What if they weren't in your face but were behind closed doors living their lives the way heterosexuals do?  

Pretty easy to figure out that we as gun owners would not oppose homosexual gun ownership or sitting next to them at a range, mainly because we wouldn't know who they are!

However, you're absolutely right about the "in your face" queers who think that they are some protected class that is going to run free in this country forcing their agenda.  

Then, I agree with you on queers who keep their personal sexual/mental disease a private matter.

BUT... this thread is about the "in your face" gay-promotion/celebration occuring in our society (MTV in this case).  THIS is what I oppose as immoral and destructive to society.

The Gay Agenda IS being forced down our throats, and IS being FORCED into our children's heads and I will fight it every step of the way.

I only wish I wasn't alone

ha!  remember that wedding website i mentioned.  get ready to cringe:

some homosexual apologist/sympathizer started a whole new thread just to bash those of us who disapprove of the lifestyle/behavior/whatever.  that's it.

she made the comment:  "root it out where you find it people" in direct regards to "homophobia".  which she thinks encompasses anything that doesn't involving embracing the homosexual lifestyle.

i asked her why it was okay for her to attempt to make everybody accept homosexuality but it wasn't okay for me simply to express my disapproval of it.  talk about intolerance.

that one is going to be one of the "fun" threads.  [:D]  

Just FYI for your future conversations.

There is no such thing as homophobia in the traditional sense. While there are some people that are afraid of balloons, cats, whatever, there may be someone out there that is actually afraid of homosexuals. So, I won't say that it absolutely doesn't exist.

Brain researchers can study the areas of the brain that are activated during mental activities. Using these PET Scans and fMRIs, it has been shown that a part of the brain called the amygdala is the center of fear and anger responses. On the other hand, the insula house the feelings of disgust and many of the gustitory complexes.

When supposedly "homophobic" people are shown videos or stills of homosexual activity the insular gyri light up instead of the amygdala. About the same reaction can be garnered by showing a picture of someone eating feces shaped chocolate.

Thus, homophobia doesn't exist. If you are a homophobe, you aren't afraid of them, you are just disgusted.
tony

If they were living their lives the way heterosexuals do than they would not be making the conscience premeditated choice to engage in the filth of homosexual sodomy. So in that regard I am all for everyone living "the way heterosexuals do".

Kidding aside, if a person believes in God than they cannot be tolerant of evil. Why? Easy. I for one do believe in God and thus also the existence of evil. Anyone with even rudimentary theological studies knows that evil is not complacent by it's very nature. As everything in the physical universe is in motion so it is with the spiritual universe. Either we are as a nation, people and culture moving towards virtue and morality, or we are moving away. In other words, there would not BE homosexual sodomy on MTV if at first many were not deceived into thinking that evil is ok if it is out of sight "in the bedroom." To say that you would be fine with homosexual sodomy if it remained in the bedroom is like saying you would have supported Nazi fascism in Germany in the 1920s as long as it remained in private meeting halls and was not seen on the street. That is just not the nature of the beast.
Cases in point,
First,
We only want abortion legal in cases of rape or incest.
next,
We only want abortion legal in the first trimester.
next,
We only want abortion legal in the second trimester.
next,
We only want abortion in the third trimester.
now,
We demand partial birth abortion.

again,
first,
We only want to be allowed to engage in homosexual sodomy in the privacy of our own bedrooms.
next,
We only want to be allowed to be seen in public.
next,
We only want to be allowed to march in parades like the St. Patrick Day parade.
next,
We only want to be allowed to be portrayed on TV and in film
next,
we only want to be allowed in the Boy Scouts and military.
next,
We only want to be allowed to "get married" and have all sorts of government benefits.
next,
We only want to be allowed to adopt children.
now,
We only want to be allowed to teach school children about how to engage in "safe" homosexual sodomy and to "educate" them in government run schools that there is nothing wrong with engaging is homosexual acts.

and yet again,
first,
we only want to ban machine guns.
later,
we only want a background checks.
later,
we only want a waiting period.
later,
we only want to ban assault weapons.
ect, ect.

Understand how it works?
Understand why saying it is OK to ban machine guns inevitably leads to banning all firearms in the same way that saying that it is fine to sodomize other men in the bedroom inevitably leads to it being taught to school children?

My mother once called me a homophobe. We were discussing this issue, and I expressed myself in very clear terms, to which she objected. After some time to let things cool off, I felt I had to correct her on her misunderstanding of me and my beliefs.

[b]pho·bia[/b]
Pronunciation: 'fO-bE-uh
Function: [i]noun[/i]
Etymology: [i]-phobia[/i]
Date: 1786
: an exaggerated, inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation.

My beliefs regarding homosexuality and homosexuals is neither exaggerated, inexplicable nor illogical, thus eliminating them as a phobia.

In 1992, I was in a nightclub in Okinawa, Japan with a fellow Marine. He and I were chatting up a couple of females of the small, black haired, almond eyed persuasion when I noticed a ruckus on the dancefloor. A young man with a high and tight haircut was surrounded and fighting three men with civilian haircuts. I quickly made my way out to where they were, assisted by the music stopping and the house lights coming up, and punched the man closest to me in the ear as hard as I could two or three times. He dropped to the floor and I stepped up next to the man with the squared-away haircut, and the odds were even, or so I thought. When the crowd had scattered and the lights had come on, I noticed that I hadn't come to the assistance of one fellow Marine, but two. There was a Marine down on the deck against the bar getting kicked. I hadn't come into a fight against three men, but seven. My friend Dave had made an appearance, so the odds were now four against seven. The only mistake we made was that we won the fight.

It turns out that a gentleman whose eye I was obligated to split open that evening was an Air Force Captain. A homosexual Air Force Captain. A homosexual Air Force Captain who had put his hand on Lance Corporal Quintero's crotch when Quintero was at the bar buying a drink. When Quintero objected to this, he was knocked from his feet and kicked by the Captain's fellow servicemember/homosexual friends.
(to be cont'd)

Macallen + Belloc

I am firmly on your side, I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page about our need for any type of people who fight for our 2nd Amendment Right along with the NORMAL Americans on this site.  

I would never protest the loss of any firearm right next to some queer gun rights group, because I don't think gun ownership should be divisible into feminists, queers, minorities...

Good conversation!

Are you suggesting that we not accept someone because they're gay?  Moreover, what other basis is AR15.com founded on?  I don't see a group charter that reads:

"People we like:
Guys who like AR15s.
Womens who like AR15s.

People we don't like:
Gays who like AR15s.

If you belong to the "People we don't like," then we don't like you.  Join the Special Weapons forums.


if they're dangerous to the public at large when armed, probably not.  That's different than being gay.


Are we now kicking out people who aren't conservatives too?  What specific values must we uphold?  Whose values?


Sure you do if you decide that gays don't belong in the "club."  You do very much care what they do in the bedroom, if that's the case.  Don't be inconsistent if you're wanting to take a stand.


I'd rather not be seen as mean, but to each his own.

(cont'd)
In the ensuing witchhunt…errr, investigation, I was put on legal hold and liberty risk. In other words, my rotation date back to CONUS was indefinitely delayed and I was not allowed to leave the base without command permission. I was restricted to wearing utilities. I was forbidden to drink alcohol. I had to sign in with the Duty NCO every two hours, while those who had been found guilty of something and put on restriction to quarters only had to sign in every four. I was tempted by my battalion XO/legal officer with a liberty cruise to Hong Kong if I would testify against my fellow Marines that this was all just an ugly fight that got out of hand, and keep quiet about the homosexual stuff. The Air Force CG on Kadena Air Base would like to get through this with as little additional damage to his command as possible, you know.

Flash forward to 31 December, 1996: my wife, my mother, my mother’s friend and I were attending a New Year’s Eve celebration at a ritzy Washington, DC restaurant and nightclub. As we stood in front of the maitre d’s podium waiting to be seated, a young man left the bar to our left, walked behind me to go down the hall to the restrooms on my right, and dragged his hand across my backside as he went. My first instinct was to follow him to the restroom and give him a quick period of instruction on the inadvisability of grabbing the ass of men unknown to you. Reason quickly returned, as I knew that the only possible outcome would involve the Metro Police and a ruined evening out for my wife and mother. I swallowed my bile and ate my dinner and even managed to dance with my wife a time or two, but the evening was ruined for me.

Some folks may say that many men do just that sort of thing to women all the time, and they may be right. The important thing to me is that I [b]do not[/b] do that, and I can guarantee you that the evening would have had a much different outcome if he had grabbed my wife’s backside rather than mine. Some folks might have a long list of positive interactions with homosexuals, but I don’t. I paid dearly for my limited association with homosexuals, and will do everything in my power to limit them in the future.

Do we have to get that nit-picky?  I support the right of law-abiding people to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.  I will welcome anyone who falls into that category to fight along side me for RKBA.



So you're telling me that if the support of homosexuals could save RKBA (hypothetically speaking) you'd rather shoot it out with the blue-helmets?  

Let's be practical for a minute.  Do you think a politician is more concerned about being labelled a "homophobe" or "anti-gun"?  How about "racist"?

You shouldn't be so quick to condemn people who fight for your rights.  Yes, some people that fall into all of the unpopular categories mentioned in this thread do actually support RKBA.

Ok.  So what does all this have to with people hating gays just because they're gay and me saying it's not winning a lot of friends?

And, since you think you know my "choice..." allow me to enlighten you:  I see a problem in general with people schlogging each other on  nationwide TV when it should be left on the Spice Channel.  I see a problem in general with people blowing each other up on nationwide TV, too.  

I don't think that a lot of exposure to pornographic images, be it sexuality or violence, is all that healthy for the human psyche, particularly that of youngsters.  I don't care who the participants are.

I think PDA that progresses beyond hand-holding and light pecks on the cheek is nasty and rude no matter the sexes of those involved

However, behind closed doors, people can ball their brains out with whomever or whatever they want, as long as all parties consent.  I fail to see how this will "rip your little world apart."

And none of this has a blessed thing to do with popular opinion.  It's bad to hate people.  it's bad to persecute people unless they've done something worth persecuting.  I don't think that having sex with another man is worthy of persecuting.  Other people do.  I respect their view.  I think they're wrong.  I think they're denying themselves the company of genuinely kind people.

Good shit!  Sounds like when my lacrosse team caught up with the pedophile fag that was stalking me in high school.  Imagine the team seeing him sitting in the stands the whole game, then after the obligatory hand shake with the other team, this guy starts walking back to his car.  Seconds later, the coaches and 35 angry HS guys are catching up to the fag and laying a beating on him that left broken, beaten and listed in every police department in Suffolk County as a potential bad guy.  

In case you were wondering, I went to a church youth night with my girlfriend at the time and he started talking to the two of us, then offered us a ride home, we accepted and then the harrassment ensued.  Showed up at my highschool a couple times and my coach (a Suffolk County Detective) contacted his people who watched him watching me on two occassions on school grounds.

Later showed up to a game, where he sat down next to my dad who told him to leave or catch a beating.  He didn't listen! [:)]

You may have had contact with some "genuinely kind" homosexuals. Some of us other well-meaning and sincere folks may not have. Keep that in mind when you make your judgements about us.



Do you really think anyone is genuinely worried about being boned at the range? Of course not, but it makes an easy target for your scorn. Spare us your straw man argument and let's just agree to disagree.

Not alone, but we are overwhelmingly outnumbered.  The left has educated a generation now, so it's probably hopeless to fix anything.

Quoted:
[b]Are you suggesting that we not accept someone because they're gay?[/b]
Not at all. It is good to surround oneself with happy people. On the other hand it is wrong to "accept" the depraved act of homosexual sodomy. For as the Founders warned us, it is only morality and virtue that are the safeguards freedom and liberty.

"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand."
John Adams

"He who is void of virtuous attachments in private life is, or very soon will be, void of all regard for his country. There is seldom an instance of a man guilty of betraying his country, who had not before lost the feeling of moral obligations in his private connections."
Samuel Adams
The truth of this can be seen in the fact that the act of homosexual sodomy has cost this nation hundreds of billions of dollars, and still counting.

"A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience are incompatible with freedom."
Patrick Henry

"It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
Edmund Burke

Very well.

I edited it from my argument.  You're correct in that it was needless pedantry and a bit of a straw man.  Not as much a straw man as the KKK and pedophile comments above, your point is valid.

I didn't read your story until I after my posts, and I didn't mean to seem like I was belittling your experience.  I apologize for that.

However, I do submit that there are bad apples in every barrel.  The guy was a scumbag, and he should have had his ass handed to him.  However, why reflect this experience on all homosexuals?

It matters not in the least if those who make the choice to commit homosexual sodomy are "kind" or not as it would not matter in the least if a pedophile were "genuinely kind". The writer Truamn Capote once said in an interview that for as long as he could remember he wanted to have sex with underage boys. Yet his friends considered him a kind person and he in fact may have been kind. But both men sodomizing underage boys or each other is still immoral and depraved and those who engage in either of these conducts is no friend of virtue and morality and thus no friend of liberty.

I didn't take it that you were specifically belittling me, so there's no sweat there.

I do reflect this experience on all homosexuals because homosexuality is a mental defect. Just because some are nice guys, does that make me somehow less noble a person because I'd rather stay away, far far away? I don't think so. It makes me a cautious person. Call it "Twice bitten, three times cautious."

Don't get me wrong: I don't call for their extermination. I just don't think they should get the public platform they've gotten to campaign for universal acceptance of their perversion. If I've hurt somebody's feelings, too fucking bad. I've paid dearly for that right.

Jarhead_22,
Click on this link.
[url]www.liberty1.org/[/url]
Then click on the Seven Principles of Liberty.
These seven principles sum up what I hold to be the truth. GungHo and anyone who supports or defends those that make the choice to commit homosexual sodomy would have you believe that there is no intrinsic link between liberty and morality (which is opposite to what every Founding Father believed), that the website is just a bunch of lies and falsehoods. Read and decide for yourself.

Please do not say that I believe that there is no intrinsic link betweeen liberty and morality.

I just draw a slightly different line for morality than some others.

It is most unfortunate for the cause of freedom and liberty that you draw your moral line where Rosie O'Donnell and Hillary Clinton draw theirs.

If you're right, then MTV (and our culture as a whole, but I simply use MTV as an ever-accurate representation of what our "accepted society" is) truly is SICK.

I hate to say it, but I truly have accepted homosexuality, but for one reason - love.  Now don't get me wrong, because I see dykish, flaming gay individuals who get together with others for "sexual fun", and a shun them as the abominations that they are.  Then I see the couples who get together and stay together because they truly are in love, then I (grudgingly) say "OK, do your own thing".  I don't like it, and I still think it's wrong, but it doesn't [i]completely[/i] disgust me.

But pedophilia?  You can't cut that either other way than COMPLETELY WRONG.  If society ever embraces that idea as acceptable - not "good" or "encouraged", but simply acceptable is enough - then I will truly have lost faith in the morals of America.

It took me this long to accept Homosexuality - not because the TV converted me (considering I never watch anything outside the conservative WB), but that it's become so etched in American culture that I've had to view the bad with the good and judge accordingly.  And smite if you will judging, God, but please make Macallan dead wrong about this premonition.  It might just make me hate gays again.

Yes, I'm telling you that.



Bestiophile gun-toters, pedophile gun-toters, KKK gun-toters, Black Panther gun-toters, Queer Nation gun-toters, Communist gun-toters, etc, do not fight for my rights - they are the very antithesis of my rights.

No, I would not side with degenerates, militant gays, Black Panthers, ELF, KKK or Communists who promise to let me keep my guns if I side with them.  



Your above quotes center one theme: "I support ANYONE who supports RKBA." Or at least you won't oppose their efforts to force the acceptance/celebration of their despicable and degenerate mental disease by all of society.

It seems you are using RKBA as an end unto itself.  

The RKBA does not exist simply to ensure the RKBA.

It exists to prevent Gov't (or others) from oppressively imposing their will and forcing me to accept what is blatantly abhorrent to the morally civilized mind.  




[b]No, I would not trade my principles or moral beliefs for the RKBA because then my RKBA would be for naught. If I ever did, what would I have left worth defending?[/b]

I would add that it was not the belief of the Founding Fathers that it was possible for man to draw the line of morality. They were quite convinced that moral laws were eternal and had already been drawn by God. It is the Al Gores and Barbara Boxers of the world who think as you do that the line can be moved whimsically where ever they on any particular day decide to move it. To hold that men commiting the act of sodomy on each other is not immoral as you do is to deny not only the Declaration of Independence but the very foundations of ordered liberty as believed by the Founding Fathers and put quite well by C.S.Lewis;

"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike. Subjectivism about values is eternally incompatible with democracy."

Well at least you're a man of principle.



To me that's a separate issue.  Getting the public screwl system fixed, getting the media in line, etc.  Accepting gay support for RKBA does not equate to celebrating or endorsing that lifestyle.



I think RKBA means different things to different people.  To me it means that I come home to my wife each night.  It means that she comes home safely to me.  It means that our government will think twice before going where other governments have gone.  It means that I will not have to answer the call, "Waffen Raus!"

I guess you're referring to my [u]analogy[/u].

Straw man: a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted.

Analogy: inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others.


I used the pedophiles, KKK etc to show the weakness of your (apparent) position blindly supporting ANYONE who supports RKBA, taking it to its logical extreme. Analogies are a valid debating tactic.


Anyhoo... way off target now.  


Long debate short... Gays promoting their abhorrent, perverse and degenerate "lifestyle" are destructive to society, REGARDLESS of whether they also support the RKBA. I will strongly oppose them at every turn.


My $0.03

Well, this will certainly turn this topic from a hot one to a massive inferno.  Here goes.

I HATE fags, but I am gay.  I am not kidding.

Normally, I would not mention this to anyone.  However, this thread has demonstrated that there are a number of serious misconceptions about gays.

First, you all know about "fags".  Those are the disgusting perverted individuals who want to force their lifestyle on you without your consent.  What I am is gay.  I am the guy next door.  You cannot tell I am gay by looking at me, or even talking with me for any length of time.  I feel no need to be "out" -- That is really no ones business.

I shoot, build, and generally have a fun time with AR-15's, as well as all firearm types.  My politics are conservative.  I do not belong to ACT UP or any of the other left wing groups.  I am a NRA Life Member, and also belong to JPFO and GOA.  I am certainly no pedophile.  I am not interested in indoctrinating anyone in anything--except RKBA and the 2nd.  

You may decide you don't want to associate with me in any way just because I am gay.  However, had I not mentioned my orientation, you certainly would not have ever guessed.  I have close friends who finally guessed after about five years!   Due to the risk of AIDS, I have chosen to be celebate, and have remained celebate for 11 years now.

Finally, I did not *choose* this.  Since a very early age I knew that I was different.  I have no ability to change what I was born with.  Both my parents are straight.  I did not come from a broken or screwed up home, so environmental factors are not a consideration.  I do not consider myself to be "defective".  If I was truly "defective", then I would not be able to function and contribute in society.  I pay my taxes, I am a consumer like anyone else.  I obey the law completely (uh, speeding not counted).  So, how am I defective?

Well, now that you all know, go ahead and ask questions.  You might find that there are things you still have to learn.  

Macellan, this is the type of man I'm talking about.

I'm glad you agree with us Don and I'm glad you keep your private life private like most people do.  Sorry if my posts offended you, but I've had some bad experiences and the media is no help in my perception of the "fags" as you've stated.  Maybe they are doing more of a disservice to the homosexual population than good after the reactions they've generated on this board.

And yet here you are, outing yourself.



Exceptional. Seriously. But out of the entire population of homosexuals, how many would you hazard a guess have followed the same path you have?



Going along with the popular notion that homosexuality is caused by a genetic factor, how could it be defined as anything other than a defect?



Sorry, but I feel that what I have learned about homosexuality will bear the test of time. I can't afford to take a chance that that might end up that costly again.

Not really.  I do not know anyone here personally, nor even in passing.  The process of going "out" is usually pretty risky.




No idea.  I can say that the rate of infection in this segment of the population is decreasing.



Well, I will turn your argument back on you.  The fact that someone has brown hair or is tall due to genetic factors does not make them defective.   Different from you, but not defective.



I am sorry too.  You did not learn anything about homosexuality.  Had a black person beat you to within a inch of your life, would that be an indication of how all black people are?  Not trying to offend, but I think the incident you described just gave you more ammo about something you already did not like.

But it's not the type of man this thread (nor any of MY comments) was referring to.

[b]DonShultz[/b], you obviously recognize your own nature and are also an obvious asset to your community.  The two are not incompatible and you certainly ought to feel a healthy pride in yourself (as I'm sure you do) as a productive member of society - and as normal in that respect as anyone.

Biologically speaking, "defective" means a substantial biological or psychological deviation from the norm that limits a major life function.  Homosexual inclinations are certainly a substantial deviation from normal sexual interests.  

Your CHOICE to control your inclinations (much like one with an aggressive temper or alcoholic tendencies) and not act out your impulses (your choice to not be a "fag") makes you very much a normal and very moral human.

The hedonistic culture we live in has no respect for controlling our impulses whatever they may be - especially with respect to acting upon any and all sexual impulses.

You are to be commended and not condemned.


My only question to you is this: "Which is better, ARs or AKs?" [:D]

The genetic link to homosexuality is about 50%. In order to study traits, and to determine if it is nature vs. nurture that is the cause, identical twins that have been raised apart from each other are looked at.
For example, If one twin has brown hair, then the other will undoubtedly have brown hair also. Genetic Predisposition=100%
If one twin talks with a northern accent, the other twin would not neccessarily have one. Thus genetic predispostion=0%.

Homosexuality has been found to have about a 50% link in homozygous twins, which is almost the same value as that of schizophrenia. Therefore, homosexuality is NOT completly genetic, but there is a genetic predispostion to be homosexual. It then requires some life event to set it in motion.
tony

Thanks.  I do try.



I will argue that a major life function has not been limited.  Most gays are not fully gay.  I still find myself attracted to certain women.  I have met hetero males who prefer women, but have from time to time been attracted to men (attraction does not equal acting upon).  There are no well defined lines from my perspective.



I am not controlling my desires out of any moral imperative--I just have an aversion to fatal diseases.  Aggressive tempers and alcoholism cause real tangible damage in our society, I do not believe that if I was sexually active that I would be causing the save level of damage (at least not any more than a heterosexual).



Agreed there.



Good try!  I have owned both.  I prefer the AR system.

I cannot argue the point.  You have obviously done your homework.  I have no doubt that I had a predisposition, but I do not know what life event set things into motion.  I will probably never know.  It could have been something totally unrelated to sexuality per se.

Fair enough.



The celibate population?



Sorry, but that theory doesn't hold up under any kind of scrutiny. Brown hair is a variation, not a defect. The desire to have sexual contact with anything but an adult of the opposite gender is a defect, like Lou Gehrig's disease, conjoined twins or autism.



I have had my ass kicked by blacks, and once by Puerto Ricans, and also by a few white boys. The fact that we were fighting had very little if anything to do with the nature of my opponents as members of a particular race. However, when I found myself fighting with homosexuals, it was as a direct result of their defect and the fact that they felt they didn't need to control it.

But jarhead, you're just soooooo damn cute!!!!

You state an opinion followed by examples such as:

Lou Gehrig's disease is a fatal condition all by itself.  Obviously, homosexuality is not automatically fatal.

Conjoined twins  and autism are conditions that will absolutely prevent any kind of normal life.

I do not believe your examples supported your opinion.



True.  However, you were fighting with guys who happened to be homosexuals -- and one of them made an unwanted sexual advance.  Basically, this was almost a rape.  This is criminal behavior. Criminal behavior is not a behavior which is incidental to homosexuality.  Criminal behavior is the real defect.

You don't think homosexuality "absolutely prevents any kind of normal life?" Human beings are designed to reproduce sexually. Heterosexuality is the norm, like bilateral symmetry, and homosexuality is the defect. Are we really even debating this? Will you have kids someday? If so, will it be because of or in spite of your homosexuality?



One of them made an unwanted sexual advance, which homosexuals somehow feel free to do with alarming regularity. Making sexual advances to men is a part of the defect, and most men will react negatively, to say the least. When the advance was rebuffed, the homosexual's partners jumped in. Have you ever heard of a group of men knocking a woman to the floor and kicking her thirty or forty times when she removed a man's hand from her backside, however strong her reaction?

Why would a man grab the backside of a man who is obviously heterosexual? Is it because he's a criminal, or because he's a homosexual and he thinks, rightly in this case, that he can get away with it? I was too scared of being arrested on some bullshit "gaybashing" charge to stand up for myself, to my everlasting shame. It won't happen again. I'm not trying to be a tough guy or threaten anyone, just to express clearly why I avoid at all costs the necessity of having to confront that situation.

No, I do not think homosexuality absolutely prevents any kind of normal life.  So what if humans are designed to procreate between the sexes?  Just because certain people do not do this does not make them defective.  There are plenty of people (straight included) that have no plans to have kids.  They are not reproducing, so they are somehow not living a normal life?  I have no plans to have kids.



What you experienced was not normal at all.  I have yet to see, or let alone participate in, this type of criminal behavior.  I have to wonder if this was really a true homosexual advance, or if this was someone starting shit with you.  

In regards to the unwanted sexual advance--the person making the advance does not know it is unwanted until the person that is the object of the advance gives some sort of reaction.



I cannot speculate as to what went through that person's mind when he did this to you.  I do find that all of the gay people I know have no interest in hetero males that they KNOW are hetero.  There are, of course, mistakes.  It is a massive risk for gay men to determine who is gay and who is not.  We are not wearing signs saying "gay" or "straight".  You said "obviously heterosexual"--how obvious, and do you go around saying "I am not gay" every minute on the minute so that gay men would see that you are obviously heterosexual?

Lesbians (I can call them that right?) ROCK!!!!!! How can I condemn anyone who sees the same beauty in women that I do. I have no clue what, natural instinct aside, women find attractive in men. But I absolutely love women. I will not even get into all the things to love about them.

Gay men are cool too. It love that I can let my woman go out with a couple of her guy friends, and have NO worries whatsoever. They really are pretty cool guys. They know where I stand (did I mention I LOVE women), respect that and don't openly flaunt thier preference when I am around.

All joking aside, we all have the right to our own preferences in our private lives, but not in public. Nudists don't get to go to Walmart in the clothing of thier choice, (read none), although they may choose to wear little, and so thier choices in private are ok by me. I don't even mind gays holding hands in public, I hold my womans hand whenever mine are not filled with her shopping bags, affection in moderation is ok. But if I can be ticketed for a public display of affection so can they. If I cannot smoke in a restraunt, they cannot act openly gay. Both are private decisions, and if one can be regulated, so can another. If my smoke bothers you, I am asked to put it out, so I ask that the flamboyance be put out too, it bothers me.

[):)]

I think the root of the problem here is stated in the first sentince of the original message:




Mygodman...MTV? Liberal fake crap TV shows, and the worst music on the airwaves. They shouldnt be 'M' TV anymore, there isnt any music there, there are call in shows where stupid callers interrupt bad songs and crummy videos in between stupid TV shows. Just remember, a lot of my generation (25) and younger think MTV is reality. I dont hate anyone, and no one has ever made me question my oath to serve the citizens of this nation, but some of the crap on MTV and its ilk have pushed me real close quite a few times.

As for faggots and dykes, I've got a 40 yr old dyke sister-in-law, and she's the most intellegent, entertaining and well spoken lady in the family (hate to say it, but wife included). Even my father who is a real bible-belter, thinks a lot of her. But you know what? Its because other than she lives with a woman, she's one of the most old-fashioned, conservative people I've ever met. Reminds me of a Republican Senator or something. Even she hates 'queers' who flaunt it are disgusting-

If you're going to try to insult me use more imagination than comparying me to Gore, Clinton, etc.  Not only is it silly, the only thing I really do have in common with those guys is some of the stance civil rights.  Beyond that...


The Founding Fathers also participated in and condoned slavery.  I don't think many people consider it a good idea today.  That doesn't invalidate their sayings and beliefs.  It does show that beliefs change.

Maybe the morality didn't change.  Maybe what changed was perspective on that morality. Either way, things change.

I think it's because he's an ass.

Wow...here I was reeling in the afterglow of being sucked off by my underage furry male concubine (Chuckles my gay poodle) when I happen across this bullshit thread. You hate fags - hey that's great. If you had said it once it wouldn't have been a big deal, just typical assbackward trogyldite logic. But the obsessive rejoicing in shitting on the gay community only leads to one conclusion - YOU are the fag. Jarhead22, he hates gays because they mistake him for one, which leads to him questioning his own sexuality, liking the idea of sex with another man and then blaming the homo who put the idea in his head. Instead, this ultra macho man should accept his gayity and transfer to the Navy..or the YMCA, or whatever. I'm totally convinced this guy is gay. I go to a predominately gay gym and no one makes a pass at me or grabs my ass. And I can guaranteee I'm prettier than all you mulletted out of shape, WalMart clothes wearing, salt of the earth, social rejects. Homosexuals have a built in gaydar and they must sense something strong coming off of you Jarhead (and the other homo who plays Lacrosse, about as gay as modern gaysportsdom gets). Then you got the "Oh it's a moral dilema" retards. In your next lives you will all be hamsters stuck up some fat old gay guy's ass. Karma is a bitch. Me ? We need more sex, violence, and drugs on T.V. If I can endure you bible thumping cum swillers on Jerry Springer arguing with your baby's momma and praising Lord Bejeezus and the KKK we should be able to see the "Sopranos" "Oz" the spice channel and other high quality programming. Don Schultz, your a pussy. Stop making excuses and blaming gays because of their political choices. It's not all of a sudden acceptable just because you like guns.

Being in my mid 20's myself, I gotta say that people around me have been turning off MTV more because it has gotten too outrageous.  Considering I'm talking about NYers, the supposed immoral people, I'd say that's substantial.  

The fact is, MTV isn't targeting our demographic anymore, because we know its a load of shit.  Their market is the teen crowd and you can see it in their advertisers, hosts and most importantly, the groups that come on the show.  How many 20 year olds watch NSync and all those other teenibopper bands?  

That is what scares me...MTV knows their market and chooses to air this crap rather than leave it on the editing room floor.  Its become "The Real Jerry Springer World" and kids think its normal.  Why else would Springer be on during hours when kids aren't home?

Sorry if you find truth insulting.



Actaully the Founders condemned slavery and tried as best they could to do away with it.



Not truth. What you are saying here is that you are a moral relativist.

The theory that there is a genetic component has no proof other than some non conclusive statistical data. One researcher claimed to have found a "gay gene" and it was reported on all the news shows. Later when it was discoverd that the researcher was himself somone who engaged in homosexual acts and that no other scientist could verify his claim with their own research the same media was very quite.

Wrong. The rate of infection has been increasing again for the last 2 years.

Some people apparently have an inclination to want to sodomize children, (i.e. the aforementioned Truman Capote case, not to mention apparently Rock Hudson and even Mohatmas Ghandi) but this does not change the fact that it is immoral and depraved. So it is with the inclination to sodomize other men.  The fact that you have choosen not to sodmize other men is no more commendable than Truman Capote choosing not to sodomize underage boys. It is not laudable when someone says they have decided not to engage in immorality and depravity.
"Hey Bob, guess what, I have decided not to rape little boys today."
"That's great Tom, way to go! Anything else?"
"Yeah, now that you ask, I have also decided not to sodomize other men."
"Great! Two for two. Let's have a parade in your honor."

Your decision on the desirability of children isn't really germane to the discussion. I asked if your homosexual defect would contribute or detract from your ability to do so, a question you neatly dodged. A man born with a defect that renders him sterile could easily say, "I wouldn't want kids anyway," but that doesn't change the nature of his defect. The norm is the ability and desire to mate with adults of the opposite gender, whether children result or not.

You have yet to see it or participate in it, yet by your own admission you have isolated yourself fairly well from the "homosexual world," haven't you? When someone wants to start shit, there are plenty of ways to accomplish it that don't involve hand to crotch contact. I don't really care what you have to wonder about, since you weren't there.

Since homosexuals make up a minute percentage of the population, it can logically be assumed that any sexual advance made cold in a nightclub known as a place where Japanese girls go to meet American men would be unwelcome, don't you think? Oh no, that's right, you just consider homosexuality to be another flavor in the wonderful Baskin-Robbins of life, not a defect. We'll have to agree to disagree here again.

Do I have to give some kind of notice that I'n not looking for a man when I'm standing with my wife and both of us are wearing wedding rings? Should I ever have to give any kind of notice to prevent an assault like that? You're splitting hairs and reducing this to ridiculous minutia.