Good role models then.

 

FACT is, they are both probably bent, Hello sailor and I'll let you in the back door gov! They never stood a chance. Not sure about kicking off heads but I'm sure they may have licked off a few.

 

It had to be said


You'll get corns on your bum, sitting waiting for an answer.
The answer is, it is unacceptable to use that vile comment and there is nothing wrong with homosexuals. Their preferences are no one elses business but their own, same as ours. Live and let live and better still, mind your own business.

 

but what have the Romans ever done for us eh?

 

again you need to define "normal". western morality "normal" you mean. I don't care what anyone says, religion and indoctrination have a major part to play in our perceived "rightness" of what it means to be "gay".

 

Isn't the point here not just that Manny P. thinks gays aren't normal, but that he thinks they should be put to death? Or was he misquoted on that part?

 

he was misquoted. the journo quotes a Old Testament Leviticus verse in his article.

see here

 

Yep, it's a load of sh*te. They should all just leave you alone and mind their own business.

 

cmon , surely we can ridicule each other for the purpose of laughter - and the recipients can accept it for whatever reason, aslong as its equally spread between all parties?

is not agressive in nature or lead to physical violence, or aggression toward 1 party, and when obviously based around laughter its all good imo - sexual preferance, colour, religion, race, size, behaviour, quirks, ect ect ect are all open to light hearted ridicule for the purpose of laughter, and therefore acceptable imo

again re-inforce that violent, aggressive or offensive behaviour is not accepted!

 

I don't need to define normal. Infact, I hardly care to be honest. In my opinion, a man and woman should be together, not man and man, or woman and woman. If 2 people of the same gender are together, that in my opinion is not normal. I don't need to explain or define what "normal" is, but I respect their decision and don't have a problem with gays, so I leave it at that.

 

It's normal for them, and your opinion is worth f-all. Just saying.

 

So normal they buy lubricant in bulk from Makro

 

and yours is ?

 

I actually don't know how any group in society that gets the local public toilets closed due to their behaviour can be described as "normal".

I also don't know how gay authority figure can be classed as normal by threated to rape someone infront of a class of people and also telling them how sore is *** was from being ridden hard could be classed as normal but he felt comfortable doing this as anyone who said anything probably would have been classed as a homophobic and lost their job in out PC world.

Every gay person I have met has been a damaged individual, thats nothing more than an observation.

 

Was it because they were gay, or was it because they lacked acceptance by the majority of others around them? Or, did they look damaged because 1/4th of them out of the rest makes them look weird for acting all feminine hence they must be damaged? I wonder what made the gay individuals you met come across as damaged? It will be ineresting to learn. Shame we don't have some gay people on Scoobynet that could give their views on this thread.

 

I never mentioned them acting feminine or looking damaged?

 

I can't imagine a gay person driving a subaru ...I think you'd have a better chance on the VW Bug forums

 

I never said you did, Jamz3k. If you notice the question marks after my sentences, you will see that I questioned whether that was the case or else. It wasn't an attack on you, it was a query.

See your post quoted below where you say "Every gay person I have met has been a damaged individual, thats nothing more than an observation". There must be some basis for your "damaged individual" observation for the gays you have met. I am just curious to know what that basis is. That's all.

Now, can you tell what you base your observation on? It will be interesting to know.

 

Hmm, so is it that you completely forgot about this just 2 posts ago:or do you just happen to know they were damaged (through in-depth discussion, hacking their psychiatric records, telepathy, etc), despite none of them actually looking it?

 

Thanks, Mark.

 

No need to thank him, I know what I said in my post and didn't mention them looking damaged. I said they were damaged.

And yes Mark as you have pointed out, it is through speaking to them. I may not agree with homosexuality but I wouldn't ignore someone because of it. If you speak to most of them for any period of time it can become very apparent how damaged they are due to their looks/personality/childhood or just plain attention seeking.

 

Can you tell someone has a mental illness by the way they look?

 

I thanked him for pointing out to you the obvious, nothing for you to be concerned about.

You said what you posted. Everybody can read it, and you can't deny it. If you want to go round in circles on a defensive, keep circling.

However, If you meant to say (as you say in above quote) they were damaged, it makes it even more concrete for a reader that you actually believe they were damaged.

Thanks for posting (quoted below) how you worked that out:



So, "speaking to them" made you believe they were damaged. What did their stories entail?
You also include "due to their looks" along with their personality, childhood and attention seeking. This means they did "look" damaged to you as well as you sensed them as damaged by "hearing" and "analysing" their childhood account + observed attention seeking behaviour.

Do you think they lacked acceptance in their childhood, which affected their personality? Or, do you think they were damaged by other means first, and therefore they resigned to gay-ism? Or, are they damaged because they are gay; doesn't matter how they have become one? Therefore gayhood isn't normal?

Yes. You have to be a specialist of that field, though. Problem is when every Tom, D!ck or Harry acts like a psychiatrist or a psychoanalyst personality reader to come to ridiculous conclusions that the gay individuals they met were damaged. And for that reason, being gay isn't normal. That is what you indicate in your prior posts. Don't deny it.



^ Evidence.

 

Its not defensives, it's showing that I can see what you tried to do with what I said.

Again you are taking what I'm saying and putting you own spin on it rather than asking me questions on what I actually said. So there is no point having a discussion with you are you clearly are only interested in what you have to say.

Well I'm not a specialist so how can I tell if someone "looks" damaged.



Have you ever heard the saying, Tongue in cheek?


Until pro-gays as shown in this thread can accept that not everyone agrees with them without having what they have said twisted and contorted to meet the needs of said pro-grays then there is really point of having an discussion.

 

To be honest, most of the gay people in gay relationships probably know in themselves that they are not normal for being attracted to the same sex.

If it was me, I would be thinking to myself "why the f**k do I like c**ks? ...this isn't normal...." ...but I would have to accept who I am and get on with life; which probably concludes why some gays have problems and difficulities because they can't accept who they are.

Obviously my opinion, which as someone has mentioned already, means f-all.

 

Most of the time

 

TBH gay people don't bother me as long as they keep away from me.
It's a free country for people to be with who ever they love and want to be with.
I don't like seeing it tho and it gives me the creeps when I do see it.

Moscow is a lot less tolerant than the UK on gay people
I remember watching this on BBC news when it happened
and thinking the gay people didn't think thing's through when doing
a gay protest in Moscow Russia of all places.
I must admit tho I did giggle when right said Fred got thumped

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gP9I04MFgDw

 

So poofterism is a mental thing then
Must be a terrible disease to have

 

This thread has become a platform for hate-speech.

 

I questioned you on exactly what you wrote; word by word, with no spins and twists. If you saw that I was questioning your beliefs about gays, you saw it right.


And then you say with conviction that they were damaged; on the basis of how they looked, what they spoke, their childhood and their attention seeking. You still won't tell what their stories were. It was a straight question. What you concluded is still questionable.


Many times.



As a matter of fact, as you stated a belief that the gays you have met were "damaged", all I asked you was to inform how you come to that conclusion. That's all.

Its okay for you to give your views against gay, but you don't like being questioned on your beliefs. That's why you avoid answering questions, instead you look for spins and twists. Questioning your beliefs is a spin for you.


I wish there were gay participation on SN to cast a light upon on their "damaged" being. What causes this damage? Internal conflict for being different? Is the internal conflict due to what is set as a norm, and due to the lack of acceptance in the society? Or, do gays believe that the society doesn't influence this internal conflict, and its their common sense that splits them in conflicting states? Where does this common sense come from? Society or their own intelligence which they may have been born with? Or, do gays not feel that they are damaged, and its others that percieve them as damaged due to their distinctive being? As we don't have gay posters here, they can't speak for themselves. It would be interesting to know what they think.