Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    13 Oct '10 04:12
    Are there others who discern the huge disconnect in language appropriated by the politicized homosexuals? For one, they wish to put sexual preference on par with reflex: they don't choose to be homosexual any more than a heterosexual chooses to be as such, according to their oft-repeated mantra. Last time I (a life-long subscriber to heterosexual activity) engaged, it was decidedly not reflexive, but rather, determined action.

    Secondly, I am of a viewpoint that all lascivious acts are reprehensible and that none should see the light of day, no matter what direction they may take. That being said, it is only the politicized homosexual who deigns to label me a homophobe for daring to call his act morally repugnant. The public masturbater, the pedophile from NAMBLA, the eternal-helper-of-sheep-as-they-struggle-to-hurdle-the-fence all apparently lack the linguistic sophistication to invent a phrase which reverses the stigma of their bents back toward the ones so offended. I mean, really: sheep-lover hater? It just loses so much punch stringing too many things together.

    But God bless the politicized homosexual, right? They've figured out a way to paint with an emphatic hate brush all who oppose their open (and heretofore private) sexual activity, shaming the dissidents into compliant silence. How many of 'them' are there, again? Here in the US, it's less than 2% of the population, but judging by their impact, they are truly the super flea on the tail that wags the dog.

    Not that there's anything wrong with that...
  2. 13 Oct '10 05:31 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Are there others who discern the huge disconnect in language appropriated by the politicized homosexuals? For one, they wish to put sexual preference on par with reflex: they don't choose to be homosexual any more than a heterosexual chooses to be as such, according to their oft-repeated mantra. Last time I (a life-long subscriber to heterosexual activit super flea on the tail that wags the dog.

    Not that there's anything wrong with that...
    "The public masturbater, the pedophile from NAMBLA, the eternal-helper-of-sheep-as-they-struggle-to-hurdle-the-fence..."

    Don't worry they will be next...
  3. 13 Oct '10 06:10
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    For one, they wish to put sexual preference on par with reflex: they don't choose to be homosexual any more than a heterosexual chooses to be as such, according to their oft-repeated mantra. Last time I (a life-long subscriber to heterosexual activity) engaged, it was decidedly not reflexive, but rather, determined action.
    You seem to be confusing sexual preference with sexual acts. Which are you talking about?
  4. 13 Oct '10 07:09
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    You seem to be confusing sexual preference with sexual acts. Which are you talking about?
    For one to partake in certain sexual acts would they not have a preference ?
  5. 13 Oct '10 07:22
    I think the Freak is confessing that he is in love with his manservant. Like in Blackadder the II. Here's the advice from the Wise Woman:

    Wise Woman: Step no further, for already I see thy bloody purpose. Thou plotest, Blackadder! Thou would be king, and drown Middlesex in a butt of wine! [cackles madly]
    Blackadder: No, it's much worse than that. I'm in love with my manservant!

    Wise Woman: [nonchalant] Well, I'd sleep with him if I were you.
    Blackadder: What!?

    Wise Woman: When I fancy people, I sleep with them. I have to drug them first, being so old and warty.
    Blackadder: But what of my position, my livelihood!?

    Wise Woman: Very well, then there are three solutions, three cures for thy ailment. The first is simple: Kill Bob!
    Blackadder: Never!

    Wise Woman: Then try the second: kill yourself!
    Blackadder: And the third?

    Wise Woman: The third is to ensure that no one else ever knows.
    Blackadder: Ah, that sounds more like it! How?

    Wise Woman: KILL EVERYBODY IN THE WHOLE WORLD! [cackles madly. Edmund looks at her in disdain]
  6. 13 Oct '10 12:20
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    For one to partake in certain sexual acts would they not have a preference ?
    Quite likely, but Freaky is nevertheless confusing the two.
    He first suggests that having a preference is a matter of choice, then backs it up by saying that partaking in acts is a matter of choice, forgetting on the way that the two are not equivalent.
    He of course does not mention how or why he chose to be heterosexual.
  7. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    13 Oct '10 12:28
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    .....He of course does not mention how or why he chose to be heterosexual.
    there was no choice for him, he fell into it naturally, which probably underscores his way of thinking on the topic, that any sexuality that you have to think about and choose, must be unnatural--therefore making it wrong..........
  8. 13 Oct '10 12:36
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Quite likely, but Freaky is nevertheless confusing the two.
    He first suggests that having a preference is a matter of choice, then backs it up by saying that partaking in acts is a matter of choice, forgetting on the way that the two are not equivalent.
    He of course does not mention how or why he chose to be heterosexual.
    I assume you are saying we are born with these preferences and have no choice in our preference and the sexual conduct is a seperate issue. Correct?
  9. 13 Oct '10 12:42
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    I assume you are saying we are born with these preferences and have no choice in our preference and the sexual conduct is a seperate issue. Correct?
    I do not know for sure why we have these preferences. My current understanding is that it is more or less decided in the womb. But that is not important in this instance.
    Freaky claims that preference is a choice, but fails to back that up. He instead points out that acting on preference is a choice.
    I failed to follow the rest of his post. I think he is saying he is against public display of sexual acts then trying to equate that with homosexuality, but he is not at all clear about it.
  10. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    13 Oct '10 13:26
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    You seem to be confusing sexual preference with sexual acts. Which are you talking about?
    No such confusion exists. What is being noted here has nothing to do with distinction between preference and act, but rather, it is a diatribe--- a railing against--- the shameless assault on language and meaning perpetrated by politicized homosexuals. Their very existence as a group is an affront to reason: who gives a rat's ass how one conducts one's self in private matters? Do we see a coalition being forged for those who wipe their butts with their left hands--- they have rights, too, don't they? Don't they deserve to have a parade celebrating their uniqueness amongst all the right-handed haters?

    The fact is this exceedingly small group of people have made their preferences and acts inseparable. It isn't enough for others to live and let live; they insist on flaunting their acts in the face of the other 98.4% of the population and demand we don't flinch. Those who recoil are labeled haters, despite nothing more than a rejection of their determined acts--- how would anyone know of preference if there existed no action?

    I reject open make-out sessions by heterosexuals as unseemly, sometimes even going so far as imploring those so engaged to get a room. Never have I been reversely challenged as a hater for expressing my disdain. However, the politicized homosexual has successfully established a group in possession of voice, presence, marketing savvy and political clout which is based on nothing more than how the members of said group conduct themselves in private matters. Moreover, this group has taken things a step further by also establishing that those who reject their private behavior ---as immoral, undesirable or in any other form, wrong--- as haters. Not haters of acts or preferences, but haters of people despite no evidence of any such attitude.

    Shameful.
  11. 13 Oct '10 13:39
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    No such confusion exists. What is being noted here has nothing to do with distinction between preference and act,
    Well then you need to revisit your OP and correct the English, because what you actually said, contained a clear confusion between the two.

    Their very existence as a group is an affront to reason: who gives a rat's ass how one conducts one's self in private matters?
    A surprisingly large number of people 'give a rat's ass' even to the extent of wanting homosexuals killed or worse.

    Do we see a coalition being forged for those who wipe their butts with their left hands--- they have rights, too, don't they? Don't they deserve to have a parade celebrating their uniqueness amongst all the right-handed haters?
    When I come across some right-handed haters, I will start protesting for my rights and forming coalitions. So far those who are against right handed butt wiping have not bothered me (Muslims and a few other cultures including those in Zambia do frown on the practice but have not so far threated to punish me for violating the principle).

    The fact is this exceedingly small group of people have made their preferences and acts inseparable. It isn't enough for others to live and let live; they insist on flaunting their acts in the face of the other 98.4% of the population and demand we don't flinch. Those who recoil are labeled haters, despite nothing more than a rejection of their determined acts--- how would anyone know of preference if there existed no action?
    Well somehow we know what your preferences are. Your logic thus implies that you are flaunting your acts in the face of the rest of us. Hypocrite.

    I reject open make-out sessions by heterosexuals as unseemly, sometimes even going so far as imploring those so engaged to get a room. Never have I been reversely challenged as a hater for expressing my disdain.
    And have you been challenged when making the same request of homosexuals? Did you treat them with the same respect when making your request?

    Moreover, this group has taken things a step further by also establishing that those who reject their private behavior ---as immoral, undesirable or in any other form, wrong--- as haters. Not haters of acts or preferences, but haters of people despite no evidence of any such attitude.

    Shameful.

    If what you claim is correct, then yet, it is shameful. But in my experience there is a lot of evidence for people who hate homosexuals as people. Whether you personally display such attitudes I do not know, but there are those that most certainly do.
  12. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    13 Oct '10 13:52
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Are there others who discern the huge disconnect in language appropriated by the politicized homosexuals? For one, they wish to put sexual preference on par with reflex: they don't choose to be homosexual any more than a heterosexual chooses to be as such, according to their oft-repeated mantra. Last time I (a life-long subscriber to heterosexual activit ...[text shortened]... super flea on the tail that wags the dog.

    Not that there's anything wrong with that...
    If your viewpoint is really solely against public displays of sex, then you will need to go after heterosexual public displays more so than homosexual public displays by a ratio of something like 8 million to 1.
  13. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    13 Oct '10 14:23
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Are there others who discern the huge disconnect in language appropriated by the politicized homosexuals?
    *crickets chirping*
  14. 13 Oct '10 14:51
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    *crickets chirping*
    I don't hear anything.
  15. 13 Oct '10 14:54
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Are there others who discern the huge disconnect in language appropriated by the politicized homosexuals? For one, they wish to put sexual preference on par with reflex: they don't choose to be homosexual any more than a heterosexual chooses to be as such, according to their oft-repeated mantra. Last time I (a life-long subscriber to heterosexual activit ...[text shortened]... super flea on the tail that wags the dog.

    Not that there's anything wrong with that...
    You are correct on on point and that is that a small minority has made a grab at power. If not, why then are the courts and politicians not clamoring to allow polygamists to marry? The answer is that those polygamists are for the most part conservative Mormons and as we all know they are not the flavor of the month. in short, its called HYPOCRISY.

    Of course, in a society with no basis for moral conduct, other then what seems correct to them, this type of behavoir should not be surprising.