It's a private school. They don't have to let gays speak.

How ironic that bigots that hate gay men act like farking cocks.

Private catholic school it is their choice. That said, dick move catholics.

Vangor: He was apparently good enough to speak except for this one fact for them. Free to do what you want as a private school, and free to be called on superstitious idiocy.

To be fair to both sides, though, religion isn't always the reason behind hating gays. And gays can be religious.

I'd go so far as to say that religion only provides the afterthought reasoning for hating gays. The hate (perhaps fear) is something more natural and visceral that doesn't necessarily come from religion.

"My mother kept asking why and what does his sexual orientation have to do with giving a graduation speech."

Funny how they don't have an answer for that.

AverageAmericanGuy: It's a private school. They don't have to let gays speak.

It's a religious school. They can be bigots, they answer to a higher authority.

..or they don't want to give an opposing viewpoint a pulpit.

The principal called the guy's Mom instead of telling him? Gutless.

Yogimus: ..or they don't want to give an opposing viewpoint a pulpit.

An opposing viewpoint to what?

Sheahan-Stahl says he was personally shocked and hurt by the move, especially considering his speech had nothing to do with gay rights or issues but was about family and the bright future of the graduates.

"My speech was about putting faith over fear," he says of the his speech's content, "I wanted the students at Sacred Heart Academy to know that life should be lived with the goal of achieving their dreams, and knowing that fear is something created in ourselves and can be the biggest setback."

Yeah, it's their school, it being private and all. I just don't want to hear their biatching when people call them out on not being like Jesus and being assholes instead. They deserve every bit of crap that flings their way.

IMDWalrus: "My mother kept asking why and what does his sexual orientation have to do with giving a graduation speech."

Funny how they don't have an answer for that.

In fairness, you can say the same about membership in the KKK.

It's a private school, their call.

I don't agree with their decision, just saying.

I have never seen an organized religious association devolve so fast from "respected faith" to "wackadoodle cult." Basically, just in my lifetime.

IMDWalrus: Yogimus: ..or they don't want to give an opposing viewpoint a pulpit.

An opposing viewpoint to what?

Sheahan-Stahl says he was personally shocked and hurt by the move, especially considering his speech had nothing to do with gay rights or issues but was about family and the bright future of the graduates.

"My speech was about putting faith over fear," he says of the his speech's content, "I wanted the students at Sacred Heart Academy to know that life should be lived with the goal of achieving their dreams, and knowing that fear is something created in ourselves and can be the biggest setback."

Thank militant homosexuality for instilling the fear.

They needed a Facebook status update to tell that that due was gay? Really?

AverageAmericanGuy: It's a private school. They don't have to let gays speak.

It's a private school. They don't have to let blacks speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let jews speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let germans speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let women speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let the handicapped speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let veterans speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let japanese speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let latinos speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let middle-easterners speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let russians speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let Sons of the South speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let yankees speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let iowans speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let lebanese speak.

Yeah, they're assholes. They're also a private institution.

Wise_Guy: It's a private school, their call.

I don't agree with their decision, just saying.

Yeah, I can't argue with that. They're free to do what they want, but they're also free to get all of the backlash for it.

AverageAmericanGuy: It's a private school. They don't have to let gays speak.

But they can be douchebags who rescind invitations.

12349876: AverageAmericanGuy: It's a private school. They don't have to let gays speak.

But they can be douchebags who rescind invitations.

Correct.

safetycap: AverageAmericanGuy: It's a private school. They don't have to let gays speak.

It's a private school. They don't have to let blacks speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let jews speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let germans speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let women speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let the handicapped speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let veterans speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let japanese speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let latinos speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let middle-easterners speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let russians speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let Sons of the South speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let yankees speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let iowans speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let lebanese speak.

Right on all counts.

IMDWalrus: Wise_Guy: It's a private school, their call.

I don't agree with their decision, just saying.

Yeah, I can't argue with that. They're free to do what they want, but they're also free to get all of the backlash for it.

Sure. But I doubt they're going to get much backlash from their core, which is where their money comes from.

Yogimus: IMDWalrus: Yogimus: ..or they don't want to give an opposing viewpoint a pulpit.

An opposing viewpoint to what?

Sheahan-Stahl says he was personally shocked and hurt by the move, especially considering his speech had nothing to do with gay rights or issues but was about family and the bright future of the graduates.

"My speech was about putting faith over fear," he says of the his speech's content, "I wanted the students at Sacred Heart Academy to know that life should be lived with the goal of achieving their dreams, and knowing that fear is something created in ourselves and can be the biggest setback."

Thank militant homosexuality for instilling the fear.

I'm gonna farking convert you to homosexuality for that statement, straight boy.

safetycap: It's a private school. They don't have to let blacks speak.

Being a particular race, a particular nationality, a veteran, or handicapped is a protected status. Being gay is not. Maybe I don't agree with it and maybe it'll change in the future, but as it stands, they don't have to respect it.

This gay monster can't speak at your graduation either. It's too bad, too. Being an ordained minister and a religious activist, he might have had many insightful and inspiring things to say.

He's buried in Arlington. He was a Major in Intelligence, gay as can be. How he stayed in the Army under DADT, I have no idea. He was killed by an IED in Iraq while on foot patrol. 2 Bronze Stars and Purple Heart. The Pentagon tried to erase all mention of his homosexuality from his Wiki entry.

Major Alan G. Rogers. Good enough to die for the privileged elite but not good enough to speak at your ceremonies. And not good enough to marry his love or adopt or foster children in many of these wondrous United States.

wxboy: Notwithstanding this controversy, I can't find any evidence that this guy has any notoriety whatsoever to make him a worthy commencement speaker.

They couldn't get anybody better than a no-name, barely successful actor who used to be a student there to speak at their graduation?

heh I was also wondering how hard up they must've been for a keynote speaker.

Wise_Guy: IMDWalrus: Wise_Guy: It's a private school, their call.

I don't agree with their decision, just saying.

Yeah, I can't argue with that. They're free to do what they want, but they're also free to get all of the backlash for it.

Sure. But I doubt they're going to get much backlash from their core, which is where their money comes from.

But but but I want to hurt them for holding an opposing viewpoint!

He should become a priest and then he can have sex with all of the underage boys he wants, no problem.

/That took some rewriting.

fusillade762: I'm sure this experience will only strengthen his faith.

meh - really in their eyes being a "practicing" homosexual is a sin, just like being an adulterer or porn star. We wouldn't care if they disinvited someone caught cheating on his wife or whose porn career surfaced - to them this is no different. The decision really shouldn't be all that surprising. It's the Catholic Church after all, not on the cutting edge of societal change.

I hope the students come up with the right solution and announce that unless he gets to speak at the graduation, they aren't showing up.

AverageAmericanGuy: It's a private school. They don't have to let gays speak.

Exactly, private school, dont like then dont send your kids there but I guess they have to fake outrage to teach these people a lesson "Its not okay to have viewpoints!"

Why doesn't Fark just link all Huffington Post articles here for comment?

AverageAmericanGuy: Vangor: He was apparently good enough to speak except for this one fact for them. Free to do what you want as a private school, and free to be called on superstitious idiocy.

To be fair to both sides, though, religion isn't always the reason behind hating gays. And gays can be religious.

I'd go so far as to say that religion only provides the afterthought reasoning for hating gays. The hate (perhaps fear) is something more natural and visceral that doesn't necessarily come from religion.

This user is on your favorites list. Favorited
Note: Thinks that hating gays is natural.

AverageAmericanGuy: It's a private school. They don't have to let gays speak.

And we don't have to let them have any vouchers, or government funding, or tax breaks of any kind. Right?

AverageAmericanGuy: It's a private school. They don't have to let gays speak.

Actually many private schools have as part of their policies non-discrimination clauses for gays and lesbians, so at those schools, being gay doesn't matter.

If you send your kid to a school run by people still living with outdated, middle age values then you have no reason being shocked when that school acts like it is still living with outdated, middle age values!

As for everyone who is up in arms over this, why the fark are you shocked over this?

WhyteRaven74: I hope the students come up with the right solution and announce that unless he gets to speak at the graduation, they aren't showing up.

Ugggh of course, because thats the solution, its not like a surprise they are in a catholic school.

I still fail to see why its a big deal if people hold opinions but dont teach any kind of hatred to the individual, its holding to a viewpoint and that doesnt have to be in line with what you have accepted as the norm.

WhyteRaven74: AverageAmericanGuy: It's a private school. They don't have to let gays speak.

Actually many private schools have as part of their policies non-discrimination clauses for gays and lesbians, so at those schools, being gay doesn't matter.

Private school is a lot different than private, religious school.

And some private schools take government money so they have to follow those policies.

Genevieve Marie: Every single time one of these stories come up I'm like "Oh yea, THAT'S why I'm no longer Catholic."

It's a revelation I have every eight hours or so.

You are no longer Catholic because your head spun around and you spit pea soup all over that priest.

encyclopediaplushuman: People who delineate between private and public schools overlook one simple fact: There's almost nothing different between public and private things anymore in the US.

What used to be community and city stadiums are now "(Corporation) Stadium/Field".
Public schools having religious-including textbooks put into their schools.
Public high schools are now selling corporate advertising in schools
Public universities being funded by large corporations which get advertising and control decisions
Big business (private corporations and banks) using pay-to-play to get their favorite people into public office
Theocrats who want religion taught as science back in the schools.
Theocrats who want to take away religious freedom and secular liberty at the behest of their "god"

The line between public and private is blurred so much in this day and age that soon saying those words will a gag for a late night comedy act because they're so far gone.

As for the situation, f*** the school for treating a respectable gay young man as a human being.

/off soapbox

Bahahahahaha!

ByOwlLight: Why do so many people hate on buttlove. :(

FTFY

steamingpile: AverageAmericanGuy: It's a private school. They don't have to let gays speak.

Exactly, private school, dont like then dont send your kids there but I guess they have to fake outrage to teach these people a lesson "Its not okay to have viewpoints!"

So it's better to get whiny about people saying those viewpoints are douchebaggy?

I must have overlooked someone saying that the school should be forced to let 'im talk. I just see a lot of people calling this a douchey move.

steamingpile: Ugggh of course, because thats the solution, its not like a surprise they are in a catholic school.

I went to a Catholic high school, there were 3 teachers when I was there who everyone knew were gay. I mean everyone knew it. Numerous students had seen two of the teachers with their partners out and about. Oh yeah among those who knew, the school president. Who would've been more than happy to show you all the fark he didn't give. Granted it's a school run by Jesuits but there you have it.

safetycap: AverageAmericanGuy: It's a private school. They don't have to let gays speak.

It's a private school. They don't have to let blacks speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let jews speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let germans speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let women speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let the handicapped speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let veterans speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let japanese speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let latinos speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let middle-easterners speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let russians speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let Sons of the South speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let yankees speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let iowans speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let lebanese speak.

They don't have to let me speak, and it's their loss.

These are the people who scream "OPPRESSION!!" when you wish them a happy holiday.

I wish they worried as much about keeping Christ in their hearts as they do in keeping Christ in Christmas.

WhyteRaven74: AverageAmericanGuy: It's a private school. They don't have to let gays speak.

Actually many private schools have as part of their policies non-discrimination clauses for gays and lesbians, so at those schools, being gay doesn't matter.

Yeah? So what? They are still private and chose to include non-discrimination clauses. They could just as easily chosen to not include those clauses. The point is that being a private organization the choice is theirs. They are not obligated to obey any anti-discrimination laws.

steamingpile: Private school is a lot different than private, religious school.

Among those private schools I've seen with anti-discrimination policies that includes gays, is an Episcopalian school. And I wouldn't be the least surprised if the few area Lutheran schools have them too.

Mock26: They are not obligated to obey any anti-discrimination laws.

Well in the case of Christian schools, when the Bible pretty well clearly says that Jesus had no patience for discrimination of any sort, see the parables of the prodigal son, good Samaritan and others, they can either do what Jesus said or expect to have a lot of people be very upset with them.

wedun: Yogimus: IMDWalrus: Yogimus: ..or they don't want to give an opposing viewpoint a pulpit.

An opposing viewpoint to what?

Sheahan-Stahl says he was personally shocked and hurt by the move, especially considering his speech had nothing to do with gay rights or issues but was about family and the bright future of the graduates.

"My speech was about putting faith over fear," he says of the his speech's content, "I wanted the students at Sacred Heart Academy to know that life should be lived with the goal of achieving their dreams, and knowing that fear is something created in ourselves and can be the biggest setback."

Thank militant homosexuality for instilling the fear.

I'm gonna farking convert you to homosexuality for that statement, straight boy.

Careful there! You're going against the liberal canon that claims sexual orientation is something you're born with, like race. There should be no careless talk about converting or that orientation can in any way be chosen.

Vangor: AverageAmericanGuy: To be fair to both sides, though, religion isn't always the reason behind hating gays.

But it is here because the school is Catholic. Perhaps I am inferring too much, but I feel safe in my conclusion. Also, why are we being "fair to both sides"?

We extend fairness because we are not despots.

Vangor: AverageAmericanGuy: And gays can be religious.

Sure. The gentleman in the article appears to be religious. Not sure what this has to do with my comment.

Your comment seemed to imply that religion makes people hate gays, so I was pointing out that such a link is tenuous. I offerred an example of the religious gay to counter your assertion that hating gays is due to superstition. Gays can be just as superstitious without hating themselves.

Vangor: AverageAmericanGuy: I'd go so far as to say that religion only provides the afterthought reasoning for hating gays.

Not anymore. Arguments are almost entirely religious in nature or crafted after religious biases. Irreligious folk are a rarity in homosexual opposition.

I think you underestimate the number of homophobes who have no or merely cursory religious belief.

When you look at the TV and see who is making broad pronouncements against gays, you may be right that these are mostly religious leaders. However, in the day to day world where gays have to put up with discrimination and homophobia, I think you'd find that bigots are bigots regardless of religion.

Vangor: AverageAmericanGuy: The hate (perhaps fear) is something more natural and visceral that doesn't necessarily come from religion.

Vaguely. Doubt the hate comes from this, however, and instead the hate spawns from religion out of revulsion or discomfort. Me, I am indifferent to homosexuality. Maybe I was born this way.

I'd say it's an instinctual response to in-group/out-group scenarios that is reinforced by cultural mores. The reinforcement only serves to validate the instinctual response rather than the other way around.

WhyteRaven74: steamingpile: Ugggh of course, because thats the solution, its not like a surprise they are in a catholic school.

I went to a Catholic high school, there were 3 teachers when I was there who everyone knew were gay. I mean everyone knew it. Numerous students had seen two of the teachers with their partners out and about. Oh yeah among those who knew, the school president. Who would've been more than happy to show you all the fark he didn't give. Granted it's a school run by Jesuits but there you have it.

I too went to a Catholic High School and we had several gay kids at our school. Nobody gave any of them any trouble and most were highly liked students. I considered several of them to be very good friends of mine to this day and it's been decades.

I am very tired of this war on religion. It's not a good thing.

ByOwlLight: That usually makes all the difference.

No kidding.

Genevieve Marie: YELLOL: Genevieve Marie: Every single time one of these stories come up I'm like "Oh yea, THAT'S why I'm no longer Catholic."

It's a revelation I have every eight hours or so.

You are no longer Catholic because your head spun around and you spit pea soup all over that priest.

Well, that too. And there was the whole crucifix incident.

I thought about going there but you did it for me, lol

I'm catholic...AND Irish.

and my best friend is gay.

The problem isn't religion...it's people who act like sheep and let other people make up their minds for them.

Figure it out already!!

Your religion hates you.

Your religion promotes hate for you.

Dump your farking religion already. It is all about hate ... why would you want to be a part of it???

/don't get me going on how can any black person voluntarily join a pro-slavery group like the Abrahamic religions

Genevieve Marie: Mock26: If you send your kid to a school run by people still living with outdated, middle age values then you have no reason being shocked when that school acts like it is still living with outdated, middle age values!

As for everyone who is up in arms over this, why the fark are you shocked over this?

You know, people always make that argument- the "Don't send your kids there" argument. Which ignores all of the kids who didn't ask to be sent there. Teenagers who are already dealing with being different, and then get forced into situations where their education is compromised because of the bigotry of their "educators".

It's legal. Doesn't mean it's moral, and doesn't mean anyone has to like it or approve of it.

I was not going for the "do not send your kids there" argument. I was just pointing out that when you send your kids to a catholic school it is a matter of "you get what you pay for."

I am pretty sure than many parents who send their kids there do so in part because such viewpoints are being taught. Is it a shiatty thing to do to kids? I am not really sure. I would not raise my kids that way, but others want to raise their kids that way. And that is their right. If it is shiatty to send your kids to a catholic school that teaches discrimination against homosexuals then is it not just as shiatty to raise your kids to follow such a religion? When you get right down to it every parent raising their kids, to a certain extent, ignores the wishes of the children. That is part of bringing up children.

And remember, you do not call it moral to teach that homosexuals are "evil" or whatever it is the catholic church teaches, but they do think it is moral.

/Not defending the catholic church's teachings.
//Defending their right to teach what they want to teach.

Farking Canuck: Your religion hates you.

The religion spent a few centuries having no problem commissioning openly gay men to create statues and frescoes for churches and various residences. It's one of those things that if you bring up they find themselves painted in a corner and they really don't like that. But it can be rather amusing.

Farking Canuck: Figure it out already!!

Your religion hates you.

Your religion promotes hate for you.

Dump your farking religion already. It is all about hate ... why would you want to be a part of it???

/don't get me going on how can any black person voluntarily join a pro-slavery group like the Abrahamic religions

Atheism is the biggest source of hate there is. Their entire belief system is dependent on mocking other peoples beliefs. True atheists would just leave people be and keep their comments to themselves.

WhyteRaven74: Farking Canuck: Your religion hates you.

The religion spent a few centuries having no problem commissioning openly gay men to create statues and frescoes for churches and various residences. It's one of those things that if you bring up they find themselves painted in a corner and they really don't like that. But it can be rather amusing.

So only men who have sex with other men can create statues and other art?

And people dare to call me insensitive.

YELLOL: Farking Canuck: Figure it out already!!

Your religion hates you.

Your religion promotes hate for you.

Dump your farking religion already. It is all about hate ... why would you want to be a part of it???

/don't get me going on how can any black person voluntarily join a pro-slavery group like the Abrahamic religions

Atheism is the biggest source of hate there is. Their entire belief system is dependent on mocking other peoples beliefs. True atheists would just leave people be and keep their comments to themselves.

When was the last time you saw on the news a story about an atheist going out and murdering a priest for preaching religion?

Genevieve Marie: Every single time one of these stories come up I'm like "Oh yea, THAT'S why I'm no longer Catholic."

It's a revelation I have every eight hours or so.

I still call myself catholic... But I'm not really catholic anymore. I equate it to a nonpracticing jew

I'm sorry but its a religious school, did you actually expect them to not to pull a stunt like this?

True story: A religious school once banned the song selected by graduating seniors "We Are The Champions", because... You guessed it... Freddie Mercury was gay.

YELLOL: So only men who have sex with other men can create statues and other art?

Well Leonardo, Donatello and Michelangelo were gay....

/someone will see what I did there

Newsflash: Jesus didnt shame people into complying with him. Neither should the church.

/hypocrites. And yes...I'm Catholic.

YELLOL: True atheists would just leave people be and keep their comments to themselves.

So it's ok for you to comment but I should just shut up and keep my opinion to myself?

Remember kids, Republicans want vouchers so ALL schools can do this.

Even though I am completely straight I doubt that I will ever be called to give a speech to any graduating class .

i have done many things both good and bad , been many places and interacted with many people of all walks of life .

The only piece of wisdom if I can impart to you all is this .

Someone's sexual orientation is only ever important if you are trying to have sex with them , period the end .

WhyteRaven74: YELLOL: So only men who have sex with other men can create statues and other art?

Well Leonardo, Donatello and Michelangelo were gay....

/someone will see what I did there

heh....

Well hopefully they at least take the steps to make sure non of the clergy at the school are raping the children.

It's totally their right, but coming from an organization that tried to keep hidden the heinous crimes by its messengers of God, it just seems a little bit overly judgmental.

Mock26: YELLOL: Farking Canuck: Figure it out already!!

Your religion hates you.

Your religion promotes hate for you.

Dump your farking religion already. It is all about hate ... why would you want to be a part of it???

/don't get me going on how can any black person voluntarily join a pro-slavery group like the Abrahamic religions

Atheism is the biggest source of hate there is. Their entire belief system is dependent on mocking other peoples beliefs. True atheists would just leave people be and keep their comments to themselves.

When was the last time you saw on the news a story about an atheist going out and murdering a priest for preaching religion?

When was the last time you saw a story on the news about a priest going out and murdering an atheist?

TheShavingofOccam123: they answer to a higher authority

If only they did. I imagine there'd be quite a lot of smiting going on if the god they describe kept up his end of the bargain.

YELLOL: When was the last time you saw a story on the news about a priest going out and murdering an atheist?

The priests enjoy turning those altar boys into atheists.

Vangor: Magic_Button: Someone's sexual orientation is only ever important if you are trying to have sex with them , period the end .

What if you just want free drinks from them?

Well then you are a cocktease and bad things should happen to you

Same goes with tickets to a Leafs game or not having any candy in the van or asking if this cloth smells like chloroform when you know it does

YELLOL: When was the last time you saw a story on the news about a priest going out and murdering an atheist?

When was the last story you head about an organization of atheists covering up several thousand instances of child sexual abuse?

/go fark yourself

Vangor: AverageAmericanGuy: I'd say it's an instinctual response to in-group/out-group scenarios that is reinforced by cultural mores.

Which would suggest the hatred towards homosexuals is not direct and natural but comes from an belief structure. Good we established this.

Besides, this entire argument leaps off of my initial comment about this action stemming from the religious beliefs of the private school. You have done some strange twists to the conversation, with the end result I guess of defending the idiotic superstition in question? Not sure the game.

You're perhaps intentionally misreading my point. I have tried to remove religion from the question entirely because I think it is irrelevant to the hatred of gays.

The hatred is due to natural factors having to do with group behavior. This is irrespective of religion and can be based on any group differentiating factors. Being a "fag" is enough to push an individual into an out-group.

Religion ends up being used as a means of justification of that hate, but it is not the cause.

PonceAlyosha: YELLOL: When was the last time you saw a story on the news about a priest going out and murdering an atheist?

When was the last story you head about an organization of atheists covering up several thousand instances of child sexual abuse?

/go fark yourself

Be careful. That could be considered trolling.

12349876: Remember kids, Republicans want vouchers so ALL schools can do this.

Fine, so tell the school to EABOD and move on. You're really going to get broken up over not being allowed to speak at a graduation for a school that teaches 19th century morality?

YELLOL: PonceAlyosha: YELLOL: When was the last time you saw a story on the news about a priest going out and murdering an atheist?

When was the last story you head about an organization of atheists covering up several thousand instances of child sexual abuse?

/go fark yourself

Be careful. That could be considered trolling.

No it couldn't and I honestly don't care. I am tired of the casual homophobia on this site and in this farking country. I am a man and I have rights like you.

Vangor: AverageAmericanGuy: The hatred is due to natural factors having to do with group behavior. This is irrespective of religion and can be based on any group differentiating factors. Being a "fag" is enough to push an individual into an out-group.

What you need to specify is your speaking on the initial reason for hatred of homosexuals. You are simultaneously discussing in/out group mechanics which were codified into religion long ago alongside modern reasons for opposition to homosexuals. Religion is the current cause. Religion was not the initial cause.

Nor is it the current cause. It is justification for the behavior.

Genevieve Marie: Mock26: //Defending their right to teach what they want to teach.

Which has never been called into question.

We're calling them shiatty, awful bigots.

We're not saying it should be illegal for them to be shiatty, awful bigots.

I did not think you were calling that into question. I was just clarifying it as a general FYI.

And, in my own round about way I was calling them shiatty, awful bigots, too.

YELLOL: Mock26: YELLOL: Farking Canuck: Figure it out already!!

Your religion hates you.

Your religion promotes hate for you.

Dump your farking religion already. It is all about hate ... why would you want to be a part of it???

/don't get me going on how can any black person voluntarily join a pro-slavery group like the Abrahamic religions

Atheism is the biggest source of hate there is. Their entire belief system is dependent on mocking other peoples beliefs. True atheists would just leave people be and keep their comments to themselves.

When was the last time you saw on the news a story about an atheist going out and murdering a priest for preaching religion?

When was the last time you saw a story on the news about a priest going out and murdering an atheist?

It was not a priest, but did you ever hear of George Tiller? He was an abortion doctor who was murdered by a christian for performing abortions.

PonceAlyosha: YELLOL: PonceAlyosha: YELLOL: When was the last time you saw a story on the news about a priest going out and murdering an atheist?

When was the last story you head about an organization of atheists covering up several thousand instances of child sexual abuse?

/go fark yourself

Be careful. That could be considered trolling.

No it couldn't and I honestly don't care. I am tired of the casual homophobia on this site and in this farking country. I am a man and I have rights like you.

I'm a straight guy, and I, too am getting tired of it. It's uncalled for, and ignorant.

I HATE it when people talk to my friend, who is gay, and automatically treat him like he's supposed to be femenine because he's gay....or when people ask him "sooo...which one of you is the woman?"

I usually speak up for him by saying "Neither one...he's GAY moran...they're both the man....get it?"

Still..ignorant people will be ignorant until they make the choice not to be. You can't force someone to educate themselves.

YELLOL: Be careful. That could be considered trolling.

Why? Are you saying the Catholic Church didn't cover up the molestations and shield the molesters from the law?

Be careful. That could be considered lying.

tinfoil-hat maggie: WhyteRaven74: YELLOL: So only men who have sex with other men can create statues and other art?

Well Leonardo, Donatello and Michelangelo were gay....

/someone will see what I did there

All I see is turtles?

All the way down...

I respect a private catholic school's desire to not have a gay person speak at commencement (based on their values) just as much as I respect a gay persons right to marry. You're a farking hippocrit if you don't. I could care less about either.

Vangor: AverageAmericanGuy: Nor is it the current cause. It is justification for the behavior.

You say this, but I have better justification for the position the religiosity has become the cause which I have stated up thread. Anyway, I have to do actual work again.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse and mistaking justification for cause. Correlation/causation and all that.

redly1: hippocrit

For God's sake.

Grrr.

spamdog: redly1: hippocrit

For God's sake.

Seeepeeeling is not impootant to geting your poont acrooos.

join the atheist club. evry1 invited lolz

AverageAmericanGuy: Vangor: AverageAmericanGuy: Nor is it the current cause. It is justification for the behavior.

You say this, but I have better justification for the position the religiosity has become the cause which I have stated up thread. Anyway, I have to do actual work again.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse and mistaking justification for cause. Correlation/causation and all that.

There is that one line in Leviticus that Christians use as the sole basis for attacking homosexuals.

I don't care about spelling at this point in the evening

tinfoil-hat maggie: WhyteRaven74: YELLOL: So only men who have sex with other men can create statues and other art?

Well Leonardo, Donatello and Michelangelo were gay....

/someone will see what I did there

All I see is turtles?

All the way down...

I expected the nazis to pick up on "I could care less" before the spelling thing

YELLOL: WhyteRaven74: steamingpile: Ugggh of course, because thats the solution, its not like a surprise they are in a catholic school.

I went to a Catholic high school, there were 3 teachers when I was there who everyone knew were gay. I mean everyone knew it. Numerous students had seen two of the teachers with their partners out and about. Oh yeah among those who knew, the school president. Who would've been more than happy to show you all the fark he didn't give. Granted it's a school run by Jesuits but there you have it.

I too went to a Catholic High School and we had several gay kids at our school. Nobody gave any of them any trouble and most were highly liked students. I considered several of them to be very good friends of mine to this day and it's been decades.

I am very tired of this war on religion. It's not a good thing.

Then police your fellow believers instead of standing by and doing nothing, otherwise you're as culpable as they are. Rebuking. Look it up.

redly1: I expected the nazis to pick up on "I could care less" before the spelling thing

That's not a spelling thing so much as saying the opposite of what you think you're saying.

tinfoil-hat maggie: All I see is turtles?

:D

The Why Not Guy: redly1: I expected the nazis to pick up on "I could care less" before the spelling thing

That's not a spelling thing so much as saying the opposite of what you think you're saying.

how do you know what I think I'm saying?

Canton: tinfoil-hat maggie: WhyteRaven74: YELLOL: So only men who have sex with other men can create statues and other art?

Well Leonardo, Donatello and Michelangelo were gay....

/someone will see what I did there

All I see is turtles?

All the way down...

dammit! I didn't even see yours!

I care very deeply about both agendas

gays spread STDs more than any other subset.

it's probably because they get laid more often

Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Vangor: AverageAmericanGuy: Nor is it the current cause. It is justification for the behavior.

You say this, but I have better justification for the position the religiosity has become the cause which I have stated up thread. Anyway, I have to do actual work again.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse and mistaking justification for cause. Correlation/causation and all that.

There is that one line in Leviticus that Christians use as the sole basis for attacking homosexuals.

To justify their actions and attitudes towards homosexuals. Very few have attitudes toward shellfish or pork that accord with Leviticus.

Aw, Catholic mom cried herself to sleep because it has finally hit home that she had her child raised in a religion that would be glad to see him stoned to death, or shamed to the point of suicide.

Stupid woman, did you not realise you were a Catholic? Or did the actions and beliefs of the Catholic Church just not bother you until you were personally affected? Screw you, you walked your son right into this. You should be apologising to him.

AverageAmericanGuy: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Vangor: AverageAmericanGuy: Nor is it the current cause. It is justification for the behavior.

You say this, but I have better justification for the position the religiosity has become the cause which I have stated up thread. Anyway, I have to do actual work again.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse and mistaking justification for cause. Correlation/causation and all that.

There is that one line in Leviticus that Christians use as the sole basis for attacking homosexuals.

To justify their actions and attitudes towards homosexuals. Very few have attitudes toward shellfish or pork that accord with Leviticus.

Exactly. Christians cherry-pick what they want from the Bible to justify anything they do, especially if it's the opposite of what God/Jesus originally said. "Love your neighbor as you would love me" and "Don't judge, lest yourself be judged; there is no judge greater than God" are two of the things that many Christians seem to toss to the wind when it suits them.

Homosexuality is natural, genetic, and hurts no one and nothing. There is no reason to be afraid or hateful of it, and if you need to make things up in order to fear and hate it then YOU'RE the one with the problem.

Keizer_Ghidorah: There is that one line in Leviticus that Christians use as the sole basis for attacking homosexuals.

And a few lines down God condemns eating shellfish with the same vigor yet i have never seen Christians protesting outside a Red Lobster .

giftedmadness: gays spread STDs more than any other subset.

Then i suggest you wear a condom

How diverse various myth believers are!
Entertaining too..

redly1: it's probably because they get laid more often

obviously this is true.

Magic_Button: giftedmadness: gays spread STDs more than any other subset.

Then i suggest you wear a condom

lmao

I'm married

I'm not gay

Gays spread STDs.

You're a moron.

Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Vangor: AverageAmericanGuy: Nor is it the current cause. It is justification for the behavior.

You say this, but I have better justification for the position the religiosity has become the cause which I have stated up thread. Anyway, I have to do actual work again.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse and mistaking justification for cause. Correlation/causation and all that.

There is that one line in Leviticus that Christians use as the sole basis for attacking homosexuals.

To justify their actions and attitudes towards homosexuals. Very few have attitudes toward shellfish or pork that accord with Leviticus.

Exactly. Christians cherry-pick what they want from the Bible to justify anything they do, especially if it's the opposite of what God/Jesus originally said. "Love your neighbor as you would love me" and "Don't judge, lest yourself be judged; there is no judge greater than God" are two of the things that many Christians seem to toss to the wind when it suits them.

Homosexuality is natural, genetic, and hurts no one and nothing. There is no reason to be afraid or hateful of it, and if you need to make things up in order to fear and hate it then YOU'RE the one with the problem.

Just as natural is fear and hatred of out-groups, though it is quite hurtful in modern society. While there may be no reason to be hateful towards any particular benign group, there is a natural tendency towards it. Consider sports team rivalries (including/especially the fans) or schoolyard cliques as non-religious examples of group behaviors including intimidation and physical attacks.

Was it not nice? Certainly. However, this is a private Catholic school. Catholic doctrine condemns homosexuality, thus it would be rather silly to invite an openly gay speaker to speak at a Catholic school's grad ceremony.

Similarly, you're not going to get someone openly gay speaking at the grad ceremony for a Baptist school, a Muslim school, or an Orthodox Jewish school, because none are keen on teh gheys.

wedun: I'm gonna farking convert you to homosexuality for that statement, straight boy.

The homosexual agenda laid bare!

The Catholic Church has shown massive sympathy for paedophiles within its own ranks, frequently relocating priests who they know have fiddled with alter boys and other young parishoners.

They've hit victims of abuse with intense legal firepower, and fought hard to keep the truth from being exposed.

They're totally farked.

What their views are on any other issue are also quite likely to be fairly farked. We shouldn't be surprised.

LincolnLogolas: Was it not nice? Certainly. However, this is a private Catholic school. Catholic doctrine condemns homosexuality, thus it would be rather silly to invite an openly gay speaker to speak at a Catholic school's grad ceremony.

Similarly, you're not going to get someone openly gay speaking at the grad ceremony for a Baptist school, a Muslim school, or an Orthodox Jewish school, because none are keen on teh gheys.

So only closeted Bishops should be allowed to speak? Despite the fact that the catholic church, from it's actions, loves the tight boy ass?

/Sometimes I really hate my religion.

AverageAmericanGuy: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Vangor: AverageAmericanGuy: Nor is it the current cause. It is justification for the behavior.

You say this, but I have better justification for the position the religiosity has become the cause which I have stated up thread. Anyway, I have to do actual work again.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse and mistaking justification for cause. Correlation/causation and all that.

There is that one line in Leviticus that Christians use as the sole basis for attacking homosexuals.

To justify their actions and attitudes towards homosexuals. Very few have attitudes toward shellfish or pork that accord with Leviticus.

Exactly. Christians cherry-pick what they want from the Bible to justify anything they do, especially if it's the opposite of what God/Jesus originally said. "Love your neighbor as you would love me" and "Don't judge, lest yourself be judged; there is no judge greater than God" are two of the things that many Christians seem to toss to the wind when it suits them.

Homosexuality is natural, genetic, and hurts no one and nothing. There is no reason to be afraid or hateful of it, and if you need to make things up in order to fear and hate it then YOU'RE the one with the problem.

Just as natural is fear and hatred of out-groups, though it is quite hurtful in modern society. While there may be no reason to be hateful towards any particular benign group, there is a natural tendency towards it. Consider sports team rivalries (including/especially the fans) or schoolyard cliques as non-religious examples of group behaviors including intimidation and physical attacks.

And it's an aspect of our nature that we really need to curb. Fear of the unknown once kept us alive, but that was when sabretooth cats, giant eagles, lurking constrictors, and other predators were daily threats, and those warranted fear. Other humans loving others who have the same genitals does not warrant the kind of fear that drives a man to hate and terrorize.

Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Vangor: AverageAmericanGuy: Nor is it the current cause. It is justification for the behavior.

You say this, but I have better justification for the position the religiosity has become the cause which I have stated up thread. Anyway, I have to do actual work again.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse and mistaking justification for cause. Correlation/causation and all that.

There is that one line in Leviticus that Christians use as the sole basis for attacking homosexuals.

To justify their actions and attitudes towards homosexuals. Very few have attitudes toward shellfish or pork that accord with Leviticus.

Exactly. Christians cherry-pick what they want from the Bible to justify anything they do, especially if it's the opposite of what God/Jesus originally said. "Love your neighbor as you would love me" and "Don't judge, lest yourself be judged; there is no judge greater than God" are two of the things that many Christians seem to toss to the wind when it suits them.

Homosexuality is natural, genetic, and hurts no one and nothing. There is no reason to be afraid or hateful of it, and if you need to make things up in order to fear and hate it then YOU'RE the one with the problem.

lmao

yeah, because homosexual acts have NOTHING to do with increased rates or STDs and AIDS

Keizer_Ghidorah: And it's an aspect of our nature that we really need to curb. Fear of the unknown once kept us alive, but that was when sabretooth cats, giant eagles, lurking constrictors, and other predators were daily threats, and those warranted fear. Other humans loving others who have the same genitals does not warrant the kind of fear that drives a man to hate and terrorize.

Absolutely.

WhyteRaven74: steamingpile: Ugggh of course, because thats the solution, its not like a surprise they are in a catholic school.

I went to a Catholic high school, there were 3 teachers when I was there who everyone knew were gay. I mean everyone knew it. Numerous students had seen two of the teachers with their partners out and about. Oh yeah among those who knew, the school president. Who would've been more than happy to show you all the fark he didn't give. Granted it's a school run by Jesuits but there you have it.

Maybe it was better that than kiddie diddling.

Anyway, AverageAmericanGuy trolls every topic and steamingpile's bitterness knows no bounds, so I doubt anything constructive can come of engaging them.

Mock26:
Atheism is the biggest source of hate there is. Their entire belief system is dependent on mocking other peoples beliefs. True atheists would just leave people be and keep their comments to themselves.

So your argument is that athiesism is the biggest source of hate, but it isn't, since true Athiests would leave people alone? But since true Athiests are the only Athiests, then Athiests and Athieism really are not a source of hate, are they?

Sheesh, if teh homersecksuals are prevented from speaking at Catholic graduations how long until kiddie buggering priests are prevented from addressing the buggerees?

It's a slippery slope, made even slipperier by holy personal lubricants.

ghostwind: Mock26:
Atheism is the biggest source of hate there is. Their entire belief system is dependent on mocking other peoples beliefs. True atheists would just leave people be and keep their comments to themselves.

So your argument is that athiesism is the biggest source of hate, but it isn't, since true Athiests would leave people alone? But since true Athiests are the only Athiests, then Athiests and Athieism really are not a source of hate, are they?

My head asplode.

Paris1127: It's a private school. They don't have to let Christians speak.
It's a private school. They don't have to let conservatives speak.

It's a valid point, but you know if a private school said something like what I added, the shiat would hit the fan...

Surely someone's started an atheist school by now...

giftedmadness: Magic_Button: giftedmadness: gays spread STDs more than any other subset.

Then i suggest you wear a condom

lmao

I'm married

I'm not gay

Gays spread STDs.

You're a moron.

======================

Then why are YOU , a married straight man who would never never troll public bathrooms for gay sex , be so concerned about possibly catching a STD from the encounter

Actually looking at the raw numbers for STDs seems that Hetro-Women have the highest rates.

So much for "love the sinner, hate the sin".

tinfoil-hat maggie: AverageAmericanGuy: wedun: I'm gonna farking convert you to homosexuality for that statement, straight boy.

The homosexual agenda laid bare!

Dammit wedun you wern't supposed to tell and here I was trying to sex up MrsAverageAmericanGuy.

Not really wouldn't want anything that touched that willingly : )

I'm actually very attractive. On the outside.

I guess the Catholics haven't heard yet that gay folks, in general, have more disposable income..
Money seems to always get their attention..


/superstitious prat..

Magic_Button: giftedmadness: Magic_Button: giftedmadness: gays spread STDs more than any other subset.

Then i suggest you wear a condom

lmao

I'm married

I'm not gay

Gays spread STDs.

You're a moron.

======================

Then why are YOU , a married straight man who would never never troll public bathrooms for gay sex , be so concerned about possibly catching a STD from the encounter

Actually looking at the raw numbers for STDs seems that Hetro-Women have the highest rates.

wrong. gay men have the highest rate of aids.

giftedmadness: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Vangor: AverageAmericanGuy: Nor is it the current cause. It is justification for the behavior.

You say this, but I have better justification for the position the religiosity has become the cause which I have stated up thread. Anyway, I have to do actual work again.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse and mistaking justification for cause. Correlation/causation and all that.

There is that one line in Leviticus that Christians use as the sole basis for attacking homosexuals.

To justify their actions and attitudes towards homosexuals. Very few have attitudes toward shellfish or pork that accord with Leviticus.

Exactly. Christians cherry-pick what they want from the Bible to justify anything they do, especially if it's the opposite of what God/Jesus originally said. "Love your neighbor as you would love me" and "Don't judge, lest yourself be judged; there is no judge greater than God" are two of the things that many Christians seem to toss to the wind when it suits them.

Homosexuality is natural, genetic, and hurts no one and nothing. There is no reason to be afraid or hateful of it, and if you need to make things up in order to fear and hate it then YOU'RE the one with the problem.

lmao

yeah, because homosexual acts have NOTHING to do with increased rates or STDs and AIDS

Heterosexual acts spread them, too. Will you start demonizing heterosexuals?

Genevieve Marie: Mock26: YELLOL: Mock26: YELLOL: Farking Canuck: Figure it out already!!

Your religion hates you.

Your religion promotes hate for you.

Dump your farking religion already. It is all about hate ... why would you want to be a part of it???

/don't get me going on how can any black person voluntarily join a pro-slavery group like the Abrahamic religions

Atheism is the biggest source of hate there is. Their entire belief system is dependent on mocking other peoples beliefs. True atheists would just leave people be and keep their comments to themselves.

When was the last time you saw on the news a story about an atheist going out and murdering a priest for preaching religion?

When was the last time you saw a story on the news about a priest going out and murdering an atheist?

It was not a priest, but did you ever hear of George Tiller? He was an abortion doctor who was murdered by a christian for performing abortions.

Yea, and for that matter, when was the last time you saw a story on the news about an atheist going out and murdering a priest?

That is the question I asked YELLY when he said that atheism is the biggest source of hate there is. I am not surprised that he did not answer the question.

Keizer_Ghidorah: giftedmadness: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Vangor: AverageAmericanGuy: Nor is it the current cause. It is justification for the behavior.

You say this, but I have better justification for the position the religiosity has become the cause which I have stated up thread. Anyway, I have to do actual work again.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse and mistaking justification for cause. Correlation/causation and all that.

There is that one line in Leviticus that Christians use as the sole basis for attacking homosexuals.

To justify their actions and attitudes towards homosexuals. Very few have attitudes toward shellfish or pork that accord with Leviticus.

Exactly. Christians cherry-pick what they want from the Bible to justify anything they do, especially if it's the opposite of what God/Jesus originally said. "Love your neighbor as you would love me" and "Don't judge, lest yourself be judged; there is no judge greater than God" are two of the things that many Christians seem to toss to the wind when it suits them.

Homosexuality is natural, genetic, and hurts no one and nothing. There is no reason to be afraid or hateful of it, and if you need to make things up in order to fear and hate it then YOU'RE the one with the problem.

lmao

yeah, because homosexual acts have NOTHING to do with increased rates or STDs and AIDS

Heterosexual acts spread them, too. Will you start demonizing heterosexuals?
No.

Homosexuals spread STDs at a MUCH higher rate than hetros. It's a simple fact.

ghostwind: Mock26:
Atheism is the biggest source of hate there is. Their entire belief system is dependent on mocking other peoples beliefs. True atheists would just leave people be and keep their comments to themselves.

So your argument is that athiesism is the biggest source of hate, but it isn't, since true Athiests would leave people alone? But since true Athiests are the only Athiests, then Athiests and Athieism really are not a source of hate, are they?

Misquote. That was NOT me that said that. That was YELLY.

tinfoil-hat maggie: when you come on over to the other side there will be a toaster oven for you : )

Homosexuality. It's like opening a bank account.

Gyrfalcon: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Vangor: AverageAmericanGuy: Nor is it the current cause. It is justification for the behavior.

You say this, but I have better justification for the position the religiosity has become the cause which I have stated up thread. Anyway, I have to do actual work again.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse and mistaking justification for cause. Correlation/causation and all that.

There is that one line in Leviticus that Christians use as the sole basis for attacking homosexuals.

No, there's also Paul's admonitions in Romans and that carries more weight with Catholics (although not so much Fundamentalist Xtians, I believe).

Romans 1:26 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

That's about the only other specific line in the Bible I'm aware of that actually says "Don't be a ghey."

There's also 1 Timothy 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers-and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. which says "the law" (meaning the way of Christ) is not for bad people; the problem is that most biblical scholars pretty much agree that 1 Timothy wasn't written by Paul, but by someone else a lot later than Paul, mainly BECAUSE it says the way of Christ isn't for bad people.

So, whatever.

If God was so against homosexuality, he'd have snapped his fingers and fixed that little "defect" long ago. In fact, if he cared about us at all he wouldn't have deliberately put the one thing that would make him so angry with us that he would curse the entire universe just to teach us a lesson right smack dab in the middle of the Garden with reach of two people who had no concept of right and wrong.

2,000-year-old fairy tales are not the best foundation to build a modern world on.

theKeizer_Ghidorah: Gyrfalcon: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Vangor: AverageAmericanGuy: Nor is it the current cause. It is justification for the behavior.

You say this, but I have better justification for the position the religiosity has become the cause which I have stated up thread. Anyway, I have to do actual work again.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse and mistaking justification for cause. Correlation/causation and all that.

There is that one line in Leviticus that Christians use as the sole basis for attacking homosexuals.

No, there's also Paul's admonitions in Romans and that carries more weight with Catholics (although not so much Fundamentalist Xtians, I believe).

Romans 1:26 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

That's about the only other specific line in the Bible I'm aware of that actually says "Don't be a ghey."

There's also 1 Timothy 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers-and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. which says "the law" (meaning the way of Christ) is not for bad people; the problem is that most biblical scholars pretty much agree that 1 Timothy wasn't written by Paul, but by someone else a lot later than Paul, mainly BECAUSE it says the way of Christ isn't for bad people.

So, whatever.

If God was so against homosexuality, he'd have snapped hi ...

lmao
If you're against using God as an agrument, why are you using God as an argument?

giftedmadness: Keizer_Ghidorah: giftedmadness: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Vangor: AverageAmericanGuy: Nor is it the current cause. It is justification for the behavior.

You say this, but I have better justification for the position the religiosity has become the cause which I have stated up thread. Anyway, I have to do actual work again.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse and mistaking justification for cause. Correlation/causation and all that.

There is that one line in Leviticus that Christians use as the sole basis for attacking homosexuals.

To justify their actions and attitudes towards homosexuals. Very few have attitudes toward shellfish or pork that accord with Leviticus.

Exactly. Christians cherry-pick what they want from the Bible to justify anything they do, especially if it's the opposite of what God/Jesus originally said. "Love your neighbor as you would love me" and "Don't judge, lest yourself be judged; there is no judge greater than God" are two of the things that many Christians seem to toss to the wind when it suits them.

Homosexuality is natural, genetic, and hurts no one and nothing. There is no reason to be afraid or hateful of it, and if you need to make things up in order to fear and hate it then YOU'RE the one with the problem.

lmao

yeah, because homosexual acts have NOTHING to do with increased rates or STDs and AIDS

Heterosexual acts spread them, too. Will you start demonizing heterosexuals?
No.

Homosexuals spread STDs at a MUCH higher rate than hetros. It's a simple fact.

Somehow I doubt the "MUCH higher" part. The fact is that STDs spread through any unprotected sexual acts, no matter the orientation.

And who knows? Maybe if gays and lesbians weren't being forced to be straight in order to conform to the bigots' demands, they wouldn't spread diseases among the straights or be infected by straights' diseases. Then we'd be better overall.

Of course, if disease is what you're basing your dislike of homosexuals on, do you also loathe those who don't get vaccinated, or wash their hands after using the restroom?

giftedmadness: theKeizer_Ghidorah: Gyrfalcon: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Vangor: AverageAmericanGuy: Nor is it the current cause. It is justification for the behavior.

You say this, but I have better justification for the position the religiosity has become the cause which I have stated up thread. Anyway, I have to do actual work again.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse and mistaking justification for cause. Correlation/causation and all that.

There is that one line in Leviticus that Christians use as the sole basis for attacking homosexuals.

No, there's also Paul's admonitions in Romans and that carries more weight with Catholics (although not so much Fundamentalist Xtians, I believe).

Romans 1:26 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

That's about the only other specific line in the Bible I'm aware of that actually says "Don't be a ghey."

There's also 1 Timothy 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers-and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. which says "the law" (meaning the way of Christ) is not for bad people; the problem is that most biblical scholars pretty much agree that 1 Timothy wasn't written by Paul, but by someone else a lot later than Paul, mainly BECAUSE it says the way of Christ isn't for bad people.

So, whatever.

If God was so against homosexuality, ...

You don't have very good reasoning skills, do you.

rynthetyn: Gyrfalcon: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Vangor: AverageAmericanGuy: Nor is it the current cause. It is justification for the behavior.

You say this, but I have better justification for the position the religiosity has become the cause which I have stated up thread. Anyway, I have to do actual work again.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse and mistaking justification for cause. Correlation/causation and all that.

There is that one line in Leviticus that Christians use as the sole basis for attacking homosexuals.

No, there's also Paul's admonitions in Romans and that carries more weight with Catholics (although not so much Fundamentalist Xtians, I believe).

Romans 1:26 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

That's about the only other specific line in the Bible I'm aware of that actually says "Don't be a ghey."

There's also 1 Timothy 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers-and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. which says "the law" (meaning the way of Christ) is not for bad people; the problem is that most biblical scholars pretty much agree that 1 Timothy wasn't written by Paul, but by someone else a lot later than Paul, mainly BECAUSE it says the way of Christ isn't for bad people.

So, whatever.

Except that those verses aren't actually even talking about being gay. The Romans verse makes a lot more sense if it's understood to be talking about temple prostitution rituals and the word translated "homosexuality" in Timothy doesn't actually mean that, it's probably referring to pederasty and the whole Greek practice of teachers farking their young students.

The Bible is silent on anything remotely resembling modern same-sex relationships. The Catholics and other fundies are just bigots who don't really care as much as they pretend they do about following the Bible.

I am not defending the church, but it seems to be that there is not much difference between ritual homosexual prostitution in temples and two guys living together and sharing the same bed. It is both homosexual.

And as for the ancient Greek custom of pederasty, it is a custom that many scholars believe originated in the 6th century and whether or not it involved actual sexual relationships is open to debate. While it believed that some did, it is also believed that many did not. It is a common misconception most likely derived from the word, which has a different meaning in our modern language than it did in ancient Greece. (Much like how people think that vomitoriums in ancient Rome were places where people went to throw up!)

SilentStrider: How very Christian of them.

Well... yes. Christianity explicitly condemns homosexuality in both the old and new testament.

I mean, sure, the general tone is "everyone's a sinner", but if you sin openly with no remorse you're, well, pretty much disqualified. You should, at minimum, feel bad about doing things your religious text explicitly bans-- if you don't you really can't be called a member of the religion. And if you're not a member of the religion, (1) good for you, Christianity is even more retarded than polytheism and (2) it's fairly legitimate for a private Catholic school to not put you in a position where you represent the school in some capacity.

Basically, this isn't really something worth getting outraged about, even if you're the guy that got snubbed. It makes complete sense from both a Christian and an Atheist perspective.

I mean, Christianity is wrong in thinking of homosexuality as being particularly harmful, but they've been consistently wrong about it for 1500 years and in modern society their wrongness doesn't alter your quality of life or civil rights in any way. Basically, this is well below the "someone should do something" level of issues and more at the "deal with it, son" level.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Somehow I doubt...

He's also leaving lesbians out of the equation. Lesbians spread STDs and HIV at far lower than the average rate. That suggests - to me, anyway, that there are more factors involved than simply "gay vs. straight" including, but not limited to, "male vs. female" and "exchange of bodily fluids is involved vs. is not involved".

giftedmadness:
No.

Homosexuals spread STDs at a MUCH higher rate than hetros. It's a simple fact.

LincolnLogolas: Catholic doctrine condemns homosexuality

Actually it doesn't. It doesn't actually condemn anyone for being gay. It's a little detail a lot of Catholics, including this school are lost on. They think the church condemns it, but it doesn't. Indeed the actual church policy is such a wishy washy mess that you get the feeling it was rather hastily cobbled together. Which is only natural, since it was.

Jim_Callahan: Well... yes. Christianity explicitly condemns homosexuality in both the old and new testament.

It actually doesn't. It's why there are entire denominations that have absolutely no problem with it.

Jim_Callahan: SilentStrider: How very Christian of them.

Well... yes. Christianity explicitly condemns homosexuality in both the old and new testament.

I mean, sure, the general tone is "everyone's a sinner", but if you sin openly with no remorse you're, well, pretty much disqualified. You should, at minimum, feel bad about doing things your religious text explicitly bans-- if you don't you really can't be called a member of the religion. And if you're not a member of the religion, (1) good for you, Christianity is even more retarded than polytheism and (2) it's fairly legitimate for a private Catholic school to not put you in a position where you represent the school in some capacity.

Basically, this isn't really something worth getting outraged about, even if you're the guy that got snubbed. It makes complete sense from both a Christian and an Atheist perspective.

I mean, Christianity is wrong in thinking of homosexuality as being particularly harmful, but they've been consistently wrong about it for 1500 years and in modern society their wrongness doesn't alter your quality of life or civil rights in any way. Basically, this is well below the "someone should do something" level of issues and more at the "deal with it, son" level.

I'm sorry, but it DOES interfere with people's quality of life and civil rights, especially when they're trying to pass more and more laws that restrict quality of life and civil rights for homosexuals. When your dipshiat views demonize others and demand you treat them as less than human, that's when your views are forfeit.

rynthetyn: The point is that ritual temple prostitution isn't about sex, per se, it's about sex as part of the rituals involved in the worship of a Roman deity instead of the God of the Bible. In other words, it's not about sex, it's about idolatry.

Ritual homosexual sex is still homosexual sex.

PonceAlyosha: LincolnLogolas: Was it not nice? Certainly. However, this is a private Catholic school. Catholic doctrine condemns homosexuality, thus it would be rather silly to invite an openly gay speaker to speak at a Catholic school's grad ceremony.

Similarly, you're not going to get someone openly gay speaking at the grad ceremony for a Baptist school, a Muslim school, or an Orthodox Jewish school, because none are keen on teh gheys.

So only closeted Bishops should be allowed to speak? Despite the fact that the catholic church, from it's actions, loves the tight boy ass?

Being gay isn't a sin, according to Catholic doctrine, it's when you act on it. So if a Bishop is speaking, and is flaming gay, but doesn't have sex with other guys (or anyone, for that matter, since we're talking about the Catholic Church) and doesn't promote homosexual sex, then it's fine and dandy.

Child molestation is completely irrelevant here, though, and I think everyone except child molestors will agree that it's a horrible and monstrous thing.

Besides, I'm talking about the rights of a private institution to do something perfectly legal that adheres to the doctrine of the Catholic Church. Institutions risk losing recognition and funding from the Catholic Church for doing things like that. Where I grew up, there was a church that was the oldest church in the city, it was a Catholic church. When Vatican II was issued, they refused to recognize it and continued to do mass in Latin. So the Church cut them off.

It's mentioned in some sort of best-selling book, a few times, that homosexual acts are generally frowned upon, thus the Church is keeping with that, and the school is keeping with that by uninviting this guy.

Is it nice? Nope. Is it fair? Nope. Does the guy have every right to be butthurt? Sure, they shouldn't have invited him in the first place, although the issue of his sexuality probably came up after he was invited.

But hey, if you're going to bring up kiddie diddlers every time a Catholic institution is under fire for something completely unrelated, then kindly go fark yourself.

Gyrfalcon: Keizer_Ghidorah: If God was so against homosexuality, he'd have snapped his fingers and fixed that little "defect" long ago. In fact, if he cared about us at all he wouldn't have deliberately put the one thing that would make him so angry with us that he would curse the entire universe just to teach us a lesson right smack dab in the middle of the Garden with reach of two people who had no concept of right and wrong.

2,000-year-old fairy tales are not the best foundation to build a modern world on.

Oh, I'm hardly disagreeing with you. I was just pointing out that the Christians and the Catholics--especially the Catholics--aren't only using the Leviticus line as their sole excuse for condemning teh ghey. The thing from Romans has much more weight among Catholics than Leviticus (for obvious reasons), and the thing from Timothy was probably cobbled up in the 4th Century as an EXCUSE for persecuting homosexuals, not a precursor, at least so I've read from scholarly articles.

But even if you are an ardent believer (which I am not) three lines are hardly a basis for condemning an entire lifeway nearly 3000 years later. And it's striking how many other things forbidden in all three books that everyone conveniently ignores, while focusing on the "homosexual" nonsense.

Indeed. No one seems to care about the shellfish, mixed fabrics, or menstruating women parts these days, which were punishable by death back in Paul's time. But it's always sex that seems to frighten people the most, and sex that allows the greatest control of others.

Jim_Callahan: in modern society their wrongness doesn't alter your quality of life or civil rights in any way.

The hell it doesn't.

LincolnLogolas: PonceAlyosha: LincolnLogolas: Was it not nice? Certainly. However, this is a private Catholic school. Catholic doctrine condemns homosexuality, thus it would be rather silly to invite an openly gay speaker to speak at a Catholic school's grad ceremony.

Similarly, you're not going to get someone openly gay speaking at the grad ceremony for a Baptist school, a Muslim school, or an Orthodox Jewish school, because none are keen on teh gheys.

So only closeted Bishops should be allowed to speak? Despite the fact that the catholic church, from it's actions, loves the tight boy ass?

Being gay isn't a sin, according to Catholic doctrine, it's when you act on it. So if a Bishop is speaking, and is flaming gay, but doesn't have sex with other guys (or anyone, for that matter, since we're talking about the Catholic Church) and doesn't promote homosexual sex, then it's fine and dandy.

Child molestation is completely irrelevant here, though, and I think everyone except child molestors will agree that it's a horrible and monstrous thing.

Besides, I'm talking about the rights of a private institution to do something perfectly legal that adheres to the doctrine of the Catholic Church. Institutions risk losing recognition and funding from the Catholic Church for doing things like that. Where I grew up, there was a church that was the oldest church in the city, it was a Catholic church. When Vatican II was issued, they refused to recognize it and continued to do mass in Latin. So the Church cut them off.

It's mentioned in some sort of best-selling book, a few times, that homosexual acts are generally frowned upon, thus the Church is keeping with that, and the school is keeping with that by uninviting this guy.

Is it nice? Nope. Is it fair? Nope. Does the guy have every right to be butthurt? Sure, they shouldn't have invited him in the first place, although the issue of his sexuality probably came up after he was invited.

But hey, if you're going to bring up kiddie diddlers eve ...

It's funny how the Catholic Church picks and chooses what is sinful and what is not, especially when it can control the most people. Eating shrimp? The Bible demands you stone people to death for it, Catholics ignore it. Wearing mixed fabric? Again, death, but the Catholics ignore that too. Menstruating women? Well, women can't really do anything anyway in Catholicism.

And we will continue to bring that up, because it shows the Catholic Church's inherent hypocrisy. Two consenting adults in love is an abomination unto God that must be mocked and demonized, but an adult taking advantage of a child is vigorously defended and shielded.

Keizer_Ghidorah: giftedmadness: Keizer_Ghidorah: giftedmadness: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Vangor: AverageAmericanGuy: Nor is it the current cause. It is justification for the behavior.

You say this, but I have better justification for the position the religiosity has become the cause which I have stated up thread. Anyway, I have to do actual work again.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse and mistaking justification for cause. Correlation/causation and all that.

There is that one line in Leviticus that Christians use as the sole basis for attacking homosexuals.

To justify their actions and attitudes towards homosexuals. Very few have attitudes toward shellfish or pork that accord with Leviticus.

Exactly. Christians cherry-pick what they want from the Bible to justify anything they do, especially if it's the opposite of what God/Jesus originally said. "Love your neighbor as you would love me" and "Don't judge, lest yourself be judged; there is no judge greater than God" are two of the things that many Christians seem to toss to the wind when it suits them.

Homosexuality is natural, genetic, and hurts no one and nothing. There is no reason to be afraid or hateful of it, and if you need to make things up in order to fear and hate it then YOU'RE the one with the problem.

lmao

yeah, because homosexual acts have NOTHING to do with increased rates or STDs and AIDS

Heterosexual acts spread them, too. Will you start demonizing heterosexuals?
No.

Homosexuals spread STDs at a MUCH higher rate than hetros. It's a simple fact.

Somehow I doubt the "MUCH higher" part. The fact is that STDs spread through any unprotected sexual acts, no matter the orientation.

And who knows? Maybe if gays and lesbians weren't being forced to be straight in order to conform to the bigots' demands, they wouldn't spread diseases among the straights or be infected by straights' diseases. Then we'd be better overall.

Of course, if disease is what ...

are you trying to equate the spread of STDs with a simple hand washing? lmao. amazing.

AverageAmericanGuy: It's a private school. They don't have to let gays speak.

We know, they don't even have to stop their priests from touching little boys.

Keizer_Ghidorah: giftedmadness: theKeizer_Ghidorah: Gyrfalcon: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Vangor: AverageAmericanGuy: Nor is it the current cause. It is justification for the behavior.

You say this, but I have better justification for the position the religiosity has become the cause which I have stated up thread. Anyway, I have to do actual work again.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse and mistaking justification for cause. Correlation/causation and all that.

There is that one line in Leviticus that Christians use as the sole basis for attacking homosexuals.

No, there's also Paul's admonitions in Romans and that carries more weight with Catholics (although not so much Fundamentalist Xtians, I believe).

Romans 1:26 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

That's about the only other specific line in the Bible I'm aware of that actually says "Don't be a ghey."

There's also 1 Timothy 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers-and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. which says "the law" (meaning the way of Christ) is not for bad people; the problem is that most biblical scholars pretty much agree that 1 Timothy wasn't written by Paul, but by someone else a lot later than Paul, mainly BECAUSE it says the way of Christ isn't for bad people.

So, whatever.

If God was so against ...

wow...you didn't even include any of my arguments. Way to go, you are a true liberal, you took someone else's arguments and tried to attribute them to me. amazing. I never said these things.

WhyteRaven74: LincolnLogolas: Catholic doctrine condemns homosexuality

Actually it doesn't. It doesn't actually condemn anyone for being gay. It's a little detail a lot of Catholics, including this school are lost on. They think the church condemns it, but it doesn't. Indeed the actual church policy is such a wishy washy mess that you get the feeling it was rather hastily cobbled together. Which is only natural, since it was.

Under Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2357-2359. As I mentioned earlier, being gay isn't condemned itself, it's the actions that are considered the sin. The CCC "calls homosexuals to chastity".

rynthetyn: Mock26: rynthetyn: The point is that ritual temple prostitution isn't about sex, per se, it's about sex as part of the rituals involved in the worship of a Roman deity instead of the God of the Bible. In other words, it's not about sex, it's about idolatry.

Ritual homosexual sex is still homosexual sex.

Are you being deliberately dense here? If it was ritual heterosexual sex, it would have been equally condemned. The point is that it's part of the worshiping of an idol, and that's why it's being condemned.

Then why was ritual heterosexual sex not condemned? Ritual heterosexual sex was practiced in the temples of several Roman Gods and Goddesses, yet Paul did not condemn it. Sorry, but your argument that it was only really condemning the worship of false gods does not hold much weight.

Mock26: giftedmadness:
No.

Homosexuals spread STDs at a MUCH higher rate than hetros. It's a simple fact.

[img.photobucket.com image 500x271]

are you really this ignorant? It's 2012 and you STILL NEED proof that gay men spread STDs more than straight men? Really? LMAO

The thing that boggles my mind is how he managed to go to Catholic school without ever once bringing up his sexual orientation or even questioning anyone there about how, you know, the bigots who organized this religion have no tolerance whatsoever for people just like him. If I were in his position, I wouldn't be able to tolerate their idiocy any longer or even just let it slide without totally losing my shiat.

/I've amassed years and years of hatred towards the Catholic religion
//reformed, but not feeling entirely guilt-free

giftedmadness: are you really this ignorant? It's 2012 and you STILL NEED proof that gay men spread STDs more than straight men? Really? LMAO

We're not supposed to notice you moved the goalpost from "homosexuals" to "gay men"?

simple little fact about sex


straight men = vaginal sex = no bleeding

gay men = anal sex = more bleeding

blood = STD transfer.

Any questions?

The Why Not Guy: giftedmadness: are you really this ignorant? It's 2012 and you STILL NEED proof that gay men spread STDs more than straight men? Really? LMAO

We're not supposed to notice you moved the goalpost from "homosexuals" to "gay men"?

wtf

giftedmadness: are you trying to equate the spread of STDs with a simple hand washing? lmao. amazing.

Diseases have spread just from being near someone.

wow...you didn't even include any of my arguments. Way to go, you are a true liberal, you took someone else's arguments and tried to attribute them to me. amazing. I never said these things.

Maybe if the site didn't cut off the latter half of long quoted posts, you'd see that I did nothing of the sort. And you're the one trying to turn this political with the tired cry of "LIBERAL!" toward someone on neither side. Try to stay focused, please.

Now, perhaps you could provide citations for your claim that homosexuals spread diseases at the astounding rates you claim they do.

giftedmadness: simple little fact about sex

straight men = vaginal sex = no bleeding

gay men = anal sex = more bleeding

blood = STD transfer.

Any questions?

Only one STD is spread through blood, and even with ideal conditions not with 100% certainty. Other STD's are spread more easily, some with simple skin contact.

giftedmadness: The Why Not Guy: giftedmadness: are you really this ignorant? It's 2012 and you STILL NEED proof that gay men spread STDs more than straight men? Really? LMAO

We're not supposed to notice you moved the goalpost from "homosexuals" to "gay men"?

wtf

You neglected lesbians and women in general, who are also carriers and spreaders of STDs.

giftedmadness: simple little fact about sex


straight men = vaginal sex = no bleeding

gay men = anal sex = more bleeding

blood = STD transfer.

Any questions?

Any actual citation, or just this bs?

giftedmadness: wtf

Oh please, you know exactly what I am talking about. "Homosexuals" includes lesbians, who have the lowest std rate of any demographic. Your original claim included them.

giftedmadness: simple little fact about sex


straight men = vaginal sex = no bleeding

gay men = anal sex = more bleeding

blood = STD transfer.

Any questions?

Also wanted to mention there is a large portion of gau men who aren't all that into anal. My partner of 5 years and I for example. There are other ways of being gay than anal.

/plus a lot of straight people like anal as well. Hoelw's that figure into your bare ass assertion?
//ha! bare ass! I know, I know... but I'm sleepy

giftedmadness: STDs at a MUCH higher ra

And yet you still fail to provide any.

Sticking your cock in shiat for pleasure is a lifestyle choice mental disorder.

They don't have to let people who stick gerbils in their but speak either.
They don't have to let heroine addicts speak either.
They don't have to let serial killers speak either.
They don't have to let people who pay for Fark to speak either.

Yogimus: Thank militant homosexuality for instilling the fear.



What "militant homosexuality" might look like.

redly1: I expected the nazis to pick up on "I could care less" before the spelling thing

I guess they could've cared less.

Keizer_Ghidorah: giftedmadness: are you trying to equate the spread of STDs with a simple hand washing? lmao. amazing.

Diseases have spread just from being near someone.

wow...you didn't even include any of my arguments. Way to go, you are a true liberal, you took someone else's arguments and tried to attribute them to me. amazing. I never said these things.

Maybe if the site didn't cut off the latter half of long quoted posts, you'd see that I did nothing of the sort. And you're the one trying to turn this political with the tired cry of "LIBERAL!" toward someone on neither side. Try to stay focused, please.

Now, perhaps you could provide citations for your claim that homosexuals spread diseases at the astounding rates you claim they do.

you really think that homosexuals don't spread STDs faster than hetros? Really?

david_gaithersburg: Sticking your cock in shiat for pleasure is a lifestyle choice mental disorder.

Then it seems there are a lot of straight guys and girls who have that particular mental disorder, too.

The Why Not Guy: giftedmadness: wtf

Oh please, you know exactly what I am talking about. "Homosexuals" includes lesbians, who have the lowest std rate of any demographic. Your original claim included them.

are you this dumb?

giftedmadness: Keizer_Ghidorah: giftedmadness: are you trying to equate the spread of STDs with a simple hand washing? lmao. amazing.

Diseases have spread just from being near someone.

wow...you didn't even include any of my arguments. Way to go, you are a true liberal, you took someone else's arguments and tried to attribute them to me. amazing. I never said these things.

Maybe if the site didn't cut off the latter half of long quoted posts, you'd see that I did nothing of the sort. And you're the one trying to turn this political with the tired cry of "LIBERAL!" toward someone on neither side. Try to stay focused, please.

Now, perhaps you could provide citations for your claim that homosexuals spread diseases at the astounding rates you claim they do.

you really think that homosexuals don't spread STDs faster than hetros? Really?

Children spread disease faster than either homos or heteros. Let's demonize them while we're busy being irrational, hm? Now, where's your citations?

truthseeker2083: giftedmadness: simple little fact about sex


straight men = vaginal sex = no bleeding

gay men = anal sex = more bleeding

blood = STD transfer.

Any questions?

Also wanted to mention there is a large portion of gau men who aren't all that into anal. My partner of 5 years and I for example. There are other ways of being gay than anal.

/plus a lot of straight people like anal as well. Hoelw's that figure into your bare ass assertion?
//ha! bare ass! I know, I know... but I'm sleepy

are you trying to say that anal sex is more popular among normal people than the gays?

Keizer_Ghidorah: giftedmadness: Keizer_Ghidorah: giftedmadness: are you trying to equate the spread of STDs with a simple hand washing? lmao. amazing.

Diseases have spread just from being near someone.

wow...you didn't even include any of my arguments. Way to go, you are a true liberal, you took someone else's arguments and tried to attribute them to me. amazing. I never said these things.

Maybe if the site didn't cut off the latter half of long quoted posts, you'd see that I did nothing of the sort. And you're the one trying to turn this political with the tired cry of "LIBERAL!" toward someone on neither side. Try to stay focused, please.

Now, perhaps you could provide citations for your claim that homosexuals spread diseases at the astounding rates you claim they do.

you really think that homosexuals don't spread STDs faster than hetros? Really?

Children spread disease faster than either homos or heteros. Let's demonize them while we're busy being irrational, hm? Now, where's your citations?

yeah, children spread STDs at an alarming rate! lmao

giftedmadness: truthseeker2083: giftedmadness: simple little fact about sex


straight men = vaginal sex = no bleeding

gay men = anal sex = more bleeding

blood = STD transfer.

Any questions?

Also wanted to mention there is a large portion of gau men who aren't all that into anal. My partner of 5 years and I for example. There are other ways of being gay than anal.

/plus a lot of straight people like anal as well. Hoelw's that figure into your bare ass assertion?
//ha! bare ass! I know, I know... but I'm sleepy

are you trying to say that anal sex is more popular among normal people than the gays?

It seems to be a very popular straight porn category, at any rate. As well as quite the internet fixation. "Stick it in her pooper", and all that.

Keizer_Ghidorah: giftedmadness: truthseeker2083: giftedmadness: simple little fact about sex


straight men = vaginal sex = no bleeding

gay men = anal sex = more bleeding

blood = STD transfer.

Any questions?

Also wanted to mention there is a large portion of gau men who aren't all that into anal. My partner of 5 years and I for example. There are other ways of being gay than anal.

/plus a lot of straight people like anal as well. Hoelw's that figure into your bare ass assertion?
//ha! bare ass! I know, I know... but I'm sleepy

are you trying to say that anal sex is more popular among normal people than the gays?

It seems to be a very popular straight porn category, at any rate. As well as quite the internet fixation. "Stick it in her pooper", and all that.

are you trying to say that anal sex is more popular among normal people than the gays?

giftedmadness: Keizer_Ghidorah: giftedmadness: Keizer_Ghidorah: giftedmadness: are you trying to equate the spread of STDs with a simple hand washing? lmao. amazing.

Diseases have spread just from being near someone.

wow...you didn't even include any of my arguments. Way to go, you are a true liberal, you took someone else's arguments and tried to attribute them to me. amazing. I never said these things.

Maybe if the site didn't cut off the latter half of long quoted posts, you'd see that I did nothing of the sort. And you're the one trying to turn this political with the tired cry of "LIBERAL!" toward someone on neither side. Try to stay focused, please.

Now, perhaps you could provide citations for your claim that homosexuals spread diseases at the astounding rates you claim they do.

you really think that homosexuals don't spread STDs faster than hetros? Really?

Children spread disease faster than either homos or heteros. Let's demonize them while we're busy being irrational, hm? Now, where's your citations?

yeah, children spread STDs at an alarming rate! lmao

Stop being obtuse. And you've yet to give us any proof of your claims.

david_gaithersburg: Sticking your cock in shiat for pleasure is a lifestyle choice mental disorder.

They don't have to let people who stick gerbils in their but speak either.
They don't have to let heroine addicts speak either.
They don't have to let serial killers speak either.
They don't have to let people who pay for Fark to speak either.

How many versions of this sh*t are you guys going to post tonight? Between 6 pack and a half and 16.5 in the football coach thread, I'm exhausted!

giftedmadness: truthseeker2083: giftedmadness: simple little fact about sex


straight men = vaginal sex = no bleeding

gay men = anal sex = more bleeding

blood = STD transfer.

Any questions?

Also wanted to mention there is a large portion of gau men who aren't all that into anal. My partner of 5 years and I for example. There are other ways of being gay than anal.

/plus a lot of straight people like anal as well. Hoelw's that figure into your bare ass assertion?
//ha! bare ass! I know, I know... but I'm sleepy

are you trying to say that anal sex is more popular among normal people than the gays?

"Normal" people? dear god this is like talking to a brick wall! Straight people have anal too. Anyways, to your claim.... any cite on that or still talking out of your ass?

giftedmadness: Mock26: giftedmadness:
No.

Homosexuals spread STDs at a MUCH higher rate than hetros. It's a simple fact.

[img.photobucket.com image 500x271]

are you really this ignorant? It's 2012 and you STILL NEED proof that gay men spread STDs more than straight men? Really? LMAO

So, based on your answer you actually do NOT have any proof that "homosexuals spread STDs at a MUCH higher rate than hetros." Why am I not surprised that this would be your answer?

That being said, are you going to back up your claim with some proof? Or are you going to continue to just pull shiat out of your arse and pretend it is something other than shiat?

giftedmadness: Keizer_Ghidorah: giftedmadness: truthseeker2083: giftedmadness: simple little fact about sex


straight men = vaginal sex = no bleeding

gay men = anal sex = more bleeding

blood = STD transfer.

Any questions?

Also wanted to mention there is a large portion of gau men who aren't all that into anal. My partner of 5 years and I for example. There are other ways of being gay than anal.

/plus a lot of straight people like anal as well. Hoelw's that figure into your bare ass assertion?
//ha! bare ass! I know, I know... but I'm sleepy

are you trying to say that anal sex is more popular among normal people than the gays?

It seems to be a very popular straight porn category, at any rate. As well as quite the internet fixation. "Stick it in her pooper", and all that.

are you trying to say that anal sex is more popular among normal people than the gays?

At least as popular, yes. Not to mention the growing number of straight guys who find prostate stimulation pleasurable.

Also love how you keep saying "normals", like homosexuality isn't something that's been documented for hundreds of thousands of years in humans as well as many species of animals from giraffes to fish.