAIN GROUP OF PEOPLE (gays and lesbians) what they CAN NOT DO, RATHER THAN TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO.
And that is against everything this great nation was founded on.
And that has NEVER BEEN DONE in America or to THE CONSTITUTION EVER.
So go ahead and believe what you want. Fine with me but DO NOT seek the assistance of government and THE LAW to support YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM.

You know what? I totally agree with most of what you are saying. However, just like gays have their rights to their sexual orientation and beliefs, so do those who are religious and have their beliefs. If I were to be disrespectful and bigoted towards gays, I would call them derogatory names that reflect their orientation. I would wish bad things on them and show them absolutely no remorse, telling them just how despicable they are as a whole, and not just the child molesting priests. Bashing would be just the tip of the iceberg. But as you can see, none of that has happened here in this case. There was not an ounce of disrespect on my part, or the parts of many govt. politicians who were forced to apologize based on their opinion (which could be true).

There are many gays on here who deny God, and religion as a whole. Are Gays bigots for saying there is no God? But we are bigots if we believe there's no homosexual gene present at birth. I believe gays need to reevaluate the word "bigot" or "discrimination" when referring to the belief of homosexuality being a choice. Your sensitivity overwhelms you to the point that you blow your bigot alert whistles at the drop of a dime. Our sovereignty is being diminished and this country is slowly being shifted towards a 100% pro gay society where you are condemned if you disagree with them. So tell me, if the laws are here to protect all, why are rights of heterosexual parents being taken away in favor of pushing homosexuality on kindergartners?

No one forces any parent to send their kid TO ANY SCHOOL.
Where is that law and where is that IN THE CONSTITUTION?
I have not blown any bigot alert.
God is not part of the LAW.
Your claim that "why are the rights of heterosexual parents being taken away in favor of pushing homosexuality on kindergartners" is bogus and has never happened.
YOU have choices. Make them and quit blaming others for your lack of action. No one is forced to send their child to any specific school. Don't like it? MOVE ON.
No cry babies. You live in America.

Omg sir, you have such an ignorant perception of this debate. It's ridiculous. The parents of the Vallejo Unified( Public) School District don't have a choice where to send their kids. These are mostly poor working class citizens we are talking about here. You think money goes on trees there and they can just send their kids to any other district or private school they like? And the argument isn't about parents not being able to send their kids to particular schools. It's about....
1. Parents NOT being informed about a MANDATORY CURRICULUM on HOMOSEXUALITY being implemented into the Vallejo Unified School system.
2. NO kindergartner should be FORCED to participate in ANY subject dealing with sexuality PERIOD.
3. When kids do take classes on SEX EDUCATION, the kids have to have their PARENTS' signature of APPROVAL. So what makes this any different?
4. Just about every heterosexual parent wants to opt their children out of these classes, but they are BEING DENIED THE RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!! The kids MUST take the classes if they are in the district.
5.Most of these parents CAN'T AFFORD to put their kids in a private school or move to another district.

Did you get that through your thick skull(s)? These are examples of civil rights being violated in favor of a gay agenda. Cry babies? It's gays who whine and squeal like pigs, crying bigotry when they hear or see something that disagrees. And you have the AUDACITY to call us cry babies.

 

[RealityStrikes]

Just as I thought. You have no proof or evidence other than your pointless, "rock through a window" analogy. It's so redundant, you should be ashamed of yourself. By the way, that is the correct usage of the word, and not comparing it to resultants.

I don't think you understand what the word redundant means, because you're not using it correctly. Perhaps you should avoid attempting to use words that I have when you don't know what they mean. As for the "rock through a window" example with regards to equal but opposite forces, the CONCEPT we are discussing is Newton's laws of MOTION. Note how Newton did not name them "laws of the universe" or "laws that apply to humans." They are properties that apply to physics, not human emotion. Even the wikipedia article on the topic states it is one of the "physical laws that form the basis for classical mechanics." Note once again that it applies to mechanics, not human interactions, psychology, justice, politics, or any other topic.

It's clear to me at this point that you really don't understand half of the things you're saying. My guess is that you hear phrases here or there and without knowing the underlying concept, try to pull your own inane interpretations form them. This explains both your inability to grasp the meanings of words, grammatical usage of words, and principles such as Newton's laws of motion.

First off, please disagree that sparks are synonymous to fires. I'm interested in knowing whether or not you do.

Yes, you seemed to have mildly redeemed your silly tangent in finding a self-perpetuating example. Fire is synonymous with "fire" which also creates fire. This still does not support your point, seeing as you have yet to make one regarding the original analogy.


Once again, you appear to have a complete lack of knowledge on this physics topic, as you are trying to apply a loosely defined lay interpretation onto a specific scientific field. A FORCE in physics, as described by Newton and outlined in the above-cited Wikipedia article, is comprised of an acceleration applied to a mass. A mass is another word for those "object" things you just thought didn't apply. This definition of Force is the second of Newton's three laws of motion, where the one that speaks on action and reaction is the third.

With that being said, REaction does not mean things always "bounce." Reaction simply refers to an equal but opposite force, as still defined by acceleration applied to a mass. In other words, the force of the rock on the windows is the same but opposite force as that of the window on the rock.

You keep saying I don't have a clue, and yet I appear to continually support my "clues" with actual science that makes relevant sense, whereas you continue to make a fool of yourself.

So no, attraction and temptation are not forces that apply to Newton's third law. That's moronic.


The same bigotry was applied to African Americans half a century ago. People claimed it was their "right" to believe that blacks were not equal to whites in this country, even though integrated public schools were teaching it differently "AND WHITE PARENTS HAVE NO SAY!!!!! When [their] rights are taken away IN FAVOR OF YOUR FEELINGS GETTING HURT BY AN OPINION THAT YOU ARE AFRAID MAY BE TRUE!!!!!" Note how easily I just turned your own words about this topic around on you and applied it to a previous act of bigotry.

Females are females. And if they portray a male, then they obviously hate being female. That means they hate themselves. We should all love and accept who we are and be proud. And it further shows contradiction. If you promote same sex, then be the same sex. Don't try to imitate heterosexual relationships where one plays a male role and the other a female role. Its nothing to do with bigotry to say this and all to do with self esteem and contradiction. Promoting the act of BEING TRUE TO YOURSELF IS NOT BIGOTRY!!!!!

You seem to have a poor grasp of sexuality, gender identity, and basic psychology. I ask you what the female role is, and you respond by saying "females are females." Very thorough answer. The problem with promoting "being true to self" is that certain people do not believe themselves to truly be the gender they were born. If someone feels like they are truly a male, but they are trapped in a female body, then assuming male characteristics IS being true to self. No, what you're saying is "you should be forced to stick with whatever you have without question." People are born of one religion and choose another all the time. Should they be forced to stay in the religion they were born into simply because it is "being true to who they are?" The idea is ridiculous.

Secondly, changing a personal preference in no way means you suddenly hate the previous setup. If a woman takes on male characteristics, it could simply be because HE likes being a HE, and has zero association with being female, let alone hatred for it. In this ignorance you constantly manifest lies your bigotry. It's like believing black people don't have souls and then being offended for holding onto that "innocent" belief.

Again I would ask you to cite your sources for this completely fabricated information, but I really don't want to read more private blog stories from authors named "H8LIBERALS" on random websites.

Please explain what message you are getting from millions of people who say it's a choice? Show us your jaded perceptions please. We are all bigots. Apparently, believing that being gay is a choice=hatred, discrimination and bigotry. Please by all means, take the stage and educate us on your perception of hate.
Who cares if it's a choice or people are born with it. No public school in this country teaches either idea. Schools do however teach equality. Justice. Social responsibility. These are the things you are against. You may not have come to this thread claiming to hate gays, but by directly stating you believe a different set of social norms, rules, and judgments apply to homosexuals, you ARE promoting bigotry. It's the same bigotry that has eroded equality in countless civilizations, be it gender, sexuality, religion, race, or personal beliefs.

There are two options on the table before you: civil equality and human rights for all, or bigotry. The choice is yours. But the fact that you came into this thread, accused me of being homosexual simply because I defend the former option, despite the fact that I am a proud ally and not homosexual myself, shows your prejudice.

Idiot, I told you the definition of redundant. It was you who was making an idiotic comparison with redundancy and resultants, as if they were opposites. And it has absolutely nothing to do with resultants.

re·dun·dant
   /rɪˈdʌndənt/ Show Spelled[ri-duhn-duhnt] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
characterized by verbosity or unnecessary repetition in expressing ideas; prolix: a redundant style.


This is how I used the word when describing your ignorant approach to the word. And according to you, I don't know how to use the word. You are indeed pseudo, pathetic, and pathological in having total belief in your fallacies. Using redundancy as an argument to describe resultants makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

You are such an idiot. Attractions are ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCES
1. So according to you, the human body is exempt from the physical laws, due to socialism and emotions. There is no force which explains human emotion. Emotion is not an object/matter. Again, we are talking about the FORCE between 2 OBJECTS!!!!!!!DUMMY!!!!! The human body= matter/ object

The electromagnetic force is the one responsible for practically all the phenomena one encounters in daily life, with the exception of gravity. Roughly speaking, all the forces involved in interactions between atoms can be traced to the electromagnetic force acting on the electrically charged protons and electrons inside the atoms. This includes the forces we experience in "pushing" or "pulling" ordinary material objects, which come from the intermolecular forces between the individual molecules in our bodies and those in the objects. It also includes all forms of chemical phenomena, which arise from interactions between electron orbitals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism

I used Newton's 3rd Law as an example to only explain how forces work in general, and how the same force can be considered a net force, or resultant force. I am NOT applying his 3rd Law to how homosexuals attracted each other. I'm explaining how those forces equate to each other as well as result in each other.


And I do have a grasp on sexuality and gender identity. They don't like who they are. female role= woman's role. (If you have children) child bearer, nurturer, anything having to do with femininity( wearing dresses/skirts, make- up, bra, panties) is the female role.
male role= man's role. head, protector,main provider of all resources (in married couples)
any trait having to do with masculinity(suit and tie/ rugged, buzz cut or flat top, wearer of pants, boxer shorts/ briefs exclusively)

Any person who feels they were "robbed" of the gender that they feel they should be, does NOT love who they are, PERIOD.

And being a black male, I take offense to you comparing the choice to have sex with the same sex vs someones ethnicity. How dare you compare apples to oranges. I have no control over my color. Gays have control over whether or not TO HAVE SAME SEX RELATIONS!!!!!!!

It is NOT the urge that makes one gay, It's the ACT of having sex which does. We are all judged on our ACTIONS and not our urges and thoughts. This law applies to both religious and constitutional laws.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

You think money goes on trees there

Seriously what's your first language? How old are you? My guess is teenager now, which explains the inability to comprehend certain words, the idiom mistakes, the SAT analogy references, and the insecurities about job and salary.

You're arguing because you are IN such a school that promotes sexual equality, aren't you?

1. Parents NOT being informed about a MANDATORY CURRICULUM on HOMOSEXUALITY being implemented into the Vallejo Unified School system.
2. NO kindergartner should be FORCED to participate in ANY subject dealing with sexuality PERIOD.
3. When kids do take classes on SEX EDUCATION, the kids have to have their PARENTS' signature of APPROVAL. So what makes this any different?

I don't know where you're from, but most areas of the country do not need approval for a mandatory class that teaches sex ed, let alone one that teaches human equality at any grade. But as you said, it is part of the mandatory curriculum, which means parents can at any time view the curriculum and syllabus of any given class. This is not something that is hidden to them if it is a part of the curriculum, so stop victimizing those poor parents who don't take it upon themselves to take initiative and figure out what is being taught to their own children.

4. Just about every heterosexual parent wants to opt their children out of these classes

False. Bigots don't like their children learning about human equality. It has nothing to do with the sexuality of the parents. Are you starting to notice your own prejudices yet when you make statements like that?

Did you get that through your thick skull(s)? These are examples of civil rights being violated in favor of a gay agenda. Cry babies? It's gays who whine and squeal like pigs, crying bigotry when they hear or see something that disagrees. And you have the AUDACITY to call us cry babies.

Well, based on the amount of crying you're doing about stolen civil rights, despite the fact that you have yet to point to a single right that is being infringed upon, yes I'd say you are crying quite loudly.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

You are such an idiot. Attractions are ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCES
1. So according to you, the human body is exempt from the physical laws, due to socialism and emotions. There is no force which explains human emotion. Emotion is not an object/matter. Again, we are talking about the FORCE between 2 OBJECTS!!!!!!!DUMMY!!!!! The human body= matter/ object

And you think when someone says "one man is attracted to another" they are referring to electromagnetic forces?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

You've said some pretty dumb things in this thread, but that one is hilarious. So you think there is an elecromagnetic force between two people when they are attracted to one another? Seeing as we are neither electric nor magnetic, how do you propose such physical attractions, in the lay meaning of the word attraction, translates to the physical property of applying an acceleration to a mass using electromagnetism to create a force? This is hilarious. Please, continue equating lay meanings of words to unrelated physics laws.

The electromagnetic force is the one responsible for practically all the phenomena one encounters in daily life, with the exception of gravity. Roughly speaking, all the forces involved in interactions between atoms can be traced to the electromagnetic force acting on the electrically charged protons and electrons inside the atoms. This includes the forces we experience in "pushing" or "pulling" ordinary material objects, which come from the intermolecular forces between the individual molecules in our bodies and those in the objects. It also includes all forms of chemical phenomena, which arise from interactions between electron orbitals.
Electromagnetism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh hey you found wikipedia! Good job! While it is true that forces are responsible for anatomic shifts, they refer to the atoms in the brain which control the emotion, not a force between two people. Note how your own source states such electromagnetic forces create electromagnetic fields between the particles in question. Note how no such fields have ever been found between two people attracted to one another. The basic laws of physics have no documented role in psychology. They can describe how atoms in the brain work, but not how the brain works as a functioning unit, let alone higher order emotions. Your continued desperation at this failed point is epic and hysterical.

I am NOT applying his 3rd Law to how homosexuals attracted each other.

So you're making no point whatsoever as it relates to this thread then. I'm glad you finally figured that out.

And I do have a grasp on sexuality and gender identity. They don't like who they are.

These two sentences are directly contradictory. You are pushing YOUR interpretation of another person's actions onto them. Transgendered people love who they are, they just don't believe who they are is defined by their initial biological gender. If you want people to hate who they are, you are promoting them staying closeted and conforming to YOUR views of who they ought to be.

female role= woman's role. (If you have children) child bearer, nurturer, anything having to do with femininity( wearing dresses/skirts, make- up, bra, panties) is the female role.
male role= man's role. head, protector,main provider of all resources (in married couples)
any trait having to do with masculinity(suit and tie/ rugged, buzz cut or flat top, wearer of pants, boxer shorts/ briefs exclusively)

And why do you think those "roles" are set for those genders? Female role wears dresses? can you point to any other species where the female wears a dress? These are societal norms, not inherent to our biology. These are things you were taught, because your parents were taught them, and so on, with no actual reason behind them. You push your prejudices onto others because you simply can't see outside the box.

Perhaps we should discuss the "roles" of black people in society. Historically in this country, the role of a black person was a slave. Because that's how they were raised, and that's how their parents were raised, for generations. Do you feel that should still be your role today?

Any person who feels they were "robbed" of the gender that they feel they should be, does NOT love who they are, PERIOD.

Ah yes, ending a dumb statement with "PERIOD" makes people believe they are somehow more right. Here in the real world, we use logic and reasoning, and seeing as you provide zero, this makes your claims useless.

And being a black male, I take offense to you comparing the choice to have sex with the same sex vs someones ethnicity. How dare you compare apples to oranges. I have no control over my color. Gays have control over whether or not TO HAVE SAME SEX RELATIONS!!!!!!!

But you're choosing to identify with the black race. You come here and announce you are black, you demonstrate a poor understanding of the English language, you went to public school, you work for a company run by white bosses, you like watermelon, fried chicken, and grape soda. You CHOOSE to act like that. Right?

You have no more control over your color than ANYONE has over who they find physically and emotionally attracted to.

Because at the end of the day, regardless of whether it is nature or nurture that is the basis for our sexuality, we can't help but FEEL the way we feel. We can fight it, go against it, ignore it, but not change it. Every homosexual aversion therapy ever attempted has failed. We have never found, in the history of the civilized world, any way to "cure" homosexuality, or heterosexuality for that matter.

It is NOT the urge that makes one gay, It's the ACT of having sex which does. We are all judged on our ACTIONS and not our urges and thoughts. This law applies to both religious and constitutional laws.

Ah I think I see the issue here. You've had homosexual urges before, haven't you? And this backlash is your way of trying to deal with them.

You have the meaning of homosexuality wrong though. It is either the attraction or action:
Homosexuality | Define Homosexuality at Dictionary.com
Homosexual | Define Homosexual at Dictionary.com

If a 16 year old guy is attracted to other guys, but is not sexually active at all yet, he is still homosexual despite not being sexually active. Similarly, if he started liking a girl in 3rd grade, it is a heterosexual attraction. No, not an electromagnetic attraction.

It sounds like the internal struggle you're having is how to reconcile your own homosexual attractions with your religion, which apparently states it "doesn't count" unless you have sex with someone of your gender. Unfortunately for you, the real world, and specifically human psychology, doesn't give a crap about the actions related to this matter. If one man is physically attracted to another man, regardless of whether they have sex, that person is homosexual, as defined by any standard psychology reference on the matter.

 

[RealityStrikes]

You think money goes on trees there

Seriously what's your first language? How old are you? My guess is teenager now, which explains the inability to comprehend certain words, the idiom mistakes, the SAT analogy references, and the insecurities about job and salary.

You're arguing because you are IN such a school that promotes sexual equality, aren't you?

1. Parents NOT being informed about a MANDATORY CURRICULUM on HOMOSEXUALITY being implemented into the Vallejo Unified School system.
2. NO kindergartner should be FORCED to participate in ANY subject dealing with sexuality PERIOD.
3. When kids do take classes on SEX EDUCATION, the kids have to have their PARENTS' signature of APPROVAL. So what makes this any different?

I don't know where you're from, but most areas of the country do not need approval for a mandatory class that teaches sex ed, let alone one that teaches human equality at any grade. But as you said, it is part of the mandatory curriculum, which means parents can at any time view the curriculum and syllabus of any given class. This is not something that is hidden to them if it is a part of the curriculum, so stop victimizing those poor parents who don't take it upon themselves to take initiative and figure out what is being taught to their own children.

4. Just about every heterosexual parent wants to opt their children out of these classes

False. Bigots don't like their children learning about human equality. It has nothing to do with the sexuality of the parents. Are you starting to notice your own prejudices yet when you make statements like that?

Did you get that through your thick skull(s)? These are examples of civil rights being violated in favor of a gay agenda. Cry babies? It's gays who whine and squeal like pigs, crying bigotry when they hear or see something that disagrees. And you have the AUDACITY to call us cry babies.

Well, based on the amount of crying you're doing about stolen civil rights, despite the fact that you have yet to point to a single right that is being infringed upon, yes I'd say you are crying quite loudly.

You wish I was only in high school. It is you who is not educated and uses pseudo tactics. I seriously doubt you even have an AA, or AS degree, let alone a high school diploma/GED. Stanford University and it's School of Medicine are my Alma Matures. So go ahead and continue to play "editor in chief", because that's all the ammo you have. And you are shooting blanks.

1. I'm from the BAY AREA, California. and it is NOT MANDATORY for kids to take sex ed here.

Current law requires public elementary and secondary schools that teach “sex
education” (including Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome prevention) to notify the
parent or guardian of each pupil in writing of such instruction at the beginning of the
school year or at the time of the pupil’s enrollment. School districts and local school
boards must provide parents and guardians with the opportunity to request that their
child not receive such instruction. An alternative educational activity shall be provided
to pupils whose parents or guardians have requested that they not receive the
instruction. Districts and school boards also are required to inform parents or guardians
of their right to inspect any written or audiovisual materials related to sex education.
Current law specifies that if a nonschool employee will be providing the instruction,
parents must receive the following information: (1) date of the instruction, (2) name of
the organization or affiliation of the instructor, and (3) notification regarding the right
to request copies of the instructional materials. After the initial notification, if
arrangements are made for an outside organization or guest speaker to provide sexual
instruction, parents or guardians must be made aware of such changes before the
instruction is delivered.
Under existing law, individuals responsible for notifying parents or guardians of the
school’s sex education courses and related materials may have their certification
(teaching or administrative credential) revoked or suspended if they fail to fulfill such
responsibilities. Furthermore, persons who require a pupil to attend a sex education class when the parent requested otherwise can also have their certification revoked or
suspended.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2003/030397.pdf

This is California law.
In the cases I provided earlier, parents weren't even informed of the education.

At issue is the district not allowing parents to opt out from having their children watch the videos. Parents say they have the right to control what their children learn but the videos are being shown.

District Superintendant Floyd Gonella disagrees in this case.

"We do not feel that this is an area that students can opt out and we feel this is an area we don't have to give prior notification," he said.

But Karen England with the Capitol Resource institute said "no where in the state law does it prohibit you as a school board from doing an opt in policy."

This is not a victimization of parents, you imbecile. These are bigots according to you.