If you're just going to rant about how homosexuality is bad and that you don't want to have to be subjected to gay people and that they should be "fixed", or that there's no proof that people are born gay... don't bother. You've been doing that for about 8 pages already. You haven't brought anything to the thread except to show everyone just how bigoted and homophobic your views are.
What is your attitude to gays and lesbians?
- Thread starter Flakey
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
If you're just going to rant about how homosexuality is bad and that you don't want to have to be subjected to gay people and that they should be "fixed", or that there's no proof that people are born gay... don't bother. You've been doing that for about 8 pages already. You haven't brought anything to the thread except to show everyone just how bigoted and homophobic your views are.
-
820Replies
-
15KViews
-
0Participant count
-
Participants list
Joe the meek
Active Member
Although I may not agree with all of Doc's views, the fact is I have more respect for Doc than I do of you (yeah, I know, who gives a flying flip).
I asked you a question and you ignored it. For future reference, you need not make comments about my posts if you want to play chicken shit.
Your definition is only a small portion of what a bigot can be..... eg: " bigot [ˈbɪgət]n a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race[from Old French: name applied contemptuously to the Normans by the French, of obscure origin]
LINK: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bigot
I know it really doesn't matter to you because your mind is made up but you might want to expand your horizons and admit that you share some dislike for something mentioned in either your quote or mine. If you come back and tell me you don't please don't expect me or anyone else to believe you. We really aren't as daft as you would think we are.... unless of course you're Little Miss Perfect which I highly doubt.
Maybe you should look up some of these words. To be intolerant is completely different than to, as you put it, share some dislike. :24:
Way to wordsmith to twist the conversation.
Doc is a bigot. Bigots do not deserve respect. You enable him by giving him respect. This world needs fewer not more bigots.
What question? About normalcy? That seemed a lot more like a convoluted statement than a true question. As such, it didn't need to be answered.
I agree. Though there are also people that have posted here that fit the bill, but are pretending to be otherwise. Either way, watching The Doc publicly hang himself and then claim that he's "winning" is amusing.
Joe the meek
Active Member
You don't get it, probably never will. What one person see's as normal, another may not.
Simple question, if you don't think something is normal, are you bashing it? At what percentage rate would you consider particularly behavior normal?
I just get a kick out of you holier than people who proclaim their wisdom but I can't help but wonder if you practice what you preach.
Doc has the balls to admit what he thinks, and he takes the time to respond, even though you may not agree with it. But you and others are better than that, I know.
Likewise, I don't think being a homosexual is "normal" for human beings in nature, and yet you and Tim say I'm bashing gay people, yet you have NO clue some of the social relationships I CHOOSE to have with people and why.
Joe the meek
Active Member
Doc would not have my respect if he would of mentioned that he'd go out of his way to cause harm to homosexuals. I might of missed it, but I thought he even said "hate" was too strong of a word. Although I may not agree with all of Doc's views, I can understand them, and Doc does have the balls to stay here even though he is outnumbered and being crucified for saying what he thinks. Likewise, because I have the balls to say that I don't think homosexual activity is normal in human nature, others think I'm bashing gay people. Sorry, it's what I think.
When I was in high school I took both college prep and shop class. It was funny on all the clicks I use to see growing up and how one click would crucify the other click for not being like them (people in college prep looking down on the shop people and the shop people looking down on the college prep people). Too some extent, EVERY person is a bigot or a hypocrite, they just don't want to admit or realize to what degree.
Joe the meek
Active Member
On a side note, I like my dogs more than most people I've encountered, and I'm certain most of those people were straight LOL
Ehh, I think it's glossing over reality to compare every day hypocrisy and personal bias (which exists in mass abundance) with a forum troll who runs off at the mouth and has mood swings that determine the level of displeasure he has for a group of people. One minute it's hate, the next it's not, the next minute is degradation, the next it's this, that...
It's less about what you say and more about how you say it. But that's what trolls do.
It's not "normal" for humans to be in a monogamous relationship.
It's not "normal" for humans to get married to one person for the rest of their life.
Both of these things are relatively recent in human behavior. Hell, monogamy has only been "the norm" for the past 60 years.
Yet you choose to follow those paths because of tradition and religious practices.
I'm sick of hearing you labeling what you believe is "normal" and what isn't.
Just because you are born with a penis does not mean that you WILL be attracted to females.
I am straight because I am attracted to females, I am NOT straight because of any sex act. I KNEW I was straight long before I ever had my first kiss.
You have this view that you don't know your sexual orientation until your first sex act when that doesn't even matter. There are same sex partners that do not have sex with each other but there is no doubt in their mind that they are homosexual.
Now onto your whining about me calling you a bigot...
Over numerous posts and different threads, Doc has shown himself as a fag hater. His views are twisted and very bigoted. Yet you understand his views and have defended him post after post. It is this repeated pattern of you defending his views that puts you right in the middle of his camp.
If I continually spouted off on how I hate black people (using the derogatory term) and compared them to monkeys, said how they are more like animals and Retro constantly defended my right to hate a race of people, it would be correct to label Retro a racist as well.
Only 1-2% of the human population have red hair, yet 5-7% are homosexual. So until I hear you rail against the red heads as not being "normal" and suggest that they all dye their hair, shut up.
Joe the meek
Active Member
Amazing, someone denser than myself.
The subject isn't red heads, but views on homosexuality.
If the subject were on people who have natural red hair, I would say they are NOT the norm (AKA "not normal"). Now, by calling a group of people "not normal", am I bashing them?
You are however correct in assuming that if you're born with a penis that you won't automatically be attracted to females, but I think you would find the statement "if you are born with a dick, chances are you will be attracted to females" a correct statement since about 95% of men are heterosexual.
I'm sure you really don't care what I think, and right back at you. That said, I don't whine, but if you're going to make a statement about me and I ask you why you made it, don't be chicken s**t and ignore the question, just don't respond at all. That in my mind is being a man and taking responsibility for what you said. In that aspect, I see you and retro are a lot alike.
I find it ironic that you say I whine. Aren't you the guy who went crying when someone linked your name to a particular thread and you said it was against the rules? I don't play a mamma's boy and go crying to anyone online. Go ahead and pull your strings, I don't really care.
Joe the meek
Active Member
You're a smart woman, I'm convinced of that, but you haven't hung out with many 21 year old PFC's have you? When I was 21, I was probably worse than Doc in many ways.
Ironic isn't it that when I started a thread on questioning the use of profanity on a forum that seemed to be frequented by minors that some considered me a troll?
I get the impression that for the most part, Doc doesn't give a flying rat's a** what other people think of him, one reason why he tells it like he see's it. Added the fact that Doc doesn't go crawling into a hole when people give him crap about what he thinks. Those are traits I can respect about any man.
BleedingBull
Banned, by user's request!
seconded.
Hey, I try. If you're saying that demographic is a bunch of assholes, you're right, I don't hang out with many assholes
I respect intelligent, decent people, because I look up to them and wish to be more like them (wherever they happen to exist). Can't say I spend much time worrying myself with people who are proud to be bad and stupid.
I personally just thought you were being a pain in the ass. If it really bothered you so much that people say fuck in front of teens online, I don't think you'd stay, nor use profanity from time to time anyway; just a guess.
You're right, of course, he clearly has no social tact, and therefore doesn't care what others think. It's the extreme on the opposite side of crying in a corner. It has its pros and cons, like any personality.
I have to laugh when someone says "________ calls it like they see it", as if that's not how a seemingly majority of the population operates...somehow, though, when the "sees it" is something controversial, or rude, or stupid, etc...whatever it may be, it's worthy of more praise. I call it like I see it, I guess you do too, and everyone else in this thread.
Overall, I think the doc is just another bored jackoff on the internet like the rest of us. Let's not fool ourselves.
Joe the meek
Active Member
I've lived long enough to realize that although some people may appear to be intelligent, "decent" people, don't judge a book by it's cover (particularly on the internet LMFAO). Doc has struck me proud per his service to his country (which he should be), but never proud on his opinions, just stating them like everyone else.
You really open up a can of worms when you use the terms "bad" and "stupid" when it comes to people in general
One reason why I specifically used zoophilia as an example as what would be considered normal as compared to abnormal. People who claim to be "open minded" can wrap their minds on a man having sex with another man, but it's harder accepting the fact that "normal" everyday people can also have sex with animals. It use to be people didn't talk about homosexuals due to fear and association, and I think even today, that is the reason people don't talk about zoophilia. I believe the percentage rates (between homosexuals and zoophiliacs sp?) are about the same in the US population, but people DON'T talk about having sex with animals. See, what's funny and ironic is people will crucify me because I put the two groups together. My only point, per sexual preference, both groups are in the minority as compared to heterosexuals.
One question that has never been answered that I had asked is at what percentage rate do you think people are normal, and at what percentage rate are they considered abnormal?
We weren't talking about the internet, you mentioned who I hung out with, so I responded about the people I know and keep in my life.
So?
You really open up a can of worms when you use the terms "bad" and "stupid" when it comes to people in general
How so
I think it's a bad analogy only because basically functioning humans share the communication skills needed to give consent for the sex, which, to a lot of people who claim to be open minded, is the level for acceptable sexual relations. I might express the same concerns for people who have sex with animals that I would for people who have sex with those in comas or vegetative states. We cannot know for sure the sex is consensual. That, in my eyes, is the difference, as I've said before.
I don't think normal means small number versus big number. I think normal means good versus bad. Because we don't share the same definition of the word, I cannot answer your question.
Joe the meek
Active Member
As asked previously, what if a woman let's herself be "taken" by a dog humping her? Although verbal communication may be lacking, wouldn't it be considered consent on the dogs part?
In fact, isn't zoophilia legal in some parts of the world? (like the USA for example)
I agree. However, isn't it usually the majority who decides what is acceptable as far as being good and bad? (and of course the Supreme Court has the final say in the US)
What is accpetable (normal) in one society may not be acceptable (abnormal) in another.
Last edited by a moderator:
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members