Is it wrong to hate the gay agenda which seeks to make children believe that homosexuality is normal, wholesome and natural? Don't answer that if you're a gay, because you're opinion will be based on self interest.
I'm actually defending gays by saying don't hate them, hate the movement that wants to brainwash the future of humanity. But seeing as how you misunderstand and boil it all down to me hating gays and minorities, while you stand oblivious, I won't take you seriously. by Thought_Criminal_J62377 http://www.imdb.com/user/ur5342665/
Could you please expound upon this "
Gay Agenda" as you see it; edify me, if you would.
And your choice of language is somewhat telling;
id est, that gays are not to be "
hated." Why would you have to say that? Why would anyone
hate someone for their sexual orientation, be that orientation by choice (
which it isn't) or by birth (
seems a tad more likely; for one thing, why would anyone "choose" a sexual orientation that automatically makes them a target for cruelty and loathing by a still significant and sizable portion of the population, an orientation which also increases the likelihood of bullying and violence and, subsequently, depression and suicide?
If someone is not innately physically and emotionally attracted to a member of their own gender, then why-oh-why would they "decide" to mash their "sexy bits" together? Is it just to be spiteful toward heterosexuals, to willfully and wantonly destroy the institution of marriage, to rebel against their parents,
or just because it was a full moon? And if it were a choice, wouldn't the thoroughly-scientifically-debunked "Conversion Therapy" have more than single digit success rates [if that]?).
I hate to break it to you, but homosexuality is both normal and natural (
"natural" as in, "literally found in nature"). And
"normal"? What does this word mean to you?
Normal, as in it fits into the totality of your experiences and cosmopolitan lifestyle, as broad or (most likely) narrow as that might be? And as for "
wholesome", I'd rather a child be raised by two loving, attentive parents regardless of their sex or sexuality. And it isn't as though homosexuality is going to lead to humanity "un-breeding" itself out of existence, we already have a
tremendous superfluity of children, such that orphanages and temporary foster homes are overflowing and overwhelmed (and of course, underfunded). These children oftentimes grow up in abominable and horrific situations where they are far too often sexually abused or neglected, are simply "lost", or all too frequently transition from a foster care facility or orphanage to the penal system; so many having grown up in appalling circumstances with no one to care enough about them to teach them right-from-wrong or help them with their homework or show them what healthy love and affection look like. You wouldn't deny a child the chance at a normal, happy, healthy, productive life (where they would be a net benefit to society rather than a drain on the taxpayers' due to the costs of incarceration; in case pragmatism rules your reasoning rather than compassion) just because the prospective adoptive parents happen to be a married homosexual couple, would you? Good! I didn't think so,
I knew that for someone who claims to care so much about children and what they're exposed you would NEVER deny a child the chance of being loved, to be happy and safe, even if the adoptive parents' names are Adam and Steve or Adrienne and Eve!And as far as your statement
Don't answer [is it wrong to hate the gay agenda] if you're a gay, because you're opinion will be based on self interest.
Are the points that you're attempting to make not based on self-interest? On your own subjective belief system and the agenda that you yourself are pushing? That's a tad hypocritical, I'm sure you'll agree. Similarly, if your goal is to push
your own agenda, and you don't want to leave it up to children to
base their own beliefs on their own experiences, dealing with all sorts of people from all walks of life, while taking in various forms of media that portray all manner of lifestyles...
aren't you attempting to do a bit of "brainwashing" of your own? Otherwise, what did you mean when you said that the "Gay Agenda" is trying to "brainwash the future of humanity"? I know I trust my two teenage daughters (oh, did I forget to mention that I'm married to a woman and have two wonderful, beautiful, intelligent, compassionate, incredibly artistic stepdaughters from my wife's first marriage? Whew! Glad I met your criteria for not being a *beep* maybe you thought I was trying to sneak one by you, but nope!
And I'm from the South and still live here!
AND I'm not a Democrat but an Independent! I own guns and I'm also a proponent of the Death Penalty! Alas, I'm also
FOR a Woman's Right to Choose and I don't believe men should have much-of-a-damn-say in a woman's reproductive rights,
nor do I believe that one should, even if they actually
could,
legislate morality. I'm a bit of a centrist, I subscribe to political gradualism for being how things
actually get done here in the real world, I do tend toward Keynesian economics as Adam Smith's philosophy just hasn't keep up with the rapid growth, innovation, and increasing interconnectedness of our modern world [and
we've ALL felt the devastating effects of the runaway deregulation begun in the 80's, and we've seen what
laissez faire capitalism actually looks like] ... I'm a lot of things, and I grow and change just as our country, economy, society and culture, and the world as a whole, grows and changes [I'm not averse to new information, changing my mind, or admitting when I've been wrong on an issue].
One thing that has not changed is my opinion that,
"You judge a society by how it treats its most vulnerable, helpless and defenseless, and marginalized members." But enough about me!
I just wanted to make sure that you didn't invalidate my opinions and views on homosexuality by being homosexual myself...
for all the sense that makes...).
I'm actually defending gays by saying don't hate them
No, you're really not. If you were actually "defending gays", (
you really wouldn't need to say that, as it would be apparent from the content of what you had actually written; but I'll play along) you'd say something more along the lines of:
"Treat them like you would any other person" or
"Don't judge someone according to whom they love, how you treat them is based on the content of their character and their actions toward others" or
"It's really none of my f'ing business what people do, so long as it isn't actually hurting others" (and yes, it seems that you think that their lifestyles
are hurting people, specifically children and those who are now unable to stay in or enjoy their heterosexual marriages because homosexuals now have the same right to marry as everyone else and it is diluting the purity of marriage... which, I'm sorry, I've tried to avoid
ad hominem attacks and making assumptions as much as possible so I have just stuck to being a sarcastic prick, but that is one of the bug-*beep*-stupidest things I've ever heard in this whole Marriage Equality "debate". And no, you mightn't have said it in this particular thread, but I'll take it for a moral certainty that you've said it elsewhere or in the past...). Anyway,
something along those lines would be close to "defending gays" but my guess is, they really don't need nor want your support, they merely need you not to be standing in opposition to them, no matter how passive-aggressively your stance is.The mere fact that you had to include this disclaimer shows that you realise that you are not, in fact, defending "them" (and "
them" as they are as diverse a group as any other in this country, it's like assuming that Al Sharpton speaks for all Black Americans. It's simplistic and wrong-headed.) You just, for some reason, felt the need to insulate yourself against criticisms of being close-minded, and wanted to be able to point to a spurious example of how
open-minded,
caring and
truly Christian you are.
It's almost like you already know that you're on the wrong side on history on this one....Now, had you brought up
interracial relationships and marriages, you would've enjoy my support 100%! Whites should never,
ever,
NEVEREVER dilute their pure, superior European blood with that of Pacific-Islanders**, Blacks, Hispanics, Arabs and Persians, or Orientals (and more or less in that order). It is disgusting and it is a deliberate attempt to poison the gene pool with inferior genetics and the maladaptive cultures from whence these people came. It disgusts and enrages me to know that our beautiful blue-eyed, blonde-haired, fair-skinned sons and daughters are an endangered species; being systematically bred out of existence, and all to advance an agenda of some kind.
This we must put a stop to before it is too late (though sadly, it may already be... too late). I think we can all pinpoint exactly when this aberrant bahaviour began to become normalised and accepted, and
we have Bill Shatner's Captain James T. Kirk and Lt. Uhura to thank. A 1968 episode of
Star Trek featured the first interracial kiss to be broadcast on American television.
Now, the inter-species kisses and Kirk's bedding of a bevy of curvaceous green skinned women I have no problem with, but a White Earth man and a Black Earth woman? No! And surprise surprise, society has been going to hell ever since.... **As my grandfather always said,
"The only good Samoan is a dead Samoan."something terribly clever.
reply
share
Thought_Criminal_J62377
8 years ago
Could you please expound upon this "Gay Agenda" as you see it; edify me, if you would.
This statement is inherently condescending, but I'll "edify" you, as you wish. There is an agenda, whether you like it or not, that advocates the cultural acceptance and normalization of homosexuality. If you can't see that, you're blind!
And your choice of language is somewhat telling; id est, that gays are not to be "hated." Why would you have to say that?
Because, all of you liberal sheep accuse us sensible people of hating gays and can't imagine separating that from disapproval of the agenda. I don't hate gays in the least! There choices are between them and God and not for me to judge, as I wouldn't want anyone to judge me for my sins, of which I'm guilty. I've been accused hating gays over and over on IMDb, which seems to attract highly liberal, synthetic, artsy types, more than real, organic people. So that's why I had that signature. Trying to preemptively clarify that I don't hate gays, but oppose the agenda, you see?
Why would anyone hate someone for their sexual orientation, be that orientation by choice (which it isn't) or by birth (seems a tad more likely; for one thing, why would anyone "choose" a sexual orientation that automatically makes them a target for cruelty and loathing by a still significant and sizable portion of the population, an orientation which also increases the likelihood of bullying and violence and, subsequently, depression and suicide?
Do people choose to engage in sex? Answer here [ ]... given your inevitable answer, homosexuality then, is a choice! I'll also add that today it's quite the opposite, in that the youth actually finds it rewarding to identify as gay. It makes them edgy, interesting and anti-establishment.
I hate to break it to you, but homosexuality is both normal and natural ("natural" as in, "literally found in nature").
That's incredibly silly point to make, because by implication you're now saying that all things found in nature are acceptable and even presumably good. Is rape, murder(even of your rivals children), cannibalism(even of your own offspring) and incest acceptable? They are, after all, "literally found in nature" don't forget. As we both have to agree, not everything found in nature is wholesome, right or as was intended by our creator.
And as for "wholesome", I'd rather a child be raised by two loving, attentive parents regardless of their sex or sexuality. And it isn't as though homosexuality is going to lead to humanity "un-breeding" itself out of existence, we already have a tremendous superfluity of children, such that orphanages and temporary foster homes are overflowing and overwhelmed (and of course, underfunded). These children oftentimes grow up in abominable and horrific situations where they are far too often sexually abused or neglected, are simply "lost", or all too frequently transition from a foster care facility or orphanage to the penal system; so many having grown up in appalling circumstances with no one to care enough about them to teach them right-from-wrong or help them with their homework or show them what healthy love and affection look like. You wouldn't deny a child the chance at a normal, happy, healthy, productive life (where they would be a net benefit to society rather than a drain on the taxpayers' due to the costs of incarceration; in case pragmatism rules your reasoning rather than compassion) just because the prospective adoptive parents happen to be a married homosexual couple, would you? Good! I didn't think so, I knew that for someone who claims to care so much about children and what they're exposed you would NEVER deny a child the chance of being loved, to be happy and safe, even if the adoptive parents' names are Adam and Steve or Adrienne and Eve!
And as far as the rest goes, you're drawing ridiculous conclusions to support your position. Like implying that homosexuals aren't capable of child abuse. I don't have time to pick all this apart, but it's begging to be.
My Crime Is Prohibited Thought, My Oppressors Are Bleeding Heart Liberals
reply
share
savcam500
8 years ago
... we wouldn't want your straw man to catch fire....
something terribly clever.
reply
share