Republican Ken Buck Says Being Gay Is A Choice, And Also Like Alcoholism

[Samson]

The dictionary is incorrect in it's description.

Because I have a "rational" aversion to homosexuals; as do all normal people.

And bigots, historically, have always tried to justify their bigotry. You are no different.

I am in NO way, shape, or form a bigot,

All normal people have an aversion to perverts such as rapists, homosexuals, pedophiles, and other social deviants.

That is not bigotry, but a natural safety mechanism that is hard wired into the normal humans psyche.

Just like the natural aversion to snakes, spiders, and other life threatening creatures.

I think the mistake you're making is equating "pervert" with "social deviant."

Rape, and pedophilia are unlawful: Society will punish these acts.

Queerness is not unlawful, although it is socially deviant (most people are not queers).

Frankly, IMHO, I cannot imagine anyone choosing to be queer. I can imagine they have some psychological wires crossed, possibly as a result of genetic abnormality much like dwarfism, or Downs Syndrome, or as some believe, predisposed alcholism (why would anyone CHOOSE to be an alcoholic?).

 

[Sunni Man]

Great point!!

I am going to start using the term "social deviant" in the future to describe these perverts.

 

[Samson]

Great point!!

I am going to start using the term "social deviant" in the future to describe these perverts.

<<<<sigh>>>>>



I'm sure they'll all be dancing on tippy toes with gaity, hugging each other, and popping open phallus shaped pink champaign bottles.

 

[Bern80]

You do realize that "homophobia" is a made up word and is Not listed by the APA/AMA as a medical term or condition?

That's fine. I'm willing to stick with bigot.

It's sad that you and seawytch have to continually resort to calling me names in order to make some kind of point.

Not once have I ever resorted to name calling towards either of you.

Because it is a rather low class form of dialouge and debate.

Call it what you want. I'm simply going to stick with calling it accurate. Your disdain for this group of people has no rationale basis. Therefore you fit the definition of bigot quite well.

Slightly less ridiculous is my disdain for you as a muslim as statistically, the liklihood of you indoctrinating a child to be a sudicide bomber, is probababy greater than a gay trying to turn a child gay.

 

[Sunni Man]

is probababy greater than a gay trying to turn a child gay.

True, most boys molested by homosexual pedophiles do not grow up to be gay.

 

[Samson]

is probababy greater than a gay trying to turn a child gay.

True, most boys molested by deviants do not grow up to be deviants.

Corrected

 

[Gadawg73]

You do realize that "homophobia" is a made up word and is Not listed by the APA/AMA as a medical term or condition?

That's fine. I'm willing to stick with bigot.

It's sad that you and seawytch have to continually resort to calling me names in order to make some kind of point.

Not once have I ever resorted to name calling towards either of you.

Because it is a rather low class form of dialouge and debate.

If they were gay you would call them the lowest scum on earth.

 

[Bern80]

is probababy greater than a gay trying to turn a child gay.

True, most boys molested by homosexual pedophiles do not grow up to be gay.

Except that isn't what you said previously. You said gays teach children to be gay. So it should be just as rationale for me to assume that you a muslim are teaching children to be suicide bombers.

 

[Seawytch]

Why must Walt Whitman's sexuality NOT be mentioned?

Because it was part of who he was.

His work is what mattered, not who he slept with.

Does someone's sexuality, or sexual preferences, need to be everyone's business?

I'm not saying it HAS to be mentioned, but why does it have to be excluded from curriculum? If curriculum mentions Alexander's wives why can it not also mention his longtime lover? Why intentionally exclude this information?

Like I said, I was casting about in the dark for what "curriculum" folks are adverse to when discussing gays and lesbians. It still hasn't been defined...

 

[Seawytch]

You do realize that "homophobia" is a made up word and is Not listed by the APA/AMA as a medical term or condition?

That's fine. I'm willing to stick with bigot.

It's sad that you and seawytch have to continually resort to calling me names in order to make some kind of point.

Not once have I ever resorted to name calling towards either of you.

Because it is a rather low class form of dialouge and debate.

Referring to gays and lesbians as "perverted" isn't name calling? On what planet? Equating gays and lesbians with pedophiles and rapists isn't name calling? Again, what color is your sky?

 

[Sunni Man]

Referring to gays and lesbians as "perverted" isn't name calling? On what planet? Equating gays and lesbians with pedophiles and rapists isn't name calling? Again, what color is your sky?

I never called you any name on this board.

Not one single time.

I only refered to a group of people who practice a certain socially deviant lifestyle.

 

[FA_Q2]

Why must Walt Whitman's sexuality NOT be mentioned?

Because it was part of who he was.

His work is what mattered, not who he slept with.

Does someone's sexuality, or sexual preferences, need to be everyone's business?

I'm not saying it HAS to be mentioned, but why does it have to be excluded from curriculum? If curriculum mentions Alexander's wives why can it not also mention his longtime lover? Why intentionally exclude this information?

Like I said, I was casting about in the dark for what "curriculum" folks are adverse to when discussing gays and lesbians. It still hasn't been defined...

Actually - in Whitman's case there is no reason to mention his sexuality BUT in Alexander's case there IS a good reason as it affects his heirs and as a matter of fact it IS taught in history class that Alexander was gay. So the entire argument is moot because sexuality is taught when pertinent. Other than that, no, gay sexuality should not be brought into the classroom. If a child has questions that s/he would like to ask I see no issue with answering them but the subject should not be a point that is taught as a normal section of sexual education class.

 

[FA_Q2]

Frankly Sunni your bull shit gays indoctrinate young people to be gay is the equivalent me accusing you (a Muslim) that you indoctrinate kids to strap bombs to their chests.

Then why do homos insist that public schools include gay sex and lifestyle in school children's text books and curriculum?

Sex education curriculum that doesn't include gay sex is irresponsible.

What "lifestyle" is included in curriculum? Why not mention that Alexander the Great was gay? Why must Walt Whitman's sexuality NOT be mentioned?

As I said in the last post, sex ed. class that does not include gays IS responsible and is exactly how it should be taught. There is no reason to adjust education in that subject to meet the needs of a small portion of gays that need it. That is a matter that can be addressed individually through inquisitive students, through parents or one on one contact with the child if they need/ask about it. Other than that there is no need to be adjusting the curriculum for gays. THIS is where it moves from an equality and bigoted issue to where many extremists are worried about agenda pushing. Getting equal rights is one thing but pushing gay education is agenda pushing and I cannot get behind that. Shall we also cover other sexual lifestyles like swingers as well? After all, they are a far larger representation of the populous than gays are.

 

[Rinata]

You do realize that "homophobia" is a made up word and is Not listed by the APA/AMA as a medical term or condition?

Although, gay perverts like to label anyone who is normal and doesn't support their agenda with that term.

Well, they could always call them, "stupid". That's what they are.

 

[Rinata]

The dictionary is incorrect in it's description.

Because I have a "rational" aversion to homosexuals; as do all normal people.

And bigots, historically, have always tried to justify their bigotry. You are no different.

I am in NO way, shape, or form a bigot,

All normal people have an aversion to perverts such as rapists, homosexuals, pedophiles, and other social deviants.

That is not bigotry, but a natural safety mechanism that is hard wired into the normal humans psyche.

Just like the natural aversion to snakes, spiders, and other life threatening creatures.

What is normal is subjective. And it's not your place to define what's normal for me or anyone else.

 

[Sunni Man]

What is normal is subjective. And it's not your place to define what's normal for me or anyone else.

Simple to understand.

man + woman = normal

gay + gay = abnormal

 

[Rinata]

What is normal is subjective. And it's not your place to define what's normal for me or anyone else.

Simple to understand.

man + woman = normal

gay + gay = abnormal

I don't use your math book. Too many inaccuracies.

 

[Seawytch]

His work is what mattered, not who he slept with.

Does someone's sexuality, or sexual preferences, need to be everyone's business?

I'm not saying it HAS to be mentioned, but why does it have to be excluded from curriculum? If curriculum mentions Alexander's wives why can it not also mention his longtime lover? Why intentionally exclude this information?

Like I said, I was casting about in the dark for what "curriculum" folks are adverse to when discussing gays and lesbians. It still hasn't been defined...

Actually - in Whitman's case there is no reason to mention his sexuality BUT in Alexander's case there IS a good reason as it affects his heirs and as a matter of fact it IS taught in history class that Alexander was gay. So the entire argument is moot because sexuality is taught when pertinent. Other than that, no, gay sexuality should not be brought into the classroom. If a child has questions that s/he would like to ask I see no issue with answering them but the subject should not be a point that is taught as a normal section of sexual education class.

Keeping students ignorant is never the answer.

 

[Sunni Man]

I'm not saying it HAS to be mentioned, but why does it have to be excluded from curriculum? If curriculum mentions Alexander's wives why can it not also mention his longtime lover? Why intentionally exclude this information?

Like I said, I was casting about in the dark for what "curriculum" folks are adverse to when discussing gays and lesbians. It still hasn't been defined...

Actually - in Whitman's case there is no reason to mention his sexuality BUT in Alexander's case there IS a good reason as it affects his heirs and as a matter of fact it IS taught in history class that Alexander was gay. So the entire argument is moot because sexuality is taught when pertinent. Other than that, no, gay sexuality should not be brought into the classroom. If a child has questions that s/he would like to ask I see no issue with answering them but the subject should not be a point that is taught as a normal section of sexual education class.

Keeping students ignorant is never the answer.

So how is knowing that Whitman was a fudge packer going to make students more intelligent???
__________________

 

[Seawytch]

Actually - in Whitman's case there is no reason to mention his sexuality BUT in Alexander's case there IS a good reason as it affects his heirs and as a matter of fact it IS taught in history class that Alexander was gay. So the entire argument is moot because sexuality is taught when pertinent. Other than that, no, gay sexuality should not be brought into the classroom. If a child has questions that s/he would like to ask I see no issue with answering them but the subject should not be a point that is taught as a normal section of sexual education class.

Keeping students ignorant is never the answer.

So how is knowing that Whitman was a fudge packer going to make students more intelligent???
__________________

I was referring to sex education, not curriculum that includes famous gays and lesbians.

A responsible sex education course should include ALL sex. It is the only way to protect students against pregnancy and STDs.