The Discrimination Thread

[HOLLYWOOD]

the hollywood brother hates discrimination in any form but the thing the hollywood brother gets most pissed off at is when people throw around the word discrimination to get what they want. What the hollywood brother means is that there is a very small percentage of people who try to use a discrimination as a advantage. A good example is a thing that happened at a store recently. The hollywood brother was in line to buy merchandise and there was a older lady ahead of him. The store has always imprinted credit cards if the cashier slides your card through for you. well the lady in front of the hollywood brother handed her card to the cashier and the cashier imprinted it. The cashier also checked the back of the card to see if it was signed. Well this lady did not like it so she started screaming at the top of her lungs that she was being discrimanted against. Then a manager comes up and ask the lady what he can do to help. The lady wants a apoligy for the cashier imprinting the card by getting a discount on the products she bought. The manager did not do this and the lady left but the poor cashier was visibly shaken. The hollywood brother saw the whole thing and there was no discrimantion but the lady did not like her credit card being imprinted so she yelled discrimination to try to get a discount. This is what the hollywood brother is talking aobut and this is what gets the hollywood brother pissed off.

 

[MayDay1]

the alternative is to unleash the civil attorneys on the 14 th ammendment and then allow polygomy and possibly beastiality. and a number of other banned forms of marriage that do not exist under the legal system for the proliferation of society.

Why is it that when gay marraige is brought up it's always the right wingers who bring up beastiality? Is that a desperate hope in disguise as macho bluster? Hmmmmmm.......

Marriage should be between two people who love each other and make an agreement to live the rest of their lives together PERIOD! Case closed.

 

[help me]

I think that gay marriage should be illegal. Homosexuality isn't something you're born with. Even gay people say so. I have done research in this area and I have found out there are conflicting reports of whether or not gay people are born gay. Some gay people say yes some say no. This fact alone should discredit the theory that you are. How could someone be faking homosexuality unless all of them are. How does someone explain bisexuals. I feel someone chooses to be gay. Either they convince themselves or instead of fighting the urge they decide heck God made me this way. If God did make homosexuals he would just be contradicting himself. That doesn't happen. Marriage is not a right it is a privelage. Therefore the majority of people are the ones who decide how it is carried out. Why should a small gorup of people change the tradition and get their way. America follows the philsophy of majority rules and minority rights. Gays have all the rights of American citizens. I think gay people are human beings but I also feel that homosexuality is immoral and should not be accepted.

 

[nessonite1]

Do we REALLY need to bring up this tired old argument starter again? Before anyone posts further think first about what good it will really do to post strong opinions one way or the other HERE of all places.

 

[MayDay1]

Yes, Ness. We do. This is a serious civil rights issue. Ignore it all you want but it's not going away. Last November this country took a major slip backwards into the middle ages by showing just how ignorant and moronic your average mainstream Joe sixpack can be. We like to pat ourselves on the back and congratulate ourselves about how tolerant we are of the ever evolving social fabric. But when it comes time to actually practice tolerance a lot of people revert back to the high school "smear the queer" mentallity.

I know what the conservatives are gonna say too. "The measure passed. Get over it". Well pick an oriface and stick your tongue in it. Just because the measure passed it doesn't mean that it's right. Nor will shutting up about the subject make it go away. People are what they are. They do not "choose" to act that way.

Evolve or die.

 

[jj82277]

woah woah May day i can't believe my ears. I am sensing a little bit of hostility and the end of the forty five seconds. Why is it that whenever a left winger can't find constructive means of debate that they have to resort to calling us ignorant or morons. If you want to go brain for brain go ahead, that's a fight you can't win so just try to stay on topic.

I keep hearing this f word that keeps rolling around. it has become much too present in todays society. When did it all become about feelings. There is a lot of stuff that the government doesn't allow people to do for the conservation of the greater good. one of which was to appease you environmentals on the left and not allow certain land projects to be developed, but i have to take it with a smile on my face and watch acres of my land sit there while i pay taxes on it with a freaking smile on my face so that an indangered fly, can have a place to sleep at night. and you know what i don't really begrudge it that much.

Last time i checked theree was no law or there would be no law proposed that forbid someone from buying a ring and walking around holding hands and in ones own mind believing ones self to be married. you can have a monogomous relationship with anyone you want as long as they are of age for as long as you want. in whatever religious circle that you want you can bear whatever title that you want. No one is debating the free exercise of homosexuality in this country.

The traditional marital union which is believed by some myswelf included to be the construction of oh mighty god himself had a few more purposes than just making the two people feel good. that is the main purpose, but there are others. the second most important is the care of any eventualities, and or kids. This union was designed as a training center for all the members of the next generation. this is paramount to the proliferation of any great society. "oh come on marriage isn't that important". well im sorry to say that it is. the family unit is the cornerstone of civilizaation. If you allow it to be destroyed, you allow society to be destroyed in of itself. for the former candidate from the libertarian party who analogizes the opposition for divorce to the opposition of gay marriage just gives further justification as to why i don't take the time to listen to them. Divorce is another one of the most destructive forces to an society big or small. anything that takes away from the importance of a couple staying together or the proliferation of society is out of the societies best interests. I think that the best way for any governing body to express this is to afford certain privilages to couples that meet any given criteria as seen fit to help uplift society and give every possible chance for the proper rearing of children.

I think that in the state marriage is in as my good friend Vlad described my best recommendation is to launch a campaign to strengthen the idea of mrriage in the eyes of the young, not just demonstrate it to be the free exercise of feelings. Why? feelings unavoidably change. as said as that is, they do. and that is a proven fact. no matter how cute that other person is, no matter how romantic they are, you will eventually wake up next to them and think to yourself why you married them. the prevailing feelings doctrine is largely the culprit. marriage should be between two aconsenting ADULTS that yes have strong feelings for one another, but also have a strong volutional reasoning behind the union. To build a family. And i have no problem with my government affording them the privilage of certain tax exemptions. either of the spouses because of their intent to provide over the long term for a group of people demonstrates an insurable risk to one another so they would be permitted to gain certain status with insurance (the insinuation that you can designate any person as the benaficiary is indicative of why so many people are misinformed about income protection.) and if couples can't have children themselves, i have no problem with the government affording them the ability to adopt children that were not fortunate enough to have parents with that amount of forethought. and in choodins a family for children to reside with i think that the state should be able to set forth standards in the childs best interest. If you base marriage on any other foundation then there is only room for disaster. and what happens in divorce, families tear, children become displaced, and society is becoming weaker and weaker. in this very forum a middle aged man talking about marriage with an 18 year old child because it feels good. across this nation children sleeping with teachers because it feels good. but what shape will we be in 50 years from now.

there are those that may think that this type of oversight might fall out of the reach o the government. that they can not insure that there will be proper and fair upbringing of children in this form of a union, but isn't it the role of our elected officials to try with all that they know to protect us the best that they know how. the child abuse laws may not work, teens still get pregnant, and we still haven't stopped abortion, but what would happen if we did nothing. look at the situation in Utah with the 10s of thousands of displaced woman and children as a result of the unchecked polygomist camps that are there. look at how youg women have begun sacraficing the sanctity of their bodies so that boys will like them. I think that it is untill there is no breath of ppower left in our capital the duty of our government to best balance the individual freedom of expression with the best and most just sense of morality that is within all of their collective beings and hold up the institutions that best serve the interest and future of this couintry despite everyones feelings mine included.

There are also those that feel that the church, whatever that is, is on some vendeta to maintain power. that they use whatever mainstream argument they can just to keep people coming back and giving money. Ill have you know that i do not belong to any of these apostate groups. and that many people like Mr. Maher think that the bible is old. It doesn't really mean anything. it was just written to keep all the church goers in line. but i feel that the intention of a true believer is one of a much purer decent. there is a story of a great society. some say the greatest society that ever inhabited this planet before the United States (im just kidding, we know we are the best of all time ; )) it grew so big and was so powerful that no outside force could penetrate its walls. then one day the pliticians began to worry more about being politicians than doing the good work in the nobel heart of their society. a cancer eolved in this society. it ate away at the core of all that inhabited it. Men took the inordinate use of men, women the inordinate use of women, men grew less concerned with being noble leaders and more concerned with the boyish fantasies of leud sex and orgies. the womans desire unto her husband was unchecked by the Husband, and the children grew more and more wayward. and their was no one to stand up and make use of their ofice and state the course that mighty Rome should have taken bake to the seat of power. i take you know to the year 2000. I also wept a tear when mr. 43 was elected. I didn't sleep for 3 days. I had also been told by the doomsday members of the African American communities of which i am a frustrated member (do to the over use of the word feelings) that i wouldn't be able to go to school, that they would not let me have a job, so on and so forth. but there was an inclination within me, to see for myself. and looking upon him there. i saw something that you don't usually see in a man holding such an office. I didn't see the savy of Clinton. i didn't see the charm., i didn't see the political wonder, well what did you see? I saw somebody who believed what he was saying. someone who had a deep lying conviction of taking this country back from the invisible cliff of abomination back to a seat of power. i saw hope that some day, 50 year marriages will be back in style. i saw hope that some day little boys in classrooms will get a sexual education just in health class. I saw hope that someday millions of children wouldn't be slaughtered before taking their first breath because their mother didn't FEEL LIKE having them. I saw hoe that maybe one day, we will livein a peacefull world-not the absence of conflict, but the presence of JUSTICE. Bt above all I saw a man who said what he meant and meant what he said. I know that probably offends some people, and that's allllll riiigheet. but consider the alternative.

love in of itself is a moral decision. commitment in of itself is a moral decision, courage in of itself is a moral decision. to take out these truths that are self evident you would be left with a society, oh lord, that was devoid of true love, that was rampant with divorcwe, and pre marital congression, and abortion of unwanted children, and too timid to wage the necessary battles for the proliferation of that society. Now we want every body to be free, and FEEEEEEEEEEEEEL good, but i don't know about you. I think that i would want to be free, in a land that was strong. full of grace and good charecter. now i have come a long way from some different subjects and struggles and put them aaallllllllllllllllll together, some of you might think that i am straying from the point. bringing in things that don't really matter. if that's the case i am sorry-that you missed it. but there is somebody sittiong out there, yesssssssssssss, who KNOOOOOOOOOOOOWS what i'm Talkin with you about. he may not say it, but he's there, and if its just me then that's fine. I'm here all week, and twice on SUNDAY

 

[CellarDweller]

Last time i checked theree was no law or there would be no law proposed that forbid someone from buying a ring and walking around holding hands and in ones own mind believing ones self to be married. you can have a monogomous relationship with anyone you want as long as they are of age for as long as you want. in whatever religious circle that you want you can bear whatever title that you want. No one is debating the free exercise of homosexuality in this country.

I have often said that any homosexuals who want to do that can do so. I will have a ceremony with the man I love, and we will exchange rings. But it IS NOT the same. When a man and a women become married legally, they are considered each other's next of kin. A gay couple is denied that.

If the man I love is in an accident, and in a coma, the hospital can deny me visitation rights, because I am not his next of kin. If medical decsions must be made (surgery, life support) I can not give that information, because I am not his next of kin. That is why we want legal recognition of our relationships.

As for "walking around hold hands" and other displays of affection, gay people get stared at, or worse, for doing that in public.

The traditional marital union which is believed by some myswelf included to be the construction of oh mighty god himself had a few more purposes than just making the two people feel good. that is the main purpose, but there are others. the second most important is the care of any eventualities, and or kids. This union was designed as a training center for all the members of the next generation. this is paramount to the proliferation of any great society. "oh come on marriage isn't that important". well im sorry to say that it is. the family unit is the cornerstone of civilizaation. If you allow it to be destroyed, you allow society to be destroyed in of itself. marriage should be between two aconsenting ADULTS that yes have strong feelings for one another, but also have a strong volutional reasoning behind the union. To build a family.

Ok, so what about couples who decide that they don't want to be parents? Couples who decide that they want to remain childless? Does that mean they shouldn't be married, because the main reason for being married is for having children?

What about all the people who choose to have children without being married?

love in of itself is a moral decision. commitment in of itself is a moral decision, courage in of itself is a moral decision.

I agree with you on that. And there are many gay couple who make those decisions and should have the right to have their relationships recognized legally, and receive the benefits of marriage. I am the child of a couple who are Roman Catholic. A retired child care giver, and retired railroad employee and ex Marine. This past Feb., they celebrated their 40th wedding anniversary. I look at them as the model of how a couple should behave, and look forward to the day that my Mr. Right and I are celebrating OUR 40th wedding anniversay, with the children we've adopted.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

a interesting point is brought up here thinks the hollywood brother. the point is if lets say the hollywood brother thinks his seasons in the sun are up and gets a million dollar life policy. Since the hollywood brother is ingle then he has no wife to leave it to. if the hollywood brother wanted it to go to some of his college friends that are male, this would be a problem and that is wrong. The hollywood brother do not want to debate the idea of gay being born into it or if it is your own choice. The hollywood brother do not care about that. If you find love then good for you. The hollywood brother do not care if it with the same sex or opposite sex. What the hollywood brother thinks is wrong is the idea that people in same sex relationships can not have there significant other listed on lifei nsurance policies and stuff like that. to the hollywood brother this is a bad form of discrimination and should be stopped.

 

[nessonite1]

MayDay
The least you can do then is discuss things in a civilised manner. Besides the utter futility of arguing your point with people who will never change their mind (as futile as it is for the other side to argue their point to you) you're not winning any style points either by coloring your argument with insults. Just try to keep it nice. If this junk has to be here let's at least act like human beings rather than monkeys throwing poo at eachother.

 

[CellarDweller]

If this junk has to be here let's at least act like human beings rather than monkeys throwing poo at eachother.

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

what a great quote! Luv ya Ness!

 

[MayDay1]

MayDay
The least you can do then is discuss things in a civilised manner. Besides the utter futility of arguing your point with people who will never change their mind (as futile as it is for the other side to argue their point to you) you're not winning any style points either by coloring your argument with insults. Just try to keep it nice. If this junk has to be here let's at least act like human beings rather than monkeys throwing poo at eachother.

At least I fucking care. If you want to plug both your fingers in your ears and go "La! La! La! La!" whenever something like this comes up, fine. Fact is this country is jacked up and if we sit here and not say a peep then the people in power will just keep riding roughshod over our rights. You think the Patriot Act was to catch terrorists? Hardly. It's just a way for the government to keep tabs on you.

Since when is being complacent patriotic? Last I checked this country was founded by radicals. Some of the more outspoken rabble rousers now have holidays named after them. The Vietnam War was not ended because we won or the president had a change of heart. That war ended because the American people got so fed up with seeing countless innocent people die for nothing they raised so much hell you could hear it at the White House.

Just dont' be surprised when a measure gets passed that will greatly affect you.

 

[jj82277]

cellar dwellar. I take to heart that you get stared at when you and your partner walk down the street. as an African American republican "i know EXACTLY what you mean", the great and wise morpheus,

but anyway, for the couples that choose not to be parents is where i derived the term eventualities to describe children. from marital sex comes the potential for children. and that is the secondary need for structured marriage that i stated. the first and most noticable purpose of marriage no matter what Oprah says is defined best in one word as sex, or the interaction between a guy and a girl that makes life so wonderful and to say that is not the main purpose would be wrong. and as for the couple that decides to have children outside of marriage i think that the male shoul be criminally liable and i am dead serious. I see this a another great danger to children. I have yet to be poresented with a positive situation and if the government is to define marriage as between a man or woman i think it should adress that problem and put an end to the American geneside of the unborn. I think that as a free society we should do more so that we can freely accept your decisions to endulge your own urges, but i still think that the government sponsoring of homosexual unions as equal with marriage would be a bad idea for the above reasons and i guess that we will just agree to disagree on that.

And to the Hollywood brother, once again the generall public mis stating the purpose of life insurance. If you thought you were dying for some reason and went out to get insured you wouldn't because you were sick, and if you weren't sick and you just wanted to off yourself so someone else could get rich, then there is someting called a suicide clause to prevent acts like that. that's the technical side, but insurance or income protection is not a going away present sir, it is a form of income replacement. you can take out policies on business owners and partners in real estate and so forth. all you have to do is show insurabile interest like a mortgage or something and then you should be good to go. if anyone has any problem with that [email protected] hop a flight to Florida bring the documents and i will take care of you no questions asked, and that's the truth.

I tried to keep this one short after my sunday morning tirade, so i guess the SPIN stops here, cause im looking out for you.





God that was fun. does that constitute as being pithy, what do you think vlad?

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

I would prefer to keep the system as it is, but it needs to be overhauled and strengthed by additional moral integrity and values. But gays do deserve just as much as straight people do. I would rather keep religions and churches out of dealings of this nature for fear of compromise. That leaves it in the hands of the state, but even they feel as most major religions do. So I don't see how gay couples win at all.

If they could care less about the sanctity of marriage and children and family, and they just want the technical mumbo-jumbo that allows them access to the same benefits straight couples get, then I say just let them have it. So long as it is not a strain or misuse why should the rest of us care? Perhaps theres a way it could be made where gay union benefits come not through being married but through some other means.

Whether you see it as immoral or impractical, theres obviously no stopping it as gay people are not going to decide to not be gay, and churches aren't going to change their doctrine just to accomidate, of all things, homosexuality and homosexual couples just for the sake of being politically correct with the government. Churches aren't called to emulate the government, they are called to follow A God (whichever your preference) and the doctrines of their chosen faith.

So just let them have their benefits. Surely something can be worked out where no one has to sacrifice anything.

Its discrimination either way, and theres been quite enough of that. Homosexuality is still a paradox when it shouldn't be, and so the government's opinion on it is fickle and capricious. This is sure one hell of a quagmire.

 

[Camel26]

Why in the world are we still discussing all of this??? I thought the point of this thread was to just share experiences, not sit here and argue and make some of the members of this community, a FETISH community, feel like shit because of some of what is being said...I'm going to address one issue and then I'm done with this...

Why in the world would I CHOOSE to be gay? Why? What advantages are there? My family hates me, some of my friends hate me, and my government won't protect me from getting beaten up over being myself in certain states...why would I choose to be a second class citizen? Anyone who tells you they chose to be a second class citizen by "choosing to be gay" is full of crap and must be submerged in a conservative environment where they have heard for years that it's a choice and that's the end of it...it's not a choice...read a little bit and you'll find scientific evidence of certain genes being linked to gender assignment and sexual preference...you cant fight genetics...I tried for 6 years to deny the feelings I have...dated men, slept with men, thought I would marry a man...and I've never felt so miserable, or more incomplete in my life...No, I didn't choose to be gay, but I did choose to stop hiding it...chose to allow myself to be happy...chose to let someone love me/love someone else they way I knew was best for me...doing so knowing that I'd be a second class citizen, and would be beaten on for the rest of my life by closed minded hateful bigots like some of the lovely specimens who chose to let themselves be known here...thanks for the love, y'all...I said it earlier, and I'll say it again...this is a site for people with a particular fetish, one that is sexual on some level for most of us, and one that is not mainstream for most of us...we don't all go around with our fetish on our sleeves, asking people if we can tickle them or if they'll tickle us...so before anyone else decides to post about anything negative, think about the fact that almost 90% of the people on this site are more in the closet about this fetish of ours than they are about their sexual preference...so lets be a bit nicer to one another...I'm not saying to be complacent and ignore the issues, but I am saying to watch what you say, maybe think before posting...we're all in this together, and we're supposed to be supportive, loving members of a community together...this bickering, that solves nothing, and only proves ignorance on both sides of the matter, will not do...

 

[jj82277]

I love you camel. and i appologize on behalf of any person that has taken ill use of his time and under the guise of morality has caused you or any of the other members of that particular community pain. that is not my intention or my purpose.

I know that its hard and by no means do i consider you a second class citizen. my involvement in this debate, has been of a purely intillectual nature. i hold no ill will towards anyone or their particular orientation. If my persuit of this question has caused any one undo pain or sorrow i am truly sorry. my intent was not to judge, but to in a general sense adress a burden. I have othing but love and respect for all God's children whether they know of him or not.

 

[nessonite1]

Settle down Mayday. I'm not plugging my ears and living in the clouds. But there's a time and aplace for everything and I am simply of the opinion that volatile discussions on a forum where people come to relax maybe isn't the best idea. We're here to be a part of something together, not see how many differences we can find to argue about.

 

[CellarDweller]

I want to clarify something.

When gay people are talking about the amendment, people who are against it make the arguement that we "want all or nothing". We either want marriage, or nothing.

Civil unions are not equal to marriage, but a number of gay people would settle for that. I would.

However, the way the amendment is currently worded, NO UNION between gay people would be considered legal.

We are against the amendment, not because we will only accept marriage. We are against it, because it give us no option at all, leaving us with nothing.

 

[MayDay1]

Settle down Mayday. I'm not plugging my ears and living in the clouds. But there's a time and aplace for everything and I am simply of the opinion that volatile discussions on a forum where people come to relax maybe isn't the best idea. We're here to be a part of something together, not see how many differences we can find to argue about.

Think about the logic on that. If somebody was coming to this forum for fun, they sure as hell aren't going to click on something called "The Discrimination Thread". This is only one thread in one certain section of a forum with countless different avenues. If somebody didn't want to get involved, they wouldn't click here.

Yeah, I come here for fun too. But sometimes these things need to be addressed (I just happen to choose more colorful verbiage than your average guy). I know that changing someone's opinions is difficult, especially when you throw a cold hard fact in someone's face who's been soaked in rhetoric their whole life. But I still have to try. Or at least show support to people who this has affected (Camel, Celler Dweller).

Besides, there's that whole 1st Amendment thing. I use it. A lot.

 

[nessonite1]

Well then the least you can do is remain civil. Not that you're not civil but you know how these sorts of conversations get. Try not to provoke people and try not to be provoked into subhuman forms of communication (ie throwing poo).

 

[help me]

Being gay is immoral. It's not natural. I won't go beating you up for it but don't expect me to be to tolerant of it either. If my views are discriminating so be it. It is a life style and it wouldn't the first life style that people discriminate against. Liberals keep using the word ignorance but it has become an excuse rather than an argument. I don't think you should have civil unions because the next thing you know, a few years down the road, it won't be good or "equal" enough. I will only be pushed so far before I push back. Homosexuality itself is not logical. You call it love, I call it immoral.

 

[Kalamos]

Being gay is immoral. It's not natural. I won't go beating you up for it but don't expect me to be to tolerant of it either. If my views are discriminating so be it. It is a life style and it wouldn't the first life style that people discriminate against. Liberals keep using the word ignorance but it has become an excuse rather than an argument. I don't think you should have civil unions because the next thing you know, a few years down the road, it won't be good or "equal" enough. I will only be pushed so far before I push back. Homosexuality itself is not logical. You call it love, I call it immoral.

Immoral you say? Interesting point.

Just for curiosity's sake, I took my time and checked *your* previous posts.


You mentioned you have a fetish for feet - as your nickname can easily confirm.
While you hate being regarded as a weirdo, you clearly stated you'd never swap it for any other fetish.

-> http://www.tickletheater.com/showthread.php?p=61313#post61313



You also posted, elsewhere, you are *sickened* by people into "F/M" - mind you, not Male ON Male - just simple Female ON Male, a straight relationship, or a natural, logical union, if you wish.

Even if other people are turned on by it, you consider it sickening, and you take an especially dim view on males who happen to like it.

-> http://www.tickletheater.com/showthread.php?p=26646#post26646



Again, you went on, stating you believed this to be an exclusively M/F site - and were quite appalled to discover it was not.

-> http://www.tickletheater.com/showthread.php?p=26549#post26549



Curiously enough, while you admitted your fetish for foot-worshipping and foot-tickling, you also confessed you'd be too embarassed to ever ask a real woman out, and tickle her.

-> http://www.tickletheater.com/showthread.php?p=17859#post17859



So, I infer, you basically find solace in your own dream world, made up of models and celebrity fantasies, such as your beloved Jennifer Aniston.

-> http://www.tickletheater.com/showthread.php?p=4719#post4719



Mmm... Pretty much messed up, if I may say so. 🙂

You can't cope with your own diversity - and since you can't come to accept and like yourself, you end up failing to accept those whom you perceive as being very far off from your idea of "normality".

I'd like to ask you what you come to this - and other adult sites - for.
I must assume you watch pictures of tickle-models for your own private pleasure - urged on by a sexual fetish you are probably ashamed of.

Let me shed some light for you.

Sexual fetishes are considered aberrations: they are nor logical neither natural; they are held as immoral too, since they usually lead to masturbation or wasteful spreading of semen.

Unless you follow a strict chastity vow, your own sexual practices are useless, immoral and illogical too; they do not promote family growth, they take the sexual focus away from its proper course, and they mislead the straight thought.

To use a religious word, you are a sinner, a sinner of the worst kind: not only you admit your own sins without repenting, but you point at other people's sins, without realising your own is even worse, since it is self-contained and ultimately sterile and purposeless.

As a member of the forum's staff, I will not suffer this kind of nonsense lightly: all it does is fostering flames and trolling; you are free to be as homophobic as you wish, but you are not allowed to call immoral or illogical anybody, especially since your own stance is less than crystal-clear.


Oh, enjoy your stay and have fun downloading those juicy M/F clips. 😉

 

[AphroditeRabbit]

I love you Kalamos -laughs- Sometimes I thank god you are as smart as you are...after reading his post I was about ready to call it quits to this forum for several months. (I am actually still debating it.) I read yours and just smiled knowing there are some excellent debators who don't need to throw around untrue things, but actually look back at things to support a valid point! Thanks K-Man!

 

[AphroditeRabbit]

Being gay is immoral. It's not natural.

Obviously it is natural or else you wouldn't have people who are gay without some sort of artificial device making them want to be with a member of the opposite sex. And immoral to who? You? Good lord. *rolls eyes*

I won't go beating you up for it but don't expect me to be to tolerant of it either.

I don't recall anyone expecting anything of you anywhere in this thread.

If my views are discriminating so be it.

Apparently. And what do you mean "if"?

It is a life style and it wouldn't the first life style that people discriminate against.

Being an asshole is a lifestyle choice too. 🙂

Liberals keep using the word ignorance but it has become an excuse rather than an argument.

What exactly is the excuse being used? Excuse for what? Someone being who they are?

I don't think you should have civil unions because the next thing you know, a few years down the road, it won't be good or "equal" enough.

Yeah you better look out. I mean...god...who knows what they'll demand next! Equal treatment? Respect? The same rights you have? We all know we can count on you now to suppress the rising tide of rights! Thank god.

I will only be pushed so far before I push back. Homosexuality itself is not logical. You call it love, I call it immoral.

Who exactly is pushing you? Pushing you to what? Accept the fact that there will always be lifestyles other than your own in the world? And that just because you don't like it, it's going to happen anyway? No one is making you do anything. As a matter of fact their relationships, or anyones have absolutely nothing to do with you. In a way, it's none of your business who they are with. 🙂 I'll have to say being homosexual is as natural as being heterosexual. How is it not logical? Because YOU fail to understand anything? How is it not love? Perhalps you should explain yourself and your points, lest someone might think you were discriminatory. 🙂

It's posts like this that drive me away from TT.

 

[MayDay1]

Kalamos for president!

 

[naveltkltr1350]

You call it love, I call it immoral.

and you sir,

I'll call you an idiot. :happy: