If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NewsMax)   Nickelodeon brainwashing kids with Homosexual propaganda, will Spongebob and Squidward become more than just friends?   (newsmax.com) divider line 377
    More: PSA  
•       •       •

9182 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Jun 2002 at 5:50 AM (12 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



377 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2002-06-05 02:43:00 PM
You are exactly right, but that does not mean that it is our job as outsiders to the family to decide how others should parent...my opinion is, you can have a gay cuple on a kids show, but you shouldn't say that they are gay, because kids at that age cannot understand sexuality and all of its implications yet.

you don't agree, don't let them watch it. tv is not a constitutional right; your job as a parent is to decide what you want your kids to watch. don't like gay spongebob? don't let them watch it. don't like evolution? homeschool your freak ass kids. isolate them from society if it offends you that much.

i don't see any difference between having a gay couple on tv and an unmarried, hetero couple. it's not about having kids; kids shows like saved by the bell were not about married couples reproducing, but kids dating
(and other awful, awful things like this hideous guy named screetch... oh, i'm getting off topic). anyway, why lie when a simple "some boys like boys" would suffice? it's up to the parents to decide what their kids should know when. kids are smart, though. if the only reason you can't explain a second type of relationship is that it will "confuse" kids, well, maybe telling them about the first type of relationship was a mistake too.
 
2002-06-05 02:45:22 PM
F.a.g............ Fruit..


{Archie Bunker}
 
2002-06-05 02:47:31 PM
...and are intent on pushing their unnatural lifestyles on those who act in accordance with the laws of nature.

gay man to naked straight man: "You WILL put some nice clothes this very instant! And I'm not talking that Sears shiat!"

lesbian to naked straight woman: "For pete's sake, womyn, they put in it a CAN so you don't HAVE to drink it out of a glass!"

Who will put a stop to our mad diabolical campaign of great-looking threads, interior design, sensible shoes, friendships across the genders and class and taste for every clueless breeder!? Huh? Who?
 
Kiz
2002-06-05 02:49:30 PM
The whole "AIDS hits gays" thing is really only true in the US. The US got lucky... the disease hit the gay community first. I say "lucky" in that since only 5-10% of the population is gay, a lot fewer people got infected than would have if it had started with the straights.

Africa got unlucky. AIDS hit the straights first. So instead of 5-10% of the population being vulnerable, it's 90-95%. Thus the epidemic.
 
2002-06-05 02:51:00 PM
Tommybob: Ok, Next question then. Has a Homosexual ever done you wrong? stolen from you, raped you, cheated you etc? If one has, don't you think it is unfair to judge every single other homosexual because of the actions of one? if one hasn't, then why do you hate them?

and the next question after that is:

do you actually know anyone who is homosexual?

and the third thing is: you are upset about homosexuals who are somehow by existing "pushing" their lifestyle on you. Hmm, have they come up to you and asked you to be gay? They don't ask anyone to be gay, in my experience.

And the fourth thing is:
If you think they have an agenda, how do you think that agenda will affect you?

seems to me you just hate people because you think bumsex is gross. Nobody is making you do it, watch it, nobody is making your kids do it or watch it either. Me, I would never have bumsex. but I don't care if someone else does.

Fifth and final question:

what are you so scared of?
 
2002-06-05 02:52:04 PM
another lame comparison.
 
2002-06-05 02:52:14 PM
I think the point of all my questions is to point out to you that if you think there is a rational reason for your hatred, there isn't. There isn't a defense in the world. You just hate because you do, and there is no justifying it.

It is really rather sad.
 
2002-06-05 02:52:46 PM
Another lame comparison?

no, I think you are just to scared to answer.
 
Kiz
2002-06-05 02:54:22 PM
'Thundar' had a wife and a boy, 'Flinstones' had various married couples and children (Bam Bam and Pebbles even grew up), 'Jetsons' had a family, even 'Bugs Bunny' showed gay/transvestite traits!!

I don't recall Thundarr having a family. You may be thinking of the Herculoids. But Bugs has been out of the closet for years. He's obviously an "anything goes" type. :-)
 
2002-06-05 02:55:31 PM
Oops, looks like I should have praised snopes.com. Thanks for posting it, IckyMettle
 
2002-06-05 03:00:21 PM
GreenBloodThey play the 'race' card, 'sexuality' card, 'gender' card everytime there is any problem, without understanding that the world does not revolve around they're minority status...these peopl are out there, I guess it's lucky for you that you have never met them.

If this comes up within 2 minutes of meeting somebody or consumes their conversation 24/7, it sounds like you're stuck in some overly pc private liberal arts school from hell. I bet you are.

I live in New York City. If we say, "gay" right off the bat, it's because we're in a straight (well, really, "mixed") bar and we're getting hit on by the wrong gender. Otherwise, we don't really go for this minority victimhood cryap in our daily blather and relationships. But otherwise we do think the world revolves around us. ; )
 
2002-06-05 03:00:22 PM
GreenBloodThey play the 'race' card, 'sexuality' card, 'gender' card everytime there is any problem, without understanding that the world does not revolve around they're minority status...these peopl are out there, I guess it's lucky for you that you have never met them.

If this comes up within 2 minutes of meeting somebody or consumes their conversation 24/7, it sounds like you're stuck in some overly pc private liberal arts school from hell. I bet you are.

I live in New York City. If we say, "gay" right off the bat, it's because we're in a straight (well, really, "mixed") bar and we're getting hit on by the wrong gender. Otherwise, we don't really go for this minority victimhood cryap in our daily blather and relationships. But otherwise we do think the world revolves around us. ; )
 
2002-06-05 03:00:48 PM
06-05-02 02:43:00 PM CapnWacky

you don't agree, don't let them watch it. tv is not a constitutional right; your job as a parent is to decide what you want your kids to watch.



You are exactly right, but kids shows should stick to kids topics...sexuality not being one of them. maybe you are right, possibly kid shows shouldn't have addressed adult hetero romantic relationships either...My argument is not that it would be horrible to show a gay couple on a kids show, I'm saying that in our current society it would be a problem...and don't tell me it would not be made a HUGE deal by both communities if it happened. I agree that 'some boys like boys' should suffice, but it won't yet in our society.
 
2002-06-05 03:01:04 PM
thank you Dr. Kymry for your indepth analysis of my answer to cherrydog's diatribe about clothing and drink containers.
note u r not the center of the universe. i am.

now, my question was next question, not next five.
do i know any homos. no, but you can sure smell one. they have this certain stinch. haven't u noticed?

yes, they are pushing me for acceptance for their unnatural sexual orientation with all their crap.
 
2002-06-05 03:08:17 PM
bin_smoking:

I don't know what you're trying to say. The statistics clearly indicate that being gay has a much much higher AIDS rate than not. I refer you to the center for disease control:

AIDS cases reported through December 2000

All kinds of other exciting stats here.

I'll go with just the year-2000 stats, since you're saying that 20 years ago doesn't count.

Men who have sex with men & men who have sex with men and inject drugs: 13,562+1548=15,110.

Heterosexual contact: 2,549

Now, that doesn't even take into consideration the population that is gay vs. non-gay. For the sake of simplicity, let us say 10% of the population is gay. That means, with 90% non-gay and 10% gay, that of the reported cases, 15,110 of the cases are attributed to 10% of the population and 2,549 of the cases are attributed to 90% of the population. If you multiply the gay infection rate by 9 to get a comparable number between the SAME NUMBER OF TOTAL PEOPLE, you get 135,990 vs 2,549, or a 5335% difference.

If you want, we could include the "other" infections, and assume that those were all hetero infections.

2,549+7,683=10,232

So the difference there (135,990 / 10,232) is 1329% more for gays.

Either way, FOR WHATEVER REASON (not just because one is gay, but because of the various sociological implications of being gay), the per-capita risk is CLEARLY much much higher for homosexuals than non-homosexuals.

Oh, I just realized that's only for men. We can do the total population too.

There aren't really any female cases attributed to homosexuality, so for the population as a whole:

6,530 hetero contact, 11,411 "unidentified"

So, 135,990/6,530 is 2082% more risk for the population as a whole, or if you count ALL the unidentifieds as hetero, 135,990/17,941 is 757% more risk.

Please let me know how homosexuals (though mostly men) are not at greater risk.
 
2002-06-05 03:09:28 PM
Sorry, the poster ate my links.

Link 1: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1202/table5.htm

Link 2: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1202.htm
 
2002-06-05 03:13:31 PM
Keefer: I don't know what you're trying to say. The statistics clearly indicate that being gay has a much much higher AIDS rate than not. I refer you to the center for disease control:

Keefer: correlation does not imply causation. Let's take a theoretical example (this may or may not be true): people who get tattoos also have a higher-than-average number of sexual partners and thus have more STDs. Does this mean that tattoos cause STDs? Or that tattoos are immoral?

As another example, the confounding factor in this case could be that gay men are, well, men. Men will have sex with anything that offers. If anything, this says that men are immoral, not gay men. It's the women who keep us straight guys in line.

Tip: before trying to use statistics again, grow a brain you dipshiat.
 
2002-06-05 03:18:12 PM
Keefer
Again, I think those numbers go back to my earlier posting about self-esteem and caution. I think it's likely that gay men are more prone to contracting HIV/AIDS and other diseases because there's a lot more "I don't give a damn what happens to me in five years." mentality contributed to by intolerance and discrimination.

Arguments about sexuality that fall back on the disease and/or spirituality reasoning are inherently flawed becase they fail to put forth any explanation of the causes in society that might lead to that kind of number.

Also, you might want to keep in mind that sexually active gay men with the same number of partners as a sexually active straight man will be much more likely to actually get tested. I would suspect that the unreported incidence of HIV/AIDS among straight men is proportionally higher than that among gay men. I'm not disputing your numbers, but as with any statistic they need to be put in perspective to have the true value they represent.
 
2002-06-05 03:22:15 PM
"note u r not the center of the universe. i am."

OOOOKay then.

"now, my question was next question, not next five."

sorry I confused you with all those big numbers. the fact remains that you didn't answer a single one of them because you are incapable of holding a rational conversation, or just afraid that you don't have an answer for them.

"do i know any homos. no, but you can sure smell one. they have this certain stinch. haven't u noticed?"

classic example of a large fallacy in logic that is typical of your posts. you don't know any homos but you know what they "smell" like. Mabye you were thinking I said "Hobos" instead?

"yes, they are pushing me for acceptance for their unnatural sexual orientation with all their crap."

If someone called you filthy and disgusting you would probably want them to stop it. Maybe someday you will realize that that is all these people are doing.

So, I now can't quite believe I have been trying to hold a sentient conversation with you, since you havn't really responded to any of the points I made, just sort of hollered more about how you hate people.

*shrug*

I guess it is more fun than my job right now.
 
2002-06-05 03:23:35 PM
very good points, Kymry.

i just have one question.... how tall?
 
2002-06-05 03:26:25 PM
No, Tommybob hates gays because they threaten his (lack of) manliness.

Plus Rush Limbaugh told him so.
 
2002-06-05 03:26:25 PM
Keefer: The point you are clearly trying to make is that it's A-OK to stigmatize a whole group of people (in this case, gay men, not lesbians, surprise) by pointing out "tendencies" of said group to the chilluns. You think this information should be included in any gay edu program.

Ok.

Do we point out to the rugrats that if you're African-American you're more likely to go to prison?

That if you're an overweight Christian in the South, you're more likely to get heart disease?

And, yet again, what do we tell kids about the muff-divers?

You can't keep (male) homosexuality down, my man. We can only do our very best to educate our future gay people as best we can.

Oh, and if you really think that it's not even remotely possible that AIDS was some kind of military virus experiment gone awry, then you are naive.
 
2002-06-05 03:33:23 PM
I will point out in my original post that I did say:

"Either way, FOR WHATEVER REASON (not just because one is gay, but because of the various sociological implications of being gay), the per-capita risk is CLEARLY much much higher for homosexuals than non-homosexuals."

Which if you'd read the whole thing instead of flying off the handle, you would've noticed.

That's just life. Those are the cold hard numbers/facts. They are not disputable. Does it matter WHY it is? It doesn't matter to the insurance company that you're the most careful never-going-over-55 driver in the world. If you're male <25, you pay a buttload more in insurance because, well, that's just the way it is statistically speaking.

Another thing that you may or may not have noticed, is that I have not argued "morality" in the least. Someone made a statement which I took to be factually incorrect, so I went and found the data to back my assertion up. So many farkers could learn something doing that.

The original statement was:

"This is total bullshiat. Homosexuals, like everyone else, have the same health risks as every other human being. This is like looking at the AIDS demographic of africa and saying that Blacks are more suseptable to AIDS. Being gay doesn't make you any more suseptable to AIDS and other STDs than being heterosexual does. Being stupid/uninformed makes you more suseptable to STDs."

Of course there is no PHYSICAL reason why it happens, but as I said in my mini-disclaimer in my stat post, for WHATEVER reason, it obviously does.

Tip: Read and understand the whole argument before flinging insults.
 
2002-06-05 03:33:23 PM
GreenBlood but that does not mean that it is our job as outsiders to the family to decide how others should parent

I don't disagree - it certaintly shouldn't be. But whether you or I like it or not, it will happen. The question isn't "if", or indeed "what" they'll learn from television - but "how". By having a gay couple on the odd show doesn't have to be a big deal - anymore than having a black couple is now. You don't have black couples on television with a big arrow over them saying "black couple - that's perfectly normal". No - you just have a black couple, or a mixed race couple or whatever. No comment is needed. Similarly with gay couples - why should their be a song and dance ? Indeed having a song and dance is a bad thing.

I have met many gay guys who feel like they must address thy're being gay all the time

Now here I have to agree. I sometimes feel that gays are often their own worse enemy. I remember having a conversation with my parents recently, and my dad was talking about a lesbian who worked at the prison. He noticed that this woman always introduced herself practically saying "I'm Sarah - I'm a lesbian". He never figured out why she did that. I come across the same with some transvestite friends. They seem to feel that it's important to always point out that they're transvestites. I never figured that out either.
 
2002-06-05 03:33:23 PM
Captain Wacky: thanks. 6'1"

:)

lol Ironbar, I bet you are right. He can't seem to really think for himself so much.
 
2002-06-05 03:38:22 PM
Keefer:

you type FAAAST

*in awe*
 
2002-06-05 03:42:10 PM
http://www.churchofspongebob.org/

Problem solved
 
2002-06-05 03:45:47 PM
Cherrydog:

You are putting words into my mouth. I have never once debated what should or should not be taught, therefore most of your post is moot, because I have not been arguing that.

I am all for educating people as to risks involved. No problem with that whatsoever. The point about AIDS being a government conspiracy, by the way, was that on 60 Minutes, they had an interview with groups of gay men that FULLY BELIEVED that AIDS *wasn't real*. That AIDS was a government conspiracy to scare people into not being gay, and that everyone that died of "AIDS" died of "something else". (Of course, medically speaking, that last part has to be true because no one dies of AIDS, but complications as a result of having it. However, the obvious point they were trying to make was that there was no such thing as AIDS or anything "AIDS-like".)

So, as to your comment:

"Oh, and if you really think that it's not even remotely possible that AIDS was some kind of military virus experiment gone awry, then you are naive."

I can only say that has never been a position of mine, so I am not naive, at least for that reason. :) It wouldn't surprise me if AIDS got away somehow from some test lab in deep Africa, but that's a conspiracy theory for another time.
 
2002-06-05 03:45:47 PM
Keefer Another thing that you may or may not have noticed, is that I have not argued "morality" in the least

Numbers and statistics can be - and usually are - just as biased as moralistic points of view. They are simply more insidious.

As to the numbers: The numbers (as taken) are for members of an active gay community - not necessarialy those for the whole gay community. This presumes that these are then gay men engaging in gay sex. The first problem, is that hetrosexual per-capita stats do not tend to preclude men. The second is that hetrosexual per capita stats do not preclude men who do not regularly have sex, or have not had sex. The third problem is that it is very difficult to get an accurate per capita stat for the gay community, as the figures can only be guestimated. The final problem (these are just off the cuff mind) is that heterosexual per-capita stats tend to include gay people in the heterosexual population.
 
2002-06-05 03:48:24 PM
you protectors of the filthy nasty stool pushers are a hoot. sad, but a hoot anyway.

now, let's get all the queer men on an isolated island and all the queer women on a separate isolated island (aids barrier if you will) so we can start a pool to see how long it is before they naturally start to evolve in order to procreate since they are so normal, you know, like dolphins and monkeys and dogs and other lame examples/excuses.
 
2002-06-05 03:58:54 PM
Keefer, do you deny that STDs are much lower among lesbians than among heterosexual women? If not, there's not much point in talking to you. (Let's not even get into unplanned pregnancy, domestic violence, and sexual assault.)

Because if you missed this simple point, your statement:

the per-capita risk is CLEARLY much much higher for homosexuals than non-homosexuals

is simply mistaken, rather than a deliberate lie.

If you believe children should be "informed" oh-so-neutrally about the risks of AIDS to gay men, then surely you want to add the risks AIDS and other STDs to straight women, noting that it's much safer to be a lesbian. As long as we're handing out this unbiased, agenda-free information, you know.
 
2002-06-05 03:59:14 PM
"We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

That means these things are obvious, if you don't get it, you should. Think about it.

"...that all men are created equal..."

All means ALL. It doesn't matter what your race, sexual preference, or religious preference (or lack thereof) is.

What two consenting adults do in their bedroom is THEIR business, no one else's, as long as they KEEP it in their bedroom.

However, 8 year olds do not need to be indoctrinated into ANY kind of sexual preference, activity, or knowledge, especially not by a TV show, since they are both ignorant of the ways of the world and impressionable. They will be worrying about sex all too soon anyway, I don't need them to start early.

Nick, as a privately owned entity can do what it wants, and I, as a responsible parent, will not watch, nor allow my children to watch, that station.
 
2002-06-05 04:10:21 PM
Why are you letting your kids watch ANY television or films then, Midian? I mean, look at all those Disney classics that beat the kids over the head with heterosexual indoctrination--Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Snow White--not to mention modern versions like Beauty and the Best or The Little Mermaid. Heck, in some of those you have actual physical activity like kissing and close dancing and stuff.

What you really mean, though, is you can't think "homosexual" without thinking "buttfarking," and you believe your kids have that same one-track mind. Letting them be indoctrinated into straighthood by watching Prince Charming smooch the girl, hey, that's okay, but if Spongebob had a boyfriend--my god! Next thing you know it'll be duct tape and gerbils!
 
2002-06-05 04:11:56 PM
06-05-02 03:59:14 PM Midian


Nick, as a privately owned entity can do what it wants, and I, as a responsible parent, will not watch, nor allow my children to watch, that station.


Why not? Do you believe the article about propoganda??
 
2002-06-05 04:14:47 PM
i must leave this thread now, i know, i know, but i must.
so in parting until we meet again on the issue of faggots trying to push their sick, twisted, sexual preferences on 8 year old small, innocent children, and call it normal, and their bigotted, heterophobic friends, i leave you with this little bit of advice:

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.

i'm confident you can take that one to the bank.
 
2002-06-05 04:14:49 PM
i must leave this thread now, i know, i know, but i must.
so in parting until we meet again on the issue of faggots trying to push their sick, twisted, sexual preferences on 8 year old small, innocent children, and call it normal, and their bigotted, heterophobic friends, i leave you with this little bit of advice:

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.

i'm confident you can take that one to the bank.
 
2002-06-05 04:16:15 PM
Kymry: I think I was a refresh behind you, so it just *looked* fast. :) My 3:33 response was more directed at CapnWhacky than anyone.

Armchair: I understand your point about the insidiousness of numbers. However, I am leery of people taking what I am saying and twisting it into something else, which is not something I am going to get dragged into.

As to the validity of the numbers... The labels are the CDC's: (paraphrasing) "Man got HIV from having sex with another man", "Man got HIV from having sex with a man and/or sharing injections" (note that there is a complete separate "sharing injections only" stat), a group of numbers basically combined into "hetero only contact", and "cause unknown/ungiven/whatever." So I simply used the cold hard numbers of man/man sex vs. hetero sex and applied them to an approximation of the "gay community." Now, if you want to argue "actively gay" we could do that. I don't really have time to continue further searches into numbers, but that means that for "actively gay" only, the numbers are much much worse. Remember, I was assuming a 10% gay population. If we restrict it to "men that have or ever will have sex with other men 1-on-1", what percentage would that be? 5%? If so, then the stats basically double in severity of per-capita infection (i.e. "men-with-men" vs. "hetero + totally abstinent"). Basically, I'm taking actual attributed cases and applying them to approximations of populations.

The problem is there and it is real, and to ignore that there is a sociological issue that exists and should be taken care of is what's really wrong here. Again, no morality here. Just the facts.

I mean, that should probably be what is discussed in more detail, i.e. that is society doing to gays that is causing them to experience such an alarming per-capita difference. Things like being so ostricized when they come out of the closet, that they resort to super-high-risk anonymous public sex. That society has put them in such a position that they need to resort to things like that is what needs to be addressed. Not "is it genetic" "is it moral" "is it a fetish" etc. etc.
 
2002-06-05 04:23:33 PM
aaahhhh.
i luv the smell of refresh on a farked server early in the morning.
don't you?
ta-ta.....
 
2002-06-05 04:25:51 PM
Keefer: You glibly dodged my charge that you think it's A-OK to smear (male) homosexuality and gay men in particular in the guise of "education of the risks" leaving my valid comparisons untouched and focusing on the "AIDS conspiracy" comment. Nicely done.
 
2002-06-05 04:26:33 PM
Tommybob is confusing the church with a bank...why am I not surprised?
 
2002-06-05 04:28:48 PM
Tommybob: You keep saying that homosexuality is unnatural, but the fact of the matter is that it goes on in nature all the time. It has existed as part of our society since we could grunt, and is never gonna go away. Get over it, buddy. Gay folk are gonna be around a lot longer than short-sighted, bigoted folk like yourself.
 
2002-06-05 04:30:49 PM
Mythago:

Yeah, you're correct, I've been basically thinking solely of homosexual men. I will grant that lesbians probably do have a much lower STD rate.

But, again, I have never argued what should and should not be taught, and I have no desire to get into that argument. Your point is understood and accepted, however.
 
2002-06-05 04:32:22 PM
What you really mean, though, is you can't think "homosexual" without thinking "buttfarking," and you believe your kids have that same one-track mind. Letting them be indoctrinated into straighthood by watching Prince Charming smooch the girl, hey, that's okay, but if Spongebob had a boyfriend--my god! Next thing you know it'll be duct tape and gerbils!

THIS is exactly the type of person I have been talking about all along, armchair. Someone who will verbally attack another about his choice how he parents because it doesn't fit with their 'being accepted'. But I guarantee that I am the only one to call him on it. Because we have been told that people who are preaching the rights of others may attack in any way they choose.

Midian wasn't even telling anyone how to live their life...only how he was living his, and still Mythago tries to change his mind.

Mythago is just as bad as the rascists and bigots. No better than Tommybob. Way to tell someone else how to raise they're kids.


Does the phrase 'shoving it down our throats' make sense to everyone now that there is an example.
 
2002-06-05 04:34:31 PM
Tommybob: i'm confident you can take that one to the bank.

In fact, it's been exploiting people's homophobia that has recharged the Religious Right with a new sense of vim and vigor. Ka-ching!!
 
2002-06-05 04:37:06 PM

But Keefer, if you aren't arguing what should and shouldn't be taught, why did you say

I am all for educating people as to risks involved.


Sure sounds like advocating education to me...Although, of course, I agree with you. It's just that I don't think the paranoid-about-Spongebob wackos here really want their kids taught "the facts."
 
2002-06-05 04:37:10 PM
Cherrydog, you are attempting to drag me into saying something I never said. I have never ever said anything near the lines of "we should teach children about these stats." Please cite for me where I did this.

Nothing I have said here today, save my last post contemplating the broader societal issues, has had anything to do with education, which is one of the points I previously made to you. You can charge all you want, but you are charging me with something I have not done. There was no dodge, there was nothing in the first place!
 
2002-06-05 04:42:20 PM
GreenBlood, you may have noticed that this here is a discussion forum. That means that if you post your opinion, other people can post theirs too. Whining about how the big bad queers are picking on you is pathetic.

It's especially pathetic when it's a response to someone pointing out what a hypocrite you are.
 
2002-06-05 04:43:00 PM
mythago,

I probably should've clarified and said that I meant STDs in general, not as they relate to a specific group of people. Sorry for that ambiguity. A more correct addition is that I have never advocated in this thread teaching kids anything related to the stats I've been talking about today, which some people seem to be getting confused about.
 
2002-06-05 04:43:16 PM
GreenBlood: Don't be so obtuse, guy. I'd hardly call Mythago's post a "verbal attack" or a prime example of "shoving it down one's throat."

You read what you want to read. "Just as bad as the racists and bigots"? C'mon, now.
 
2002-06-05 04:48:00 PM
Got it, Keefer.

Oh, c'mon, Cherrydog, you know what kind of mindset you're dealing with here. In their minds, homosexuality = sex, sex, sex. So if I mention "my girlfriend" I'm shoving my viewpoint down their throats--hey, there's that penetration imagery again--and talking about my sex life when I should keep it in the bedroom, yadda yadda.

Funny, how nobody points to my wedding ring and accuses me of "flaunting" heterosexuality; nobody rolls their eyes when I mention my husband; I would be thought a frickin' weirdo if I said that I didn't let my kids watch a cartoon that showed a man and woman kissing because that's way too mature for a young child to know about.
 
Displayed 50 of 377 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report