OT: Reverse discrimination? Freedom of speech only when it's pc..
R. J. Salvi
Tim Hardaway says he hates 'gay people'
ASSOCIATED PRESS
2:42 a.m. February 15, 2007
MIAMI - Retired Miami Heat guard Tim Hardaway said Wednesday that he hates
gay people, but later said he regretted the remarks.
"You know, I hate gay people, so I let it be known. I don't like gay people
and I don't like to be around gay people," he said while a guest on Sports
Talk 790 The Ticket. "I'm homophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in
the world or in the United States."
The discussion was sparked by last week's announcement that retired NBA
center John Amaechi is gay.
The host asked Hardaway how he would interact with a gay teammate.
"First of all, I wouldn't want him on my team. And second of all, if he was
on my team, I would, you know, really distance myself from him because, uh,
I don't think that is right. I don't think he should be in the locker room
while we are in the locker room."
If he did find out that a teammate was gay, Hardaway said he would ask for
the player to be removed from the team.
"Something has to give," Hardaway said. "If you have 12 other ballplayers in
your locker room that's upset and can't concentrate and always worried about
him in the locker room or on the court or whatever, it's going to be hard
for your teammates to win and accept him as a teammate."
Amaechi also detailed his life, in his autobiography "Man in the Middle,"
which was released Wednesday. He hoped his coming out would be a catalyst
for intelligent discourse.
"I'm actually tempted to laugh," Amaechi told The Miami Herald. "Finally,
someone who is honest. It is ridiculous, absurd, petty, bigoted and shows a
lack of empathy that is gargantuan and unfathomable. But it is honest. And
it illustrates the problem better than any of the fuzzy language other
people have used so far."
Hardaway later apologized for the remarks during a telephone interview with
Fox affiliate WSVN in Miami.
"Yes, I regret it. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have said I hate gay people or
anything like that," he said. "That was my mistake."
Hardaway has reportedly been removed from further league-related
appearances.
"It is inappropriate for him to be representing us given the disparity
between his views and ours," NBA commissioner David Stern said in a
statement to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.
--
RJ
JD
Why appologize? If he doesn't like homosexuals he has the right to
say so. It shouldn't reflect on his status as a former NBA player.
He has the right to his opinion. Fuck David Stern and the NBA, they
shouldn't even have a "view" on homosexuality or heterosexuality, they
are not in the "sex" business. They are in sports entertainment at
best, and right now that isn't even very good.
And anybody who says gay issues are a "civil right" issue is full of
shit. Minorities are born a different ethnicity, color, whatever.
They didn't have a choice of their origin, color, or heritage. You
can't equate racism with homophobia.
If you agree that a Gay person has a civil right to be homosexual,
then you also must agree that a pedophile has a right to fuck little
kids, or a polygamist has a right to marry as many as he can
negotiate, or an incestuous man or woman can fuck their family
members. And how about priests and choir boys? Do these freaks have a
right to those deviations as well.
Jesus, we are so politically correct in this country that pretty soon
a necrophiliac will have the right to fuck the freshest available
corpse.
Somewhere you have to draw a line.
Homosexuality really is a choice. You can choose to do it or not.
And don't forget, homosexuals don't reproduce, they recruit.
JD
Nightcrawler
Does anyone have a clothespin? Heh heh heh, heh heh heh.
"JD" <johnn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1171601680.1...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Nightcrawler
that shit into my face, nor ask for a place amongst those that
are normal--cause you're not. If you want to shag an ass, or lick
a slit, keep it to yourself.
Hell, I think dudes that do gals in the butt are sick in the head.
And no, I don't have a fear of gay people.
"JD" <johnn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1171601680.1...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
skep...@aol.com
> To tell the truth, I don't give a rip about gays. Just don't thrust
> that shit into my face, nor ask for a place amongst those that
> are normal--cause you're not. If you want to shag an ass, or lick
> a slit, keep it to yourself.
>
> Hell, I think dudes that do gals in the butt are sick in the head.
>
> And no, I don't have a fear of gay people.
Revolution
>From the Revolutionary Communist Party,USA
On the Position on Homosexuality
in the New Draft Programme (1)
The following sections of our new Draft Programme set forth our new
basic political position on the question of homosexuality:
As for intimate relations, socialist society will promote values of,
and create the conditions for, personal, family, and sexual relations
based on mutual love, respect, and equality.
The revolutionary proletariat is staunchly opposed to the attacks on
homosexuality by reactionary forces such as religious fundamentalists,
and to all physical assaults on, discrimination against, and
government repression of homosexuals, which is so widespread and
vicious in the U.S. today. In the new society, discrimination against
homosexuals will be outlawed and struggled against in every sphere of
society, including personal and family relations. (p. 22)
* * * * * *
Sexual and intimate relations between men and women in bourgeois
society are largely reflective of and dominated by the ideology of
male supremacy and "male right"; they exist within and are influenced
by the overall framework of social relations in which the oppression
of women is an integral and fundamental part. All this is something
that the proletariat will be mobilizing the masses to radically
transform in the process of uprooting the oppression of women and all
oppression and exploitation. In the realm of intimate relations,
socialist society will encourage people to strive for standards that
are consistent with and contribute to uprooting the oppression of
women.
Homosexuality
Under socialism people will not be stigmatized because they are
homosexuals or because of their sexual orientation. Discrimination
will not be tolerated, and the repression and violence against
homosexuals that has been so prevalent in capitalist society will be
firmly opposed and dealt with.
At the same time, it is important to grasp that same sex relations do
not escape and do not exist outside of the prevailing family and
sexual relations and the corresponding ideology of male supremacy that
oppress women in this society. In many ways the outlook that
characterizes male gay culture in bourgeois society is not a departure
from--and in fact there are elements in which it is a concentration
of--male right. Lesbianism is in many ways a response to the
oppression of women in class society, but in and of itself it is not a
fundamental solution to this oppression.
The outlook that one partner in an intimate relationship must be
devalued, dominated, abused, or owned is a reflection of the
oppression of women in society; and forms of male right, in both
heterosexual and homosexual relationships, will be targets of
criticism and transformation. (From the appendix "The Proletarian
Revolution and the Emancipation of Women," p. 106 )
There are also other parts of the Draft Programme which, while more
indirect, are very relevant to our position, and we will highlight
some of this as we continue here. We do strongly recommend to all
those reading this paper to also take up and study the entire Draft
Programme, including its appendixes. And we encourage all who are
serious about ending oppression and exploitation in the world to
actively take part in the process to finalize our new Programme
overall.(2)
This position in our new Draft Programme is a departure from our past
position. While our party has always been firmly opposed to the
discrimination and attacks leveled against homosexuals and we welcomed
and encouraged the participation of homosexuals in the revolutionary
struggle, we did hold the position that both male and female
homosexuality amounted to a conscious ideological statement and that
male homosexuality in particular, in and of itself, represented a
concentrated expression of misogyny and was something which therefore
stood as an obstacle to the emancipation of women and in general to
the socialist transformation of society. And our view was that
lesbianism, while an understandable response to the oppression and
subjugation of women, was, at best, an expression of political
reformism and ultimately ideological accommodation to the prevailing
oppressive relations. Accordingly, while we were clear that in
socialist society there should not be discrimination against
homosexuals nor should there be attempts to use legal means and in
general the power of the state to coerce people to no longer be
involved in homosexual relationships, we did see it as a political and
ideological objective of the socialist revolution to transform
people's outlook and practice such that homosexuality would ultimately
cease to exist (in effect, would "wither away") in socialist society,
though we did not preclude its reemergence under communism.
As a result of our further investigating this question, and as part of
that taking a new look at criticisms that have been raised of our past
position, we have come to a different understanding. Not only do we
continue to be staunchly opposed to discrimination, persecution, and
physical assaults on homosexuals, but we also do not see a homosexual
orientation or the practice of homosexuality per se as something that
constitutes an impediment to the emancipation of women and the
abolition of all oppressive and exploitative relations.(3)
Rather, our view is that the pivotal question and goal, with regard to
all intimate and sexual relations, heterosexual as well as homosexual,
is to radically transform them in general, in line with and to serve
the emancipation of women and the abolition of all exploitative and
oppressive relations.
The following is aimed at both explaining and expanding on the
thinking behind our current position and to present a beginning
critical assessment of our past position.
On Human Sexuality in General, and Homosexuality in Particular
The practice of human sexuality is and always has been extremely
varied and complex.
People engage in sex in many different ways and for many different
reasons. One of the main reasons is, of course, that sex (at least
when it is freely engaged in) feels good! In addition to pleasurable
sensations, there are of course many other reasons that human beings
engage in sex. For instance: to produce children; to establish and
define families; to worship gods or with the idea of tapping into
"supernatural powers" (many ancient peoples performed assorted sex
acts as part of initiations and religious rituals); to strengthen
broader social bonds; or, conversely, to manipulate or disrupt broader
social bonds; to use sex as a commodity; to demonstrate male supremacy
and exercise power (for example, through pornography, and most
especially through rape) to degrade, diminish, demoralize and dominate
individuals (usually women, and sometimes men), whole peoples (when
systematic rape is used as a weapon of war), and more generally the
entire female half of humanity; or, in sharp contrast to this, to
express love and strengthen bonds of intimacy and affection between
partners.
The point here is that "having sex" (in whatever form) is not
"inherently" good or bad, divorced from the social context in which it
takes place. Whether a particular sexual practice ultimately ends up
having more positive or negative effects on the well-being of the
individuals involved (and what kind of broader impact it may have on
the society in which they live) has a lot to do with the character of
that sexual practice in relation to a particular social context. In
fact, societal standards which define what sexual practices are
considered more positive or negative (or perhaps considered to have
little broader social significance) are not always the same: these
standards tend to change along with changes in the nature of society
and how a society is organized and configured (including who runs it,
on what basis, with what objectives) and along with changes in the
broader social visions, aspirations and outlooks of opposite and
contending social forces.
So the ways people engage in sexual activity is not just something
that individuals "do" in some kind of private isolation. Sexual
activity is after all a social practice. Like all other human social
practices, what people do, and why, is bound to be influenced by
what's going on in the society around them. And in turn, what people
do, and why, can also have important effects and influences back on
that broader society.
This is worth thinking about (in relation to all social practices,
including all the different expressions of sexuality), because in
countries like the U.S. today it is often "fashionable" to focus very
one-sidedly on individuals and their individual expressions, often
without giving much consideration to the social context in which this
occurs and, in turn, to the broader social effects and phenomena which
can arise out of the lives and activities of individuals.
We, as Maoist revolutionaries, want to liberate all of human
expression and social relations from the weight of thousands of years
of traditional (oppressive) morality and institutions. So when it
comes to matters of sexuality, we do not approach things in the manner
of a "bedroom police." We recognize the great variety and complexity
of human sexual expression--including historically--and that the
practice of human sexuality is not a static or unchanging thing. We
also know that there is much that is not yet well understood--and
there is therefore much to learn still--about the many different
characteristics of human sexuality at both the individual and broader
social levels. And, while there has been important experience in
socialist society, which needs to be further summed up, we also
understand that it is not possible for anyone to fully predict what
forms sexual expression might take in socialist and then in communist
society (and what the social "meanings" and significance of various
practices might turn out to be in these new social contexts).
But we do think there is a basis--and that we have a responsibility--
to try to sort out what kind of larger social impacts and effects
different social practices among the people may be having, and to help
distinguish what may be relatively socially insignificant from what
may actually be objectively harmful, or objectively helpful, to the
overall struggle to fundamentally transform and thoroughly
revolutionize society in line with the objective interests of the
revolutionary class in society, the proletariat, and with the whole of
humanity.
In line with this, we would argue that all sexual practices should be
"situated" and critically evaluated especially in relation to the
question of the oppression of women, and the strategic need to break
through and finally uproot that oppression.
This much is clear: we will never be able to thoroughly revolutionize
all of society without fundamentally transforming and revolutionizing
the historical relation between men and women. We live in a world
today which sits at the end of a long chain of many thousands of years
of systematic domination and subjugation of women by men. And despite
a long and significant history of challenge and contention on this
very question, the entrenched and still prevailing material reality
and corresponding ideology of male supremacy and the exercise of "male
right" remain alive and well in every corner of the globe. (By "male
right" we mean the position of dominance of men in relation to women
and the privileges and prerogatives that accompany this domination --
not only in terms of intimate and sexual relations but more generally
--in societies, including "modern U.S. society," in which patriarchal
oppression and the subjugation of women is an integral and decisive
part of the overall social relations.) It will take nothing less than
the most all-around, sweeping and comprehensive revolutionary up-
ending of all exploitative and oppressive relations (and their
corresponding ideas) to succeed in fundamentally undercutting and
finally eliminating the subjugation of women, and finally relegate it
to the dustbins of history.
But we're not there yet.
And all this is very relevant for how we look at human sexual
practices today. How could it not be? There is no getting away from
the fact that ALL forms and expressions of human sexuality (including
both heterosexual and homosexual relations) take place in that broader
social context: a world in which one of the most enduring and
fundamental characteristics of all human relations continues to be
that women are systematically subordinated and subjugated--as women.
So this is the backdrop and context in which we all grow up and
develop, the context in which we fall in love, the context in which we
conduct all our intimate and sexual relations. And this backdrop and
context is bound to have an impact and influence on all these
relations.
While many sexual and other intimate relations can obviously bring
many positive benefits to the individuals involved and to society
overall, it is our view that since the emergence of private property
and of class distinctions, all sexual relations have borne the stamp
of the historical oppression of women, and continue today to be shot
through and through with this fundamental feature of class society.
They will all need to be transformed in important ways, in order to
fully achieve a radical strategic breakthrough on this question.
This is what continues to make sex in the modern world such a tricky
proposition! It is not easy for individuals to form positive intimate
social and sexual bonds that go against the tide instead of going
along with, or even mirroring, aspects of the general societal
subjugation of women which characterizes bourgeois society and all
societies marked by exploitative and oppressive relations. It is not
easy for individuals to form bonds characterized by mutual love,
respect and genuine equality, when what prevails in the society at
large tends to promote and reinforce just the opposite!
Like everything else worth striving for, this requires struggle, as
well as a wide-ranging vision of a radically better future; and
fundamentally it requires, once again, the radical up-ending and
revolutionizing of society as a whole, of all social relations.
So far everything that we have said above applies to all sexual
relations and practices. This will hopefully help to provide a sense
of our overall approach and the larger frame of reference in which we
seek to situate any discussion of homosexuality in its own right.
Gary DeWaay
> And anybody who says gay issues are a "civil right" issue is full of
> shit. Minorities are born a different ethnicity, color, whatever.
> They didn't have a choice of their origin, color, or heritage. You
> can't equate racism with homophobia.
>
Are you saying you could choose to be gay if you wanted to?
Funny, I couldn't... I've been sexually attracted to women since as long
as I can rememeber.
--
- Gary
Nuclear_Waste
"Gary DeWaay" <dewaay2...@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.204111a3f...@news.midco.net...
That is why it is called a sexual preference... I have seen some of
the women people fuck, trust me, they have to be an acquired taste as
well.
NW
Arkansan Raider
---Jeff
Gary DeWaay
>
> "Gary DeWaay" <dewaay2...@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.204111a3f...@news.midco.net...
> > JD's at johnn...@yahoo.com wisdom:
> >
> >
> >> And anybody who says gay issues are a "civil right" issue is full
> >> of
> >> shit. Minorities are born a different ethnicity, color, whatever.
> >> They didn't have a choice of their origin, color, or heritage. You
> >> can't equate racism with homophobia.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Are you saying you could choose to be gay if you wanted to?
> >
> > Funny, I couldn't... I've been sexually attracted to women since as
> > long
> > as I can rememeber.
>
> That is why it is called a sexual preference...
You can call it anything you want, but it's not something that I chose. A
choice is something a bisexual person makes. People that are fully
straight or fully gay don't make any choices... it's the way they are
born.
Unless you are saying ALL people are bisexual... which, once again, I'd
challenge.
--
- Gary
Nuclear_Waste
"Gary DeWaay" <dewaay2...@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.20414fc53...@news.midco.net...
Gary DeWaay
> Gary, go read what was written.
>
Yea I know... "Sexual preference" I suppose one could say I have a
"walking upright preference" too... beings that's how I choose to get
around instead of crawling. I could crawl around all day same as I COULD
bugger some man (with enough Viagra) doesn't mean that is how I am hard-
wired.
I'm instinctually a heterosexual, same as I instinctually walk upright.
I think most people are.
Oh, and there aint nothin wrong with an occasional "round-tail" lol.
--
- Gary
Nuclear_Waste
I was referring to the tonbue in cheek, not to be taken seriously tone
of my post...
I swear to God if you fuckers do not develop a sense of humor I am
drowning everyone.
NW
JD
>People that are fully
> straight or fully gay don't make any choices... it's the way they are
> born.
So a pedophile should get a pass by society because "they are born
attracted to children". Just because someone has a sexual deviation
doesn't mean it should be OK to act upon it.
If two consenting adults want to participate in devious homosexual
activity, by all means they shouldn't they have that right?
And what about adult brothers and sisters, or Moms and their adult
sons, or fathers and their adult daughters? Shouldn't they have the
right to fuck each other as well? After all, weren't they born that
way too? Aren't they "consenting".
I may be sexually attracted to my daughter's "hot" 18 year old
friend. Shouldn't I just be out there banging the shit out of every
available 18 year old hottie, after all I was "born that way".
And damn, that Labrador Retriever's arse is looking good
boyyyyeeeee . . . . .
People make a conscious choice to not engage in certain sexual
behavior, even though they may be "hard wired" for it at birth. The
same should be said for homosexuality, pedophilia, incest and
bisexuality, beastiality or whatever. I don't think "civil rights"
has any bearing on deviant activity.
JD
Angela
wrote:
>
>
> Hell, I think dudes that do gals in the butt are sick in the head.
>
Damn, and that is some of my favorite porn to watch!!
Arkansan Raider
Andy Richardson
I need to step away for a while, k? BRB!
Gary DeWaay
> >People that are fully
> > straight or fully gay don't make any choices... it's the way they are
> > born.
>
> So a pedophile should get a pass by society because "they are born
> attracted to children". Just because someone has a sexual deviation
> doesn't mean it should be OK to act upon it.
>
If you look at gays the same way as you look at child molesters, that is
YOUR problem... not anyone else's.
--
- Gary
Nuclear_Waste
Gary, if you are going to artificially seperate the sexual deviations
from each other, could you please give us a list of the deviations
which are supposed to be acceptable, and the ones which are not, and a
rational explanation of the dichotomy between them? Specifics,
please, no emotionalism.
NW
Nightcrawler
are not held up in most psychological studies. I'm not stating
that some people are not "born" gay, just that the majority
make a life choice, and because of the PC crap it is getting
shoved down our throats.
He fails to think about why this is, but someday he might regret it;
if he lives long enough.
"Nuclear_Waste" <myha...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:xGbCh.300446$aJ.276349@attbi_s21...
Andy Richardson
Frankly, I don't know that we can say whether it is genetic or a choice. I
know there have been some studies, and I seem to recall that they have had
results all over the map. Just look to yourself -- do you know why you prefer
men or women? I know I choose women, but I don't really know why I do that.
And I certainly don't know why I like certain types of women over others
(blondes, for instance, can take a hike -- do not want). Taken to an extreme,
I have absolutely no idea why an adult would be interested in a young child.
Child molestation is a crime because we believe that children are too young to
properly choose to have sex, and that an adult could trick or force them into
the act. That makes sense to me. It is also commonly believed that one thing
a child molester seeks is having power over the child. That is also a factor
in many adult relationships, whether they are straight or gay. But I can't
see the connection between homosexuality and child molestation. OK, maybe the
borderline cases where an adult is preying on a adolescent of the same sex --
once the kid is old enough to be physically sexual in their nature, if not
mentially ready yet. But that's not really what I think you are talking
about.
But I have to say that once you are mentally ready for sex, it would be wrong
for other people to determine what you should or should not do, and with whom.
I can't see how one person being gay hurts people who are not gay. Why is gay
sex a deviation? It's just a physical process to achieve a certain goal,
shared by people who may or may not also share an emotional connection.
Really, I don't think it is all that different from straight sex, other than
the impossibility of making a baby.
Why is gay sex different from the old taboos society had about people from
different ethnic and racial groups having sex? We (sort of) got over those
taboos. I think gay sex will be more and more accepted in the future.
Maybe we should ask Septic?
Nightcrawler
As I have stated before; I don't give a rip about "gay" people,
as long as they don't try to force it down my throat. I had two
dads at one time and was able to get along quite well with them.
Now, as for the preference aspect: If on of those two dads did
not have sex with a woman, then I would not of had a wife. Fucking
fag should have declared earlier.;-)
In essence, I have penis, penis is meant for pussy...now, men be horny
bitches and will at times, well some of them, fuck anything that moves.
"Andy Richardson" <andy...@spamsucksgmail.com> wrote in message
news:PM000429D4C36F4B13@macmini-G4-
Wall Street Raider
> Why appologize? If he doesn't like homosexuals he has the right to
> say so.
Agreed.
> And anybody who says gay issues are a "civil right" issue is full of
> shit.
Disagreed.
> Minorities are born a different ethnicity, color, whatever.
> They didn't have a choice of their origin, color, or heritage. You
> can't equate racism with homophobia.
To this date there has not been any proof one way or the other whether
homosexuality is a choice or not. But let's assume that it is a
choice for the sake of your arguments below
> If you agree that a Gay person has a civil right to be homosexual,
> then you also must agree that a pedophile has a right to fuck little
> kids,
No you don't. Little kids cannot consent to sex. A grown man can
consent to sex with another man. Not even close, my friend.
> or a polygamist has a right to marry as many as he can
I have no moral/legal view of this one, but these laws are probably
more as a result of property rights than of civil liberties, so again
not a valid comparison.
> or an incestuous man or woman can fuck their family members.
This is an issue of genetics and recessive genes. Not anywhere close
to the homosexuality issue.
> And how about priests and choir boys?
Choir boys do not have age to consent. Priets are in an extreme
position of influence over those little kids. Not even remotely close
a comparison
> Do these freaks have a right to those deviations as well.
If by "freaks" you mean homosexuals yes. From the point that the
United States constitution and the law stresses a separation of church
and state, you cannot impose te view of the Christian majority (or any
other religion) on the actions of a particular group. The Supreme
Court of this country has already agreed that you cannot regulate
homosexuality or make it illegal
> Jesus, we are so politically correct in this country that pretty soon
> a necrophiliac will have the right to fuck the freshest available
> corpse.
Again, the corpse cannot consent to being defiled. Argument does not
apply.
> Homosexuality really is a choice. You can choose to do it or not.
And as a choice, you have the choice not to do it and you have the
choice not to like it. But you do not have the choice to discriminate
against it (same as you cannot discriminate against republicans,
budhists, or 49ers fans). If I understand your system of law well,
"civil rights" do not only apply to what you are (race, gender or
heritage) but also to the CHOICES you make (politics, religion,
speech).
> And don't forget, homosexuals don't reproduce, they recruit.
Actually, they don't. I have been in many gay bars with my friends
and sure you get propositioned but as soon as you tell them you are
straight, they really don't waste their time with you anymore. And if
you are concerned about a gay man succesfully "recruiting" you, you
must not be very sure about your own choice of sexuality, because I
tell you, I have many gay friends and I have NEVER feared the
possibility of being "recruited".
Look, you have the right to think what you want, but your arguments
and comparisons above are really not valid.
Wall Street Raider
The Shadow
<snip>
> Look, you have the right to think what you want, but your arguments
> and comparisons above are really not valid.
>
> Wall Street Raider
I am not invalid!
JD
> Look, you have the right to think what you want, but your arguments
> and comparisons above are really not valid.
>
> Wall Street Raider
Believe it or not, I really don;t have any position (no pun intended)
about gay rights one way or the other. I just get pissed off when
someone is slammed for not being politically correct these days, and
that gives me an opportunity to play devil's advocate and see how many
people I can piss off.
Consenting adults, nuff said.
But if someone has reasons for not liking it I think they should have
that right to voice their opinions without getting slammed by
corporate america for their politically incorrect views.
JD
Gary DeWaay
>
I am not an expert in sexual deviations... I would think that anyone that
preys on children has more emotional issues going on than sexual issues.
The gay people I know are so fucking rediculously gay that anyone thinking
they are making a choice has rocks in their head. Well, ok, that was
emotional... but the point stands.
Andy addressed this issue pretty well IMO.
--
- Gary
R. J. Salvi
news:1171999185....@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 15, 11:54 pm, "JD" <johnny_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Why appologize? If he doesn't like homosexuals he has the right to
>> say so.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> And anybody who says gay issues are a "civil right" issue is full of
>> shit.
>
> Disagreed.
>
>> Minorities are born a different ethnicity, color, whatever.
>> They didn't have a choice of their origin, color, or heritage. You
>> can't equate racism with homophobia.
>
> To this date there has not been any proof one way or the other whether
> homosexuality is a choice or not. But let's assume that it is a
> choice for the sake of your arguments below
>
>> If you agree that a Gay person has a civil right to be homosexual,
>> then you also must agree that a pedophile has a right to fuck little
>> kids,
>
> No you don't. Little kids cannot consent to sex. A grown man can
> consent to sex with another man. Not even close, my friend.
No, but in the abstract, kids adopted by gay parents *can* witness
consensual sex by accident, or otherwise. Do you believe, or disbelieve that
kids are impressionable? When sexual identity and gender identity differ, is
that environmental, hereditary, or both? Are an individual's moral
perspectives based on environmental or hereditary stimuli, or both? And how
can we be sure?
I respectfully beg to differ on the "choice" to discriminate. If you've
plonked any posters in this newsgroup, you've discriminated. If you've
chosen certain individuals to be your friends, you've discriminated. If
you've chosen a particular political party as the one that fits your POVs,
you've discriminated. We all discriminate...it's just that we pick and
choose our discriminations.
>> And don't forget, homosexuals don't reproduce, they recruit.
>
> Actually, they don't. I have been in many gay bars with my friends
> and sure you get propositioned but as soon as you tell them you are
> straight, they really don't waste their time with you anymore. And if
> you are concerned about a gay man succesfully "recruiting" you, you
> must not be very sure about your own choice of sexuality, because I
> tell you, I have many gay friends and I have NEVER feared the
> possibility of being "recruited".
I agree. I would however find it mildly uncomfortable being around a gay
male, knowing that they *could* view me as a sex object. That dynamic isn't
in place with heterosexuals. Having said that, I don't have any gay male
friends -- that I'm aware of -- so my experience is quite limited.
> Look, you have the right to think what you want, but your arguments
> and comparisons above are really not valid.
I think the comparisons JD was making were relative to the -act- of sex, in
which case I understand the analogies. In the context of your argument
though -- consensual sex between adults -- the comparisons don't equate.
Getting back to the original article and Hardaway's bombastic statements, I
don't see a reason he should be censored. Amaeche handled the outburst with
class, but I couldn't give a shit about Amaeche's trials and tribulations of
being gay and in the NBA...and I have no idea why it's such a big deal! If
his goal is to blend into the mainstream, then why is he trying to stand
out? Okay, he's attempting to draw attention to gay discrimination and
Hardaway made his point, but Amaeche has to realize that not everyone
agrees. And if the right to discriminate is taken away from those who
disagree, it will only foster more hate.
There's *alot* more to debate on this subject alone, but it's probably
better left for another venue. fwiw...
--
RJ
131,33,17
right to his opinions and comments regarding minorities in this NG. I
don't see anyone jumping up & down about the people who want him to shut
up ... because his comments are not PC. Anyone in this country has a
right to freedom of speech ... even neo-nazi's.
As for Breo's comments I agree. I know enough gay people to realize that
just like straight people there are good and bad within their ranks. I
have no problem associating with them because I'm secure in my manhood
and have no fear of being "recruited". If two consenting adults of the
same sex want to do that ... how is it harming me (other than grossing
me out)? As long as they don't try to force their lifestyle on me.
Respectfully ...
Godspeed RAIDERS!!!
PIRATE(131,33,17)
Nightcrawler
"131,33,17" <131-...@hot.gov> wrote in message
news:P9YCh.20553$ji1....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
> Playing devil's advocate here for a minute ... technically swami has a right to his
> opinions and comments regarding minorities in this NG. I
> don't see anyone jumping up & down about the people who want him to shut up ...
> because his comments are not PC. Anyone in this country has a right to freedom of
> speech ... even neo-nazi's.
>
> As for Breo's comments I agree. I know enough gay people to realize that just like
> straight people there are good and bad within their ranks. I have no problem
> associating with them because I'm secure in my manhood and have no fear of being
> "recruited". If two consenting adults of the same sex want to do that ... how is it
> harming me (other than grossing me out)? As long as they don't try to force their
> lifestyle on me.
Yeah, you just want to hold the video-cam. ;-)
R. J. Salvi
plonked. I also think there's a big difference between swami and Hardaway in
that Hardaway's comments don't seem to have been elicited with the sole
intent to incite conflict. I think Hardaway was simply giving an honest
appraisal of his emotions and thoughts on the subject. swami OTOH just wants
to get a rise out of people. For that reason, he's been plonked.
I also find it interesting that you made a connection between being gay and
being black -- both as targets of racism -- yet you ended your post
referring to a gay "lifestyle." That would suggest that being gay and being
black are in fact different. Personally, I think they are...
Having said that -- and related to this topic -- what I'm against more than
anything, is the victimization of America. There's 300 million people in
this country and there's 300 million special interest groups. Everyone
started figuring out that the squeaky wheel gets the oil and now a social
mentality of: "if you're gonna give some to them, then we want some too!"
has prevailed. We all can't keep taking, nor can we keep isolating ourselves
from the "mainstream" in an effort to reap some benefit from it.
Ironically, the quickest way to clean up all the politically correct
bullshit, is for this country to endure a significant hardship, something on
the order of magnitude of the 1929 crash. When people have it too good for
too long, they forget what true struggle is and tend to focus on the little
things.
Imagine waking up one morning with the prospect of being homeless...now
imagine the same scenario, except this time, you and the whole goddamned
neighborhhood are homeless. You think anyone would really give a shit about
Amaeche, Hardaway, or political correctness...?
--
RJ
"131,33,17" <131-...@hot.gov> wrote in message
news:P9YCh.20553$ji1....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
Wall Street Raider
Touche!... LOL!!!
Wall Street Raider
Wall Street Raider
> > Look, you have the right to think what you want, but your arguments
> > and comparisons above are really not valid.
>
> > Wall Street Raider
>
> Believe it or not, I really don;t have any position (no pun intended)
> about gay rights one way or the other. I just get pissed off when
> someone is slammed for not being politically correct these days,
Agreed 100%
> and
> that gives me an opportunity to play devil's advocate and see how many
> people I can piss off.
But you also don't want to be seen as a person that equates
homosexuality with pedophilia, do you?
> But if someone has reasons for not liking it I think they should have
> that right to voice their opinions without getting slammed by
> corporate america for their politically incorrect views.
Agreed in principle...
Wall Street Raider
Wall Street Raider
> I respectfully beg to differ on the "choice" to discriminate. If you've
> plonked any posters in this newsgroup, you've discriminated. If you've
> chosen certain individuals to be your friends, you've discriminated. If
> you've chosen a particular political party as the one that fits your POVs,
> you've discriminated. We all discriminate...it's just that we pick and
> choose our discriminations.
I didn't mean discriminate in that sense. I meant discriminate in a
working environment type of example.
> I agree. I would however find it mildly uncomfortable being around a gay
> male, knowing that they *could* view me as a sex object. That dynamic isn't
> in place with heterosexuals. Having said that, I don't have any gay male
> friends -- that I'm aware of -- so my experience is quite limited.
You should definitely get some gay friends. Best place to pick up
women is a gay bar. There is always 10 of them hanging out and only
one of you. That's great odds if you ask me. And they will talk to
you openly because they think that you are gay and will end up saying
something like "you are so nice, why can't I find a straight man like
you?" to which you respond "funny you should mention it...".
Unfortunately I found all of this out after I got married (half of my
wife's friends are gay)...
Wall Street Raider
tsp
"R. J. Salvi" <rjs...@nospam.ambianceacoustics.com> wrote in message
news:45d51047$0$24733$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/nba/20070215-0242-bkn-hardawayremarks.html
>
<snip>
I like this better than a lose-lose discussion that's gone
on too long! 8^)
A Greek and an Italian were discussing which had the superior culture.
The Greek commented, "We have the Parthenon."
The Italian responded, "We have the Coliseum."
The Greek boasted, "We had great Mathematicians."
The Italian replied, "We had the Roman Empire ."
The friendly debate continued in this vein until finally, the
Greek proclaimed, "We invented sex!"
The Italian smiled and said, "Ahhhh, but the Italians introduced it to
women."
We Italians are lovers, not fighters!
R. J. Salvi
news:5J2Dh.18757$2w.16415@trndny09...
>
> "R. J. Salvi" <rjs...@nospam.ambianceacoustics.com> wrote in message
> news:45d51047$0$24733$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>> http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/nba/20070215-0242-bkn-hardawayremarks.html
>>
> <snip>
>
> I like this better than a lose-lose discussion that's gone
> on too long! 8^)
point taken.
> A Greek and an Italian were discussing which had the superior culture.
> The Greek commented, "We have the Parthenon."
> The Italian responded, "We have the Coliseum."
> The Greek boasted, "We had great Mathematicians."
> The Italian replied, "We had the Roman Empire ."
> The friendly debate continued in this vein until finally, the
> Greek proclaimed, "We invented sex!"
> The Italian smiled and said, "Ahhhh, but the Italians introduced it to
> women."
>
> We Italians are lovers, not fighters!
LOL!
--
RJ
R. J. Salvi
> Robert wrote:
>
>> I respectfully beg to differ on the "choice" to discriminate. If you've
>> plonked any posters in this newsgroup, you've discriminated. If you've
>> chosen certain individuals to be your friends, you've discriminated. If
>> you've chosen a particular political party as the one that fits your
>> POVs,
>> you've discriminated. We all discriminate...it's just that we pick and
>> choose our discriminations.
>
> I didn't mean discriminate in that sense. I meant discriminate in a
> working environment type of example.
Got it.
>> I agree. I would however find it mildly uncomfortable being around a gay
>> male, knowing that they *could* view me as a sex object. That dynamic
>> isn't
>> in place with heterosexuals. Having said that, I don't have any gay male
>> friends -- that I'm aware of -- so my experience is quite limited.
>
> You should definitely get some gay friends. Best place to pick up
> women is a gay bar. There is always 10 of them hanging out and only
> one of you. That's great odds if you ask me. And they will talk to
> you openly because they think that you are gay and will end up saying
> something like "you are so nice, why can't I find a straight man like
> you?" to which you respond "funny you should mention it...".
> Unfortunately I found all of this out after I got married (half of my
> wife's friends are gay)...
Okay...this begs the question. If all these women are searching for "a
straight man," then wtf are they doing in a gay bar??? :-)
--
RJ
Nightcrawler
"R. J. Salvi" <rjs...@nospam.ambianceacoustics.com> wrote in message
news:45dcbaad$0$28130$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Izzy_
> I swear to God if you fuckers do not develop a sense of humor I am
> drowning everyone.
>
> NW
I heard today on Sports Classics that Mickey Mantle was a switch hitter.
You just never know...
_____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Brit_Raider
them after work. (There are 2 gay pubs in this area).
You'd be surprised - a lot of straight women go to gay bars/pubs simply to
avoid aggressive blokes trying to chat them up.
And yes - they do chat to you more, because they don't see you as a
"threat". I assume Yank women think pretty much the same way.
--
--=< BritRaider >=--
"R. J. Salvi" <rjs...@nospam.ambianceacoustics.com> wrote in message
news:45dcbaad$0$28130$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
Izzy_
the act. Children are innocent victims of pedophiles, where two consenting
adults are not victims in any way.
FYI: A deviant is simply a person who deviates from the accepted norm.
On Feb 17 2007 8:21 PM, JD wrote:
> Gary DeWaay wrote:
> >People that are fully
> > straight or fully gay don't make any choices... it's the way they are
> > born.
>
> So a pedophile should get a pass by society because "they are born
> attracted to children". Just because someone has a sexual deviation
> doesn't mean it should be OK to act upon it.
>
> If two consenting adults want to participate in devious homosexual
> activity, by all means they shouldn't they have that right?
>
> And what about adult brothers and sisters, or Moms and their adult
> sons, or fathers and their adult daughters? Shouldn't they have the
> right to fuck each other as well? After all, weren't they born that
> way too? Aren't they "consenting".
>
> I may be sexually attracted to my daughter's "hot" 18 year old
> friend. Shouldn't I just be out there banging the shit out of every
> available 18 year old hottie, after all I was "born that way".
>
> And damn, that Labrador Retriever's arse is looking good
> boyyyyeeeee . . . . .
>
> People make a conscious choice to not engage in certain sexual
> behavior, even though they may be "hard wired" for it at birth. The
> same should be said for homosexuality, pedophilia, incest and
> bisexuality, beastiality or whatever. I don't think "civil rights"
> has any bearing on deviant activity.
>
> JD
______________________________________________________________________
Nightcrawler
to say, "back off Skippy" a couple of times.
"Brit_Raider" <brit_...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Bm4Dh.29096$wP3....@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
Brit_Raider
Sooo... either the gays in the bar have some kind of "sixth sense", or I'm
just not "fanciable" to gays.
Suits me fine - the gays I work with are great guys, and good fun to go for
a beer with, so what do I care if they're gay?
--
--=< BritRaider >=--
"Nightcrawler" <Dirty...@donedirtcheap.org> wrote in message
news:I92dnfoI5tTRSEHY...@comcast.com...
131,33,17
> I don't think anyone is railing against swami because most of us have him
> plonked. I also think there's a big difference between swami and Hardaway in
> that Hardaway's comments don't seem to have been elicited with the sole
> intent to incite conflict. I think Hardaway was simply giving an honest
> appraisal of his emotions and thoughts on the subject. swami OTOH just wants
> to get a rise out of people. For that reason, he's been plonked.
True ... Swami is looking to incite ... but his core beliefs are based
on hatred of an entire group of people based on one aspect of their
being ... race in this case ...
> I also find it interesting that you made a connection between being gay and
> being black -- both as targets of racism -- yet you ended your post
> referring to a gay "lifestyle." That would suggest that being gay and being
> black are in fact different. Personally, I think they are...
Again ... my point is the hatred of group people because of one aspect
of their person. Be it race, sexual orientation or team affiliation.
Since I am black I relate to my own POV...
> Having said that -- and related to this topic -- what I'm against more than
> anything, is the victimization of America. There's 300 million people in
> this country and there's 300 million special interest groups. Everyone
> started figuring out that the squeaky wheel gets the oil and now a social
> mentality of: "if you're gonna give some to them, then we want some too!"
> has prevailed. We all can't keep taking, nor can we keep isolating ourselves
> from the "mainstream" in an effort to reap some benefit from it.
I'm wondering what exactly it is that "Gays" are looking to "take"? I
mean it's not like they are looking for reparations or any benefits over
and above what heterosexual couples enjoy. In fact ... it's not like
many black people who feel that America owes them $$ for slavery. If
"taking" means demanding to not be discriminated against in a job
interview in the case of blacks ... or being eligible for a partner's
death benefit in the case of a gay couple. Not like asking for welfare.
> Ironically, the quickest way to clean up all the politically correct
> bullshit, is for this country to endure a significant hardship, something on
> the order of magnitude of the 1929 crash. When people have it too good for
> too long, they forget what true struggle is and tend to focus on the little
> things.
> Imagine waking up one morning with the prospect of being homeless...now
> imagine the same scenario, except this time, you and the whole goddamned
> neighborhhood are homeless. You think anyone would really give a shit about
> Amaeche, Hardaway, or political correctness...?
Can't argue that ... I also think we have gone way past the tipping
point on this issue. PC is having the reverse of the originally intended
effect.
Godspeed RAIDERS!!!
PIRATE(131,33,17)
Nightcrawler
"Brit_Raider" <brit_...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:KQ4Dh.19032$tz6....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
Nightcrawler
at hand is that "gays" want to consider their relationships as
marriage. Marriage, for the most part, sucks for most people,
lately. Though, a redefinition of it seems a bit absurd.
Now, there are many other variables in this debate, but I'm
not going to go there.
"131,33,17" <131-...@hot.gov> wrote in message
news:ZB5Dh.92$m8...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Avant Grape
Okay, here's something to stew on. I have two white gay 'partner'
neighbors. This is a couple who have recently adopted two abused Latino
children. They are Republican, fly an American flag in front of their
house and one of them is a cop. Point is, there's not one stereotype
that applies to all gays. The more gay people I've met over the years,
the more my views on them have been challenged. My feeling is that once
more and more people are exposed to the variety of characters out there
who make up the gay community, this hate thing will be a non-issue.
It's easy to hate or fear what you don't know.
-JC
Brit_Raider
--
--=< BritRaider >=--
"Nightcrawler" <Dirty...@donedirtcheap.org> wrote in message
news:6uKdnbZgN9gTd0HY...@comcast.com...
Brit_Raider
It's got to the point where people are actively NON-PC, simply because "PC"
has gone too far for people to cope with.
I have many friends who are "non-white, non-Brit origin" etc.
BUT, I have to be careful what I say in some circumstances.
E.g. - my "porter" in my van is black, and he objects to the term
"coloured". BUT when I referred to him as "black" in front of a Human
Resources officer, I was threatened with disciplinary action!!
If my van-mate (and good drinking pal) wants to be called "black" (he's from
Jamaica, and proud of it), how the hell do I refer to him to PC-idiots??
--
--=< BritRaider >=--
"131,33,17" <131-...@hot.gov> wrote in message
news:ZB5Dh.92$m8...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Gary DeWaay
> There's 300 million people in
> this country and there's 300 million special interest groups.
>
And the only people squawking about anything like this nonsense are
coincidentally white Christian males.
It's good to be king.
--
- Gary
Nightcrawler
"Brit_Raider" <brit_...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:p67Dh.19043$tz6...@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
Izzy_
> On Feb 17 2007 7:56 PM, Nuclear_Waste wrote:
>
> > I swear to God if you fuckers do not develop a sense of humor I am
> > drowning everyone.
> >
> > NW
>
> I heard today on Sports Classics that Mickey Mantle was a switch hitter.
> You just never know...
Fuckin Nuke...now this was funny and not a peep. Don't make me dumb down
for you.
_______________________________________________________________________
Izzy_
> "Gary DeWaay" <dewaay2...@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.20426151a...@news.midco.net...
> >
> > If you look at gays the same way as you look at child molesters,
> > that is
> > YOUR problem... not anyone else's.
>
> Gary, if you are going to artificially seperate the sexual deviations
> from each other, could you please give us a list of the deviations
> which are supposed to be acceptable, and the ones which are not, and a
> rational explanation of the dichotomy between them? Specifics,
> please, no emotionalism.
>
> NW
Here's the thing, who gets to decide what is and isn't acceptable? The law
protects the public from reprehensible sexual behavior, molestation, rape,
etc. What's left is defined by religion and the bible. I believe one of
our civil rights as Americans is freedom of religion and I assume freedom
FROM religion.
Morality is a personal judgment who's roots are based in religious dogma.
If the laws of our land don't define what can or cannot happen between
consenting adults in the privacy of their own home, then what happens
there is really none of our business....that is unless we decide to start
enforcing religious morality on the public at large. At that point someone
might as well go ahead and set a match to the constitution.
_____________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
JD
> Looks like off-season, eh?
>
> Okay, here's something to stew on. I have two white gay 'partner'
> neighbors.
> They are Republican
WTF!!!!
Republicans? Maybe they are self hating gays . . . . (J/K :)
JD
Angela
>
> FYI: A deviant is simply a person who deviates from the accepted norm.
>
I am a deviant then. I date outside my race. And I don't mean the
human race. ; )
But then again, I believe I was born this way. Even as a child I liked
the less pigmented.
Angela
wrote:
> Any person should be able to bequeath to anyone. The issue
> at hand is that "gays" want to consider their relationships as
> marriage. Marriage, for the most part, sucks for most people,
> lately. Though, a redefinition of it seems a bit absurd.
I thought the issue at hand was free speech and how it seems to be a
double edged sword in the media and certain parts of the world at
large...??
Angela
> If my van-mate (and good drinking pal) wants to be called "black" (he's from
> Jamaica, and proud of it), how the hell do I refer to him to PC-idiots??
>
Why does the color of his skin come into conversation at all? You
could just refer to him by his name and country of origin (if need
be).
Angela
<rjsa...@nospam.ambianceacoustics.com> wrote:
> "Wall Street Raider" <WallStrRai...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:1172087733.2...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Okay...this begs the question. If all these women are searching for "a
> straight man," then wtf are they doing in a gay bar??? :-)
>
> --
> RJ
Having a couple of beers I imagine....
I don't know any woman who has gone looking for a straight man at a
gay bar. I do know that there are times when single women will go out
to a gay bar (or to straight bar or to just a regular ber whre all
kinds of people go) just to have a couple of drinks or to play darts
or whatever, and not to be looking for a straight man. Just to hang
out with a friend or eight.
Nightcrawler
"Angela" <CaEvi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172218791.0...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Nightcrawler
"Angela" <CaEvi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172219354.2...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Wall Street Raider
> Here's the thing, who gets to decide what is and isn't acceptable? The law
> protects the public from reprehensible sexual behavior, molestation, rape,
> etc. What's left is defined by religion and the bible. I believe one of
> our civil rights as Americans is freedom of religion and I assume freedom
> FROM religion.
>
> Morality is a personal judgment who's roots are based in religious dogma.
> If the laws of our land don't define what can or cannot happen between
> consenting adults in the privacy of their own home, then what happens
> there is really none of our business....that is unless we decide to start
> enforcing religious morality on the public at large. At that point someone
> might as well go ahead and set a match to the constitution.
Amen!
Wall Street Raider
P.S. Irony fully intended... :-)
Wall Street Raider
> E.g. - my "porter" in my van is black, and he objects to the term
> "coloured". BUT when I referred to him as "black" in front of a Human
> Resources officer, I was threatened with disciplinary action!!
> If my van-mate (and good drinking pal) wants to be called "black" (he's from
> Jamaica, and proud of it), how the hell do I refer to him to PC-idiots??
"African-British"? ;-)
Wall Street Raider
Nuclear_Waste
Nuclear_Waste
>
>> I swear to God if you fuckers do not develop a sense of humor I am
>> drowning everyone.
>>
>> NW
>
> I heard today on Sports Classics that Mickey Mantle was a switch
> hitter.
> You just never know...
Fucker, I spewed all over the keyboard.
NW
Nuclear_Waste
> On Feb 21 2007 3:03 PM, Izzy_ wrote:
>
>> On Feb 17 2007 7:56 PM, Nuclear_Waste wrote:
>>
>> > I swear to God if you fuckers do not develop a sense of humor I
>> > am
>> > drowning everyone.
>> >
>> > NW
>>
>> I heard today on Sports Classics that Mickey Mantle was a switch
>> hitter.
>> You just never know...
>
> Fuckin Nuke...now this was funny and not a peep. Don't make me dumb
> down
> for you.
Hey, Salvi just told me that this was still going. I had a partner
lose his house to a fire and they have two babies, so I have been kind
of tied up doing electrical and trim work.
NW
Brit_Raider
which case I'm sorry).
I agree that the colour of (my van-mate) Brian's skin is irrelevant in most
circumstances.
BUT, this was some loony HR department exercise, and I had to describe the
person I worked most closely with - which is Brian, we spend about 5 or 6
hours a day in the van together.
Saying he was "Brian, from Britain" is hardly a description is it?
He's VERY adamant that he is NOT "coloured" - he reckons that makes him
sound like a "liquorice-allsorts" man, so I used his own preferred term of
"black".
Strangely, when he did the same stupid HR exercise and referred to me as a
"honky", nothing was said.
This IS NOT a race/colour issue - I was simply using the example to point
out how stupid PC-correct people are.
Would it have been better if I'd used my mate Tony as an example?
He's universally known as "slap-head", due to being totally bald - but
PC-idiots insist on "alternatively hirsute".
--
--=< BritRaider >=--
"Angela" <CaEvi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172219555....@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
Nuclear_Waste
> On Feb 18 2007 10:43 PM, Nuclear_Waste wrote:
>
>> "Gary DeWaay" <dewaay2...@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.20426151a...@news.midco.net...
>
>> >
>> > If you look at gays the same way as you look at child molesters,
>> > that is
>> > YOUR problem... not anyone else's.
>>
>> Gary, if you are going to artificially seperate the sexual
>> deviations
>> from each other, could you please give us a list of the deviations
>> which are supposed to be acceptable, and the ones which are not,
>> and a
>> rational explanation of the dichotomy between them? Specifics,
>> please, no emotionalism.
>>
>> NW
>
> Here's the thing, who gets to decide what is and isn't acceptable?
> The law
> protects the public from reprehensible sexual behavior, molestation,
> rape,
> etc. What's left is defined by religion and the bible. I believe one
> of
> our civil rights as Americans is freedom of religion and I assume
> freedom
> FROM religion.
Damn, Izzy, talk about engaging in hyperbole. I am and was speaking
from the perspective of sociology and psychology. Religion plays no
part in this one for me, as I am as much a student of history as I am
of the sciences. As to your flag waving, who decides? We do, Izzy,
or we are supposed to. This IS a government of the people, by the
people and for the people.
>
> Morality is a personal judgment who's roots are based in religious
> dogma.
That is a logical and semantic fallacy. Something like saying a thing
is "unthinkable". Be careful Izzy, the English language is illogical
to its roots, and thus leads to what seem to be logical wrong
conclusions. Some people's morals may be based upon blind religious
indoctrination, however, as we learned on 9/11, such indocrtination
can lead to some acts which the majority of people view as "immoral".
The fact is that most morality is based upon enlightened self
interest. You can understand your neighbor's rights and needs without
any religious affiliation or indoctrination, and recognize that
encouraging a society in which a set code of behavior is enforced
benefits you and yours as much as it does your neighbors. Morality is
an abstract ideal that encompasses the ideal of the golden rule and
duty. Anything else is mysticism and should be eschewed.
> If the laws of our land don't define what can or cannot happen
> between
> consenting adults in the privacy of their own home, then what
> happens
> there is really none of our business....
First off, how do you define an adult? Hell, we can not agree on it
in the country from state to state. Most set an abitrary age, some as
low as 13. I personally would have a hard time not beating the shit
out of some 40 year old guy who was nailing a 13 year old girl. I
would probably applaud a 13 year old boy who was fucking a 40 year old
with big tits. Now, Izzy, how would you feel about a 40 year old man
who was fucking a 13 year old boy? These are prejudices programmed
into us by our society. At one point that arbitrary age was even
lower, and it has been as high as 21. I have met people as old as 30
who were not as prepared for the responsibilities of a real
relationship as I was at 14.
Secondly, we are not talking about what happens in the privacy of
someone's bedroom, we are talking about a very open and public
discussion.
Finally, you never answered my question. What is the difference in
the deviations? Ignore your overtly religious background and the fact
that you were taught that conformity is good and deviations are bad.
Think about the word and answer the question. Calling homosexuality a
"choice" or a lifestyle is for pc idiots who are too weak to face the
world of reality. In another day they would have embraced religion
and burned old women as their way of denying the world around them.
Sex is pleasurable to encourage animals to procreate. Sex is the
mechanism by which we conserve our genes. Anything that gets attached
to that is surplussage and a deviation. Large teats and hips are a
sexual signal that tells us that a woman will likely be able to bear
children and suckle them. A preference for tits in a cutaway bustier
and a thong that just barely covers the ass is a learned psychological
deviation which I revel in, but given the number of times I have
snapped off to such pictures, is probably not one which will end up
hard coded genetically as it has no survival value for the species.
As to the nature vs nurture aspect of homosexuality, I do not think
people are able to look at it without an emotional bias. How does
such behavior become part of the genome, when, by definition, it can
not be conserved? Humans being thinking animals will all have
psychological deviations related to sex. In this discussion Gary has
maintained that such deviations are genetic and unavoidable for one
set of deviant behavior, but not for others. I have seen nothing that
would back up such a viewpoint except circular logic and emotionalism.
that is unless we decide to start
> enforcing religious morality on the public at large. At that point
> someone
> might as well go ahead and set a match to the constitution.
I was about to say the same thing about the use of pseudo-science and
emotional "scientific" appeals to public opinion...
NW
Nuclear_Waste
"Gary DeWaay"
> I am not an expert in sexual deviations...
Gary, you are not an expert in football or politics, yet you expound
upon them, and value your own opinion. Sorry, this is a cop out.
I would think that anyone that
> preys on children has more emotional issues going on than sexual
> issues.
Read my post to Izzy. All sexual issues are emotional issues.
> The gay people I know are so fucking rediculously gay that anyone
> thinking
> they are making a choice has rocks in their head. Well, ok, that
> was
> emotional... but the point stands.
No, the logical fallacy you have engaged in is called post hoc propter
hoc. IOW you have the cart before the horse.
> Andy addressed this issue pretty well IMO.
I have not gotten to Andy's post yet, but I look forward to it.
However, I am still interested in an answer to my question rather than
an overt evasion.
NW
Nuclear_Waste
>I think the key question regarding your your point is who is being
>hurt by
> the act. Children are innocent victims of pedophiles, where two
> consenting
> adults are not victims in any way.
I tend to agree Izzy. You seem to use the same yardstick to measure
morality that I do. Who is hurt? seems like the best way to judge it
to me.
Izzy, how about a 14 year old boy and a 26 year old with huge tits?
> FYI: A deviant is simply a person who deviates from the accepted
> norm.
That is a sociological definition, not biological or psychological.
NW
Nuclear_Waste
> On Feb 21, 3:15 pm, "Izzy_" <izzyloo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> FYI: A deviant is simply a person who deviates from the accepted
>> norm.
>>
>
>
> I am a deviant then. I date outside my race. And I don't mean the
> human race. ; )
LOL We are all deviants. That is the point. Artificial dichotomies,
and rationalizations to account for your learned tastes are silly, at
best. I thought you were deliciously sexual when I met you, and would
have loved to fuck you silly right there on a table at Ricky's.
Probably as close to a deviant free act as I get when talking about
sex. Pure sexual attraction. I would say that a predilection for sex
with only one skin color would be the actual deviation as it severely
limits the chances that your genes will be conserved. Now, if you
want to go back to Ricky's and wear a few costumes for me, then we can
talk deviations.
> But then again, I believe I was born this way. Even as a child I
> liked
> the less pigmented.
No real data one way or the other on the genetic question, but I would
say that your particular claim of being born that way has more merit
gentically than any of the others I have seen.
NW
Nuclear_Waste
"Wall Street Raider"
>> and
>> that gives me an opportunity to play devil's advocate and see how
>> many
>> people I can piss off.
>
> But you also don't want to be seen as a person that equates
> homosexuality with pedophilia, do you?
Breo, buddy, what is the obvious and logical corrolary of the idea
that gays are born that way and can not help themselves, thus we
should just accept their behavior?
Uncomfortable, isn't it?
THIS is why I am not a liberal. Muddy thinking. No understanding of
genetics, and no idea how evolution and natural selection work. WHY
is there any need to claim that some sexual deviations are genetic and
unavoidable and others are the result of psychological morbidity?
Other than shame, and rationalization I can see no difference. It is
my contention that almostall deviations are psychological in nature,
and that the question is, as Izzy so eloquently stated, who is hurt?
Societally we need to treat those who are a danger to those around
them. I will leave it to the sociologists of the group to argue
whether overt homosexuality being celebrated while terms such as
"breeder" are bandied about are healthy societally. As to two women
or two men celebrating a shared sexual deviation, well, I like women
in leather and any number of lace and silk costumes, and share that
deviation with millions of men, so who cares?
NW
Angela
> "Angela" <CaEvilO...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Send me your costume ideas.... ; ) There are some great stores near
me for that very type of shopping.
Angela
> I think you missed the point Angela, (or I didn't put it across well - in
> which case I'm sorry).
>
> I agree that the colour of (my van-mate) Brian's skin is irrelevant in most
> circumstances.
> BUT, this was some loony HR department exercise, and I had to describe the
> person I worked most closely with - which is Brian, we spend about 5 or 6
> hours a day in the van together.
>
> Saying he was "Brian, from Britain" is hardly a description is it?
>
> He's VERY adamant that he is NOT "coloured" - he reckons that makes him
> sound like a "liquorice-allsorts" man, so I used his own preferred term of
> "black".
>
> Strangely, when he did the same stupid HR exercise and referred to me as a
> "honky", nothing was said.
>
> This IS NOT a race/colour issue - I was simply using the example to point
> out how stupid PC-correct people are.
>
> Would it have been better if I'd used my mate Tony as an example?
> He's universally known as "slap-head", due to being totally bald - but
> PC-idiots insist on "alternatively hirsute".
> --
> --=< BritRaider >=--
>
>
> news:1172219555....@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 21, 6:21 pm, "Brit_Raider" <brit_rai...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >> If my van-mate (and good drinking pal) wants to be called "black" (he's
> >> from
> >> Jamaica, and proud of it), how the hell do I refer to him to PC-idiots??
>
> > Why does the color of his skin come into conversation at all? You
> > could just refer to him by his name and country of origin (if need
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually, I didn't miss the oint. The backstory was what I missed.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Angela
> I would say that a predilection for sex
> with only one skin color would be the actual deviation as it severely
> limits the chances that your genes will be conserved. > NW
Well, I have no desire to reproduce so am not worried about conserving
mu genes. I'm nore worried about getting pregnant.
Avant Grape
Gary DeWaay
>
> "Gary DeWaay"
> > I am not an expert in sexual deviations...
>
> Gary, you are not an expert in football or politics, yet you expound
> upon them, and value your own opinion. Sorry, this is a cop out.
Yup.
>
> I would think that anyone that
> > preys on children has more emotional issues going on than sexual
> > issues.
>
> Read my post to Izzy. All sexual issues are emotional issues.
That's funny, I have proven I can engage in sex with a person I don't know
her name of, not care a whit about before and after the act, and it is an
emotional issue?
I don't think there is a single emotion involved in sport fucking. It's a
pure primal physical act... and I don't even have any shame about it.
>
> > The gay people I know are so fucking rediculously gay that anyone
> > thinking
> > they are making a choice has rocks in their head. Well, ok, that
> > was
> > emotional... but the point stands.
>
> No, the logical fallacy you have engaged in is called post hoc propter
> hoc. IOW you have the cart before the horse.
>
> > Andy addressed this issue pretty well IMO.
>
> I have not gotten to Andy's post yet, but I look forward to it.
> However, I am still interested in an answer to my question rather than
> an overt evasion.
>
Nope... it seems our minds are made up.
--
- Gary
Gary DeWaay
> THIS is why I am not a liberal. Muddy thinking. No understanding of
> genetics, and no idea how evolution and natural selection work.
>
And conversily righties think being gay is a "choice."
Wonderful.
--
- Gary
Nuclear_Waste
Is there some substance to what you have to say, or are you just
making noise?
NW
Nuclear_Waste
"Gary DeWaay"
> That's funny, I have proven I can engage in sex with a person I
> don't know
> her name of, not care a whit about before and after the act, and it
> is an
> emotional issue?
>
> I don't think there is a single emotion involved in sport fucking.
> It's a
> pure primal physical act... and I don't even have any shame about
> it.
So, you do not enjoy it? I am doubting your claims there Mr. Spock.
NW
Izzy_
> "Izzy_" <izzyl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:nd0va4x...@recgroups.com...
> >I think the key question regarding your your point is who is being
> >hurt by
> > the act. Children are innocent victims of pedophiles, where two
> > consenting
> > adults are not victims in any way.
>
> I tend to agree Izzy. You seem to use the same yardstick to measure
> morality that I do. Who is hurt? seems like the best way to judge it
> to me.
>
> Izzy, how about a 14 year old boy and a 26 year old with huge tits?
Off the top of my head I would think that 16 should be the minimum age of
consent. Besides, what a waste of tits. 14-year old boys have no right
being exposed to anything bigger than a B cup/.
> > FYI: A deviant is simply a person who deviates from the accepted
> > norm.
>
> That is a sociological definition, not biological or psychological.
It's the dictionary definition. A person can also be a intellectual
deviant, and we can't hold that against them. I guess it depends on the
deviation from the norm.
-----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Gary DeWaay
> >> THIS is why I am not a liberal. Muddy thinking. No understanding
> >> of
> >> genetics, and no idea how evolution and natural selection work.
> >>
> >
> >
> > And conversily righties think being gay is a "choice."
> >
> >
> > Wonderful.
>
> Is there some substance to what you have to say, or are you just
> making noise?
>
Are you seriously suggesting many/most righties DONT think this, or what
is your point?
--
- Gary
Gary DeWaay
>
The nerve endings in my cock certainly enjoyed it. And yes I do enjoy
women more than my hand... not sure how many more emotions are involved in
it.
Are you saying gays ENJOY the deviation more than they enjoy men? Not
sure where you are going here.
Many people think all ass-fucking is a deviation (including me) if gays
wanted to simply be devient, they could just as well ass-fuck women and
avoid all the stigmitations of being gay.
--
- Gary
Nuclear_Waste
Ouch. Fucker. Mickey Mantle would be proud.
NW
Nuclear_Waste
"Gary DeWaay"
> Are you seriously suggesting many/most righties DONT think this, or
> what
> is your point?
I would agree with many, I do not know about most, but what I was
talking about was the apparent non-sequitar based on my foolish
generalization. I was wondering why you ignored the entire substance
of my post and picked that one smartassed comment.
NW
Nuclear_Waste
> Nuclear_Waste's at myha...@mchsi.com wisdom:
>
>
>>
>> "Gary DeWaay"
>> > That's funny, I have proven I can engage in sex with a person I
>> > don't know
>> > her name of, not care a whit about before and after the act, and
>> > it
>> > is an
>> > emotional issue?
>> >
>> > I don't think there is a single emotion involved in sport
>> > fucking.
>> > It's a
>> > pure primal physical act... and I don't even have any shame about
>> > it.
>>
>> So, you do not enjoy it? I am doubting your claims there Mr.
>> Spock.
>>
>
>
> The nerve endings in my cock certainly enjoyed it. And yes I do
> enjoy
> women more than my hand... not sure how many more emotions are
> involved in
> it.
Gary, your nerve endings are not cognizant of anything. Sex is
entirely in the head.
> Are you saying gays ENJOY the deviation more than they enjoy men?
> Not
> sure where you are going here.
Gary, I did not say that, you did, but it is worth considering. Given
the number of people who fantasize during sex, the idea of the act
being overtly shameful or forbidden can, indeed, be a factor. I doubt
it is the only one though.
> Many people think all ass-fucking is a deviation (including me) if
> gays
> wanted to simply be devient, they could just as well ass-fuck women
> and
> avoid all the stigmitations of being gay.
And you could just get blowjobs from guys....
NW
Brit_Raider
1) have "headaches"
2) have "wrong times of the month"
3) say "not again - I'm trying to sleep"
4) say "not now, we haven't got time"
5) compare you to other cocks (I assume?)
6) complain about not being satisfied
--
--=< BritRaider >=--
"Gary DeWaay" <dewaay2...@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.204a9ee59...@news.midco.net...
>
> The nerve endings in my cock certainly enjoyed it. And yes I do enjoy
> women more than my hand... not sure how many more emotions are involved in
> it.
> --
> - Gary
Nuclear_Waste
NW
"Brit_Raider" <brit_...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:0Q5Eh.24766$z54....@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
Nightcrawler
"Nuclear_Waste" <myha...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:jw5Eh.3939$u93.3196@attbi_s21...
Brit_Raider
Most of them involve dropping something, hanging up the phone, etc.....
--
--=< BritRaider >=--
"Nuclear_Waste" <myha...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:6T5Eh.14643$PD2.11051@attbi_s22...
Nightcrawler
preference; it's just about getting laid. Though, when they start
going off about doing "anal" you best not get pissed-ass-drunk
with them. (caveat here: some gays like to bugger women because
of certain issues that they have).
Now, I understand about the "flamer" types you speak of yet,
for the most part, most gay men are what one would consider
"normal".
You never know.
I have seen all types.
"Gary DeWaay" <dewaay2...@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.204a9ee59...@news.midco.net...
> Nuclear_Waste's at myha...@mchsi.com wisdom:
> Many people think all ass-fucking is a deviation (including me) if gays
The Queen B
> "Izzy_" <izzyloo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9u01b4x...@recgroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18 2007 10:43 PM, Nuclear_Waste wrote:
>
> >>news:MPG.20426151a...@news.midco.net...
>
> >> > If you look at gays the same way as you look at child molesters,
> >> > that is
> >> > YOUR problem... not anyone else's.
>
> >> Gary, if you are going to artificially seperate the sexual
> >> deviations
> >> from each other, could you please give us a list of the deviations
> >> which are supposed to be acceptable, and the ones which are not,
> >> and a
> >> rational explanation of the dichotomy between them? Specifics,
> >> please, no emotionalism.
>
> >> NW
>
> > Here's the thing, who gets to decide what is and isn't acceptable?
> > The law
> > protects the public from reprehensible sexual behavior, molestation,
> > rape,
> > etc. What's left is defined by religion and the bible. I believe one
> > of
> > our civil rights as Americans is freedom of religion and I assume
> > freedom
> > FROM religion.
>
> from the perspective of sociology and psychology. Religion plays no
> part in this one for me, as I am as much a student of history as I am
> of the sciences. As to your flag waving, who decides? We do,Izzy,
> or we are supposed to. This IS a government of the people, by the
> people and for the people.
>
>
>
> > Morality is a personal judgment who's roots are based in religious
> > dogma.
>
> That is a logical and semantic fallacy. Something like saying a thing
> to its roots, and thus leads to what seem to be logical wrong
> conclusions. Some people's morals may be based upon blind religious
> indoctrination, however, as we learned on 9/11, such indocrtination
> can lead to some acts which the majority of people view as "immoral".
> The fact is that most morality is based upon enlightened self
> interest. You can understand your neighbor's rights and needs without
> any religious affiliation or indoctrination, and recognize that
> encouraging a society in which a set code of behavior is enforced
> benefits you and yours as much as it does your neighbors. Morality is
> an abstract ideal that encompasses the ideal of the golden rule and
> duty. Anything else is mysticism and should be eschewed.
>
> > If the laws of our land don't define what can or cannot happen
> > between
> > consenting adults in the privacy of their own home, then what
> > happens
> > there is really none of our business....
>
> First off, how do you define an adult? Hell, we can not agree on it
> in the country from state to state. Most set an abitrary age, some as
> low as 13. I personally would have a hard time not beating the shit
> out of some 40 year old guy who was nailing a 13 year old girl. I
> would probably applaud a 13 year old boy who was fucking a 40 year old
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wow, this is quite the post! I think you gave us too much to think
about in one sitting. I'm just trying to digest the third paragraph,
and I already feel a headache coming on! *LOL* I do agree totally
that morality can be an issue totally unrelated to religion, even
though saying that would probably get me tarred and feathered in these
parts.
I agree with a lot of the other things you said too. But not with the
part about eschewing mysticism. I'm all for eschewing obfuscation,
but I do tend to get a little mystic occasionally, especially during
sad movies and patriotic slide shows.
Nightcrawler
"Brit_Raider" <brit_...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:0Q5Eh.24766$z54....@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
Nuclear_Waste
NW
"Nightcrawler" <Dirty...@donedirtcheap.org> wrote in message
news:3tidnfOGkaRqcX3Y...@comcast.com...
Nuclear_Waste
"Bullshit, real men don't care." If they answer in the negative the
correct response is "I didn't think so."
NW
"Brit_Raider" <brit_...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:226Eh.20762$tz6....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
Nightcrawler
"Nuclear_Waste" <myha...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:Lb8Eh.14802$PD2.266@attbi_s22...
> Thank you Carlos.
>
> NW
Mike
"R. J. Salvi" <rjs...@nospam.ambianceacoustics.com> wrote in message
news:45dcbaad$0$28130$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> "Wall Street Raider" <WallSt...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1172087733.2...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> Robert wrote:
>>
>>> I respectfully beg to differ on the "choice" to discriminate. If you've
>>> plonked any posters in this newsgroup, you've discriminated. If you've
>>> chosen certain individuals to be your friends, you've discriminated. If
>>> you've chosen a particular political party as the one that fits your
>>> POVs,
>>> you've discriminated. We all discriminate...it's just that we pick and
>>> choose our discriminations.
>>
>> I didn't mean discriminate in that sense. I meant discriminate in a
>> working environment type of example.
>
> Got it.
>
>>> I agree. I would however find it mildly uncomfortable being around a gay
>>> male, knowing that they *could* view me as a sex object. That dynamic
>>> isn't
>>> in place with heterosexuals. Having said that, I don't have any gay male
>>> friends -- that I'm aware of -- so my experience is quite limited.
>>
>> You should definitely get some gay friends. Best place to pick up
>> women is a gay bar. There is always 10 of them hanging out and only
>> one of you. That's great odds if you ask me. And they will talk to
>> you openly because they think that you are gay and will end up saying
>> something like "you are so nice, why can't I find a straight man like
>> you?" to which you respond "funny you should mention it...".
>> Unfortunately I found all of this out after I got married (half of my
>> wife's friends are gay)...
>
> Okay...this begs the question. If all these women are searching for "a
> straight man," then wtf are they doing in a gay bar??? :-)
>
> --
> RJ
They are looking for a Barcelona Dragon Jersey.
>
Brit_Raider
Will add it to the list!
--
--=< BritRaider >=--
"Nuclear_Waste" <myha...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:ad8Eh.14804$PD2.750@attbi_s22...
Gary DeWaay
Because I get sick of reading stuff like that?
Sorry.
--
- Gary
Gary DeWaay
> But your hand doesn't.....
>
> 1) have "headaches"
> 2) have "wrong times of the month"
> 3) say "not again - I'm trying to sleep"
> 4) say "not now, we haven't got time"
> 5) compare you to other cocks (I assume?)
> 6) complain about not being satisfied
>
I dunno, my hand was mighty jealous when I bought a pocket-pussy...
"after all those years..."
--
- Gary
Nuclear_Waste
I think we all do.
NW
Izzy_
I started to respond to Nuke's post and I too gave into cranial pressure.
If I'm going to get a headache it's much more fun to do it by hangover.
______________________________________________________________________