yguy

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=6485

The more selfish and self-indulgent you are, the easier you are to enslave, because eventually you become too stupid and cowardly to assert your rights.

Kimpatsu

This Frontpage looks like an interesting online mag. It's run by a Jewish organisation and, surprise, surprise, it's rabidly anti-Islamic.
Yguy: Do you have any less biased sources from which to quote?

Philosoft

Because we have hard data that screams, "It is a fact that reproduction between relatives with high genetic similarity increases the rate of genetic disorders."

Well, then we are at an impasse, in which case you cannot support the positive assertion, "Homosexual parenting should be banned."

Disregarding the fact that you broached the subject of morals in the first place, I knew you would get here sooner or later. Tell us, please, the importance of "gender roles" in child rearing. Or did you mean something else by "psychodynamics of parenting"?

Well, if this makes you feel any better, have at it.

You don't see a problem with the government endorsing a fully religious doctrine as the "offical way to keep the nuclear family together"? No, you probably don't.

So, "more than one sexual encounter" + President = slut. Is that your final answer?

Wouldn't you think curbing criminal behavior, violence, hatred, increasing tolerance are acceptable goals? We've been acheiving these things, as a society, for at least a decade. All the while, homosexuals have become more and more accepted as members of mainstream society. Just what kind of "better children" did you have in mind?

I see. So our two choices are a) your baseless assertions, or b) lesbian lies. That's a might stacked deck you've got yourself there.

As opposed to those homosexual parents who accidentally conceive?

Jinto

And none of this adresses what I said in that paragraph. So you have conceded the point.

dk: The point is gays culture is destructive, and gays are decimating themselves, and their youthful protégés. These people don’t need marriage they need to clean up their act.

Don't lie dk, it only makes you look worse.

Personally I think if the gay community sincerely wants to promote a monogamous lifestyle, then they need to clean up gay culture to overcome the promiscuous and pornographic values it promulgates within the gay community

Again, don't lie dk, it only makes you look worse.

Fine, but even if we stipulate to the truth of these assertations, my objection remains. How is this relevant to the issue?

A good point dk, because a large part of your argument has been an ad hominem attack against "gay leaders" (whatever those are). The previous paragraph being an example.

I believe I speak for all present when I say: what case?

We have. Check the thread, dude, every one of your arguments has been either irrelevant or refuted, and frequently both.

Can you please provide for me:

A) the statistics proving this assertation
B) how long a time period you are referring to
C) the statistics proving that this assertation applies to monogamous gay relationships
D) the statistics proving this assertation applies outside of LA
E) links to the original sites so that we can verify you're not just pulling numbers out of your ass.
and finally:

F) some indication of why the hell this should even be an issue given that the adoption agency would filter out people who have incurable diseases ANYWAY.

Good fucking luck.

Offer evidence of what? That all gay couples are infertile? That's YOUR assertation. That people will not usually consider adopting children if they can have their own? Good God, just go to any infertility clinic and you'll find evidence of that. And what the hell does where they are adopted from have to do with anything? The point is that the children EXIST, and need parents.

How? You have asserted this, and asserted this, but you have never told me how the hell gay marriage is going to sever anything. Is anyone here saying that heterosexuals can't get married? Is anyone proclaiming that we should do away with marriage entirely? Are the voices in your head telling you that if we allow gay marriage that millions of adults will suddenly divorce their sopouses to marry others of the same sex? Someone explain this guy's reasoning to me here, I can't figure it out.

Every time I have brought this up, you say "but adoption creates more problems than it solves, we don't need to create more families, we need to fix the nuclear family." Let us constrain ourselves to workable solutions here: one solution is to increase the number of committed couples that are available and willing to adopt children. Gay marriage will accomplish that. You seem to have some huge problem with the idea of adoption, yet you propolse no alternative. You seem to blame adopting parents for ripping the child away from their birthparents. Get it through your head: the person adopting is not the cause of the child being up for adoption in the first place.

Actually I can, because unlike you I have emapthy for other human beings. You on the ohter hand, would rather see children kept with parents who don't want them, are unable physically and emotionally to parent them, or maybe happen to be dead. There are a myriad of reasons why a child might be up for adoption, but if adoption is even an option (as you say, in many foster care cases it isn't because the courts are still trying to rehabilitate their bio-parents), then it's a virtual guarantee that returning them to their bio-parents isn't.

And dk, if the best argument that you can put forth is to accuse your opponent of having no empathy, when your own words show that to be more descriptive of yourself, then you really ought to just shut up.

to paraphrase you: Any evidence you could have offered was weak at best. There's reason to believe "If the nuclear family was stable adoption would be unnessecary." The problem is, the nuclear family isn't stable

I climb out on a limb to defend Amendment XIV of the United States constitution: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." You try to deny the gay community their rights based on their political views - political views that are hel not by the majority, but by the vocal minority. You are denying their rights because they don't stand up and hate the same displays you hate. This is a clear violation of the constitution. Damnit dk, haven't you ever read the same document that allows you to disagree with the U.S. government without being arrested?

Read

If you want to get technical, then it's really the "alpha male" polygamous structure that is the archetype of civilization. But we don't use it any more. Why? Because we have better ideas.

And please, look up the definition of the word "archetype" before you use it again.

In other words, this is your own personal fear of change talking. Well let me tell you what it's like from my perspective: this represents absolutely nothing. All it means is that instead of the bonding of two people under the law being restricted to opposite sex couples, you now have same sex couples as well. Same sex couples have been around for a while - the fact is, many gay people already "marry," even though their marriage is not legally recognized. But all the constants of civilization - human stupidity, blind faith in our leaders, people's willingness to conform and not make waves - it's all the same. People's desire to have children, their acceptance of a life where more than half of it is spent with no real freedom whatsoever - first because of parents, then because of children - that will remain. Hell, even when human cloning becomes possible, people will still make babies the old-fashioned way. That's human nature. What is also human nature is the fact that humans are often afraid of change. Go back 75 years and tell me what you hear about interracial marriage. The same things were said: "The universal archetype of civilization is to have the races remain seperate." "Interracial marriage dissolves the bonds that hold family together, and what was once known as the family becomes the Xfamily" "Interracial families cannot possibly be legitimate because all the children will be mongrels". Well guess what? We're here today, interracial marriage is accepted, and civilization hasn't collapsed. What is astounding to me is that every time some minor rule of civilization changes, there are those who say that it will become unrecognizable, that it will mean the end of all things, that that rule has formed the foundation of civilization and humans can't survive without it. And EVERY SINGLE TIME, those predictions have been wrong. You'd think by now that humanity would have developed some sense of pattern recognition. Believe me, there is about as much chance of Gay marriage collapsing civilization as there is of the moon turning into green spinach.

And what have you to say to the infertile couples? Oh yeah, "but they're okay because they're of the right orientation." Your special pleading illustrates that whether or not a couple bears children isn't your concern.

Uh yeah. Tell you what: when you can respond to what I actually said, I'll listen to your argument. What I said was that it does not alter the standing of nuclear families before the court. Now, when you can show me how the rules governing nuclear families are changed because of the existence of gay marriages... you still won't have an argument, but at least you'll be making sense.

Explicit argumentum ad baculum. Proof that you have no case. Please check yourself into a mental hospital, you are clearly a threat to both yourself and others.

More implied death threats.

dk, it takes us NOWHERE. It is only a minor change in the law. What are you so afraid of?

Homosexuals marry because the WANT to marry, not to mock anything. Ask any homosexual.

P.S. - that's all we are asking for, the right to do what we want without homophobes trying to tell us what we can and cannot do.

I have never heard of anyone who called a fetus an std. And frankly, you are suffering from a mental disorder. But this is a case of a pot calling the kettle black: you are the one who has dehumanized anyone who disagrees with you as "the enemy" and threatened to kill us (or homosexuals, I'm not quite sure who your threat was being directed against.) But your post is right: you do know the drill, you practice it on a daily basis.

You are scaring me dk.

As I said, the neurosurgery reccomendation was sarcasm. But there are neurosurgery operations unrelated to cancer, and once upon a time it was used to cure severe epilepsy and I think it was also used against schizophrenia. Or was it EST that was used against schizophrenia? I'll have to look that up.

Argumentum ad nauseum. BTW, Gay marriage has only the utmost respect for the nuclear family: why do you think they're trying to imitate it (or, from my perspective, simply apply it in a new way)?

Again, no relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia, and this story if true would explain part of your homophobia: you're afraid you might have to admit that you actually did enjoy that, dispite how evil everyone else tells you it is.

yguy

http://www.arabeuropean.org/News/ael-holland1.html

During the week of lectures held by Dyab Abou Jahjah the interest within the community was very high and the enthusiasm was total. Also membership is booming, we started the week with 250 registered members and ended it with 550 members and new members are still flowing by dozens. Abou Jahjah told our correspondent tonight that he believes the Dutch branches will be one of the strongest branches of the AEL. He added that even though our community in Holland has a better socio-economical situation than in Belgium , the anti-Muslim attitudes in the Netherlands are more aggressive and outspoken."



http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/...781449,00.html

Mr Abou Jahjah, who has organised "lively" pro-Palestinian demonstrations in Antwerp and who doesn't hide his sympathies with groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, would seem, however, to mark a change in tactics.

Figure it out from there.

yguy

OK, so the right of society to prevent genetic disorders trumps the individual's reproductive rights. Correct?

Not to your satisfaction, obviously. Whodathunkit?

Oh, crap. You're onto me.

Yes, I don't really think it's too much to ask that fathers be masculine and mothers be feminine. We've had two rather nebbish Presidents in the last 30 years, and they've both been disasters, because girly-men may be liked, but they are never respected by bullies. Those guys were elected, in the main, by people who had a problem with masculinity, who wanted to be mothered.

Evidently the fear is that keeping traditional marriage as the standard would lead to a Christianocracy. I don't see any reason to believe that, since it was the standard 50 years ago and we're sure as heck not a Christianocracy now.

No, my final answer is that Monica did things with Clinton that only a slut would do. And the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Not sure I can go with tolerance. If that means I have to look at a guy in a dress as if he's normal when I think he's a freak, and that I'm not allowed to SAY he's a freak, then no.

I'm not sure about all that. Has hatred really decreased, or are we so doped up on prescription meds or distracted by the pursuit of pleasure that we don't feel it?

The kind that can't be bullied or seduced by anyone.

No, as opposed to those who adopt. I'm not crazy about that option either, but I know some do it for charitable reasons. I can't look down my nose at that.

Nostalgic Pushhead

*What* are you talking about? Who cares if someone is respected by bullies? Bullies aren't a good thing.

No one has a problem with masculinity- besides your retarded chest thumping intollerant obsolete bullcrap version of it.

Daggah

So only sluts give blowjobs? It's not possible for a woman who loves her husband/partner to give him a blowjob because she knows he'll enjoy it and still not be a slut?

Have you met Me and Me yet? You two have a lot in common; a lack of respect for women, a misogynist attitude, a severe deficiency in reasoning ability....

Salmon of Doubt

Disasters, eh? Not being American, I assume you're talking about Clinton here, as you've mentioned your dislike for him before. Disaster how, exactly? You mean a disaster because he brought the economy up from a defecit of $300 billion to a surplus of about the same? That kind of disaster? The kind who gets such a lack of respect they get re-elected? By people who actually voted as opposed to voting machines that don't work and vote for the other candidate?


Ahh, here we go. Not in favour of tolerance then, I see. The first time you actually mention one of the things holding society together and you're against it. And besides, none of the gay men I know wear dresses, unless they're paid performers doing an act on stage. Most of them look perfectly normal, and you would never be able to tell they were gay. No-one has ever been able to tell I'm a lesbian until I told them.


And the persuit of pleasure is a bad thing? How exactly? And no, people aren't distracted from hate. With all the stuff coming from the media today, war, terrorists, murders, etc, many people are more afraid than they used to be. This is why some of them like to take out their fear and hatred on a convenient target, like gays.


Children that can't be bullied are a very good thing. Children that can't be 'seduced' by people preaching hatred would also be good. Although children who grew up without able to be seduced by anyone at all would have a rather miserable sex life!

Oh yeah, and you are quite right, I may have some disdain for masculinity without realising it. Most of the disdain would probably be directed towards my ex-boyfriend though, who was such an ass that I now classify myself as gay rather than bi. But I suppose you could ask any of my male friends if they discern any hostility towards men. They would probably know. Surely if they could detect any hostility, they wouldn't be my friends any more. No-one likes to be friends with someone who objects to something about themselves that they can't change, after all......

yguy

You evidently refer to the budget surplus, which was produced by over-taxation, and which if anything lessened the growth of the economy; and of course we now know that much of the 90's boom was purely on paper.

Nixon got re-elected too.

I'm very aware how disappointed Democrats were about their failure to steal the election, but that's life.

The suppression of free thought and free speech holds society together?

Then it would never be a problem for me. I'm not advocating bedroom police.

Had our founding fathers been of such mentality, they never would have sought freedom from tyranny, and Britain, lacking the support it got from the US in WWII, would now be part of the Third Reich.

That would just be another way of distracting themselves from the hate they feel towards those whom they are powerless to resist.

Yes, especially a hatred of masculinity in men and femininity in women.

Did you not say earlier that you are a lesbian because you like women, not because you resent men? This would seem to contradict that somewhat.

If these men are effeminate, the question would be meaningless.