Return PolishForums LIVE   /   Archives [3]
  PolishForums Archive :
Archives - 2010-2019 / Life  % width 455

Any treatment centres for homos in Poland?


Marynka11 3 | 639  
7 Nov 2010 /  #301
No one would probably ever stick his nose in other people bedrooms if it was always happening in the bedrooms.

Except for Tyler Clementi's roommate.

That's a great quote. As opposed to say, Soviet collectivism?

As opposed to nature.

And if I don't make sense, I'm straightening myself: I'm not worried about the future of the white race, and I think life a process is color blind. But if somebody is worried, then the individualism is to blame.
convex 20 | 3928  
7 Nov 2010 /  #302
Look at that mantra. Ugly, ugly, hateful stuff. The larger Gay Movement is not just about 'being free to love who we want and equal rights blahblah'. Not by far.

Uh, that "mantra" is messed up.

But seriously, just let them get married and enjoy the subsidies that brings. What's the problem with that? People can marry other people, don't have to make any radical changes to the system. Seems easy enough. Doesn't hurt anyone. It'll give you more time to focus on the degenerates instead of the people that are just going about their lives.
guesswho 4 | 1272  
7 Nov 2010 /  #303
Except for Tyler Clementi's roommate.

yep and few others (interested in closer encounters) too.
SeanBM 34 | 5786  
7 Nov 2010 /  #304
But seriously, just let them get married and enjoy the subsidies that brings.

Why shouldn't gay people be as miserable as married straight people?
jonni 16 | 2475  
7 Nov 2010 /  #305
Except for Tyler Clementi's roommate.

Who is Tyler Clementi?
guesswho 4 | 1272  
7 Nov 2010 /  #306
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Tyler_Clementi
jonni 16 | 2475  
7 Nov 2010 /  #307
That's horrible. The poor guy should maybe have been a bit more thick-skinned, but he sure as hell didn't deserve 'friends' like that.
convex 20 | 3928  
7 Nov 2010 /  #308
Well, here's their mantra. Any of it sound familiar?...

I did a bit of research on that mantra...

A satirical article by Michael Swift which appeared in the Gay Community News in February 1987 entitled "Gay Revolutionary", describes a scenario in which homosexual men dominate American society and suppress all things heterosexual. This was reprinted in Congressional Record without the opening disclaimer which made it clear that the article's text was not intended to be taken literally.

Hilarious
fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/swift1.html
trener zolwia 1 | 939  
8 Nov 2010 /  #309
You can find that kinda mantra for almost any section of society though.

I'm not prepared to concede this point, but even if it were true... As others here have mentioned, gays enjoy acceptance in society (forced tolerance and sensitivity, inclusion, special rights, celebration, great PR thanks to their friends in the Media and Entertainment...) while other groups with radicals do not. Other entire groups are marginalized when members go over-the-top, unlike gays. We never hear someone say, "Well, gee, I'm sure not all KKK members want to kill blacks. So let's give the group the benefit of the doubt..."

I did a bit of research on that mantra...

I knew as soon as I posted that you'd find a way to discredit it. Here's the the thing(s):

1) That was just the first thing that popped up on a quick search.

2) Doesn't matter one bit if that particular one was a farce or not; I have seen similar Gay Agenda stuff out there that is just like that and some of it even uglierthat wasn't fake.

3) Certainly there is no denying that many of the agenda items mentioned in it are quite evident in our society today.

4) That's the thing about humor: it has to contain a degree of truth in order to be funny.

Tyler_Clementi
That's horrible. The poor guy should maybe have been a bit more thick-skinned, but he sure as hell didn't deserve 'friends' like that.

That was sad but hardly a hate crime. That he was gay could have been beside the point. He was obviously unstable somehow from the start. Turns out that no one saw the streamed vid anyway; the jerks didn't know how to post it correctly, or something.
jonni 16 | 2475  
8 Nov 2010 /  #310
That he was gay could have been beside the point. He was obviously unstable somehow from the start.

That was my reading of it. Shame some of his ********* associates found his burgeoning sex life so interesting. Though not a hate crime - their motive wasn't a result of hatred.
convex 20 | 3928  
8 Nov 2010 /  #311
I knew as soon as I posted that you'd find a way to discredit it. Here's the the thing(s):

You presented it as some sort of gay constitution. It was satire working on stereotypes.

1) That was just the first thing that popped up on a quick search.

Yup, some basic fact checking goes a long way.

2) Doesn't matter one bit if that particular one was a farce or not; I have seen similar Gay Agenda stuff out there that is just like that and some of it even uglier that wasn't fake.

Then post that, not some satirical piece.

3) Certainly there is no denying that many of the agenda items mentioned in it are quite evident in our society today.

What exactly?

4) That's the thing about humor: it has to contain a degree of truth in order to be funny.

It has to contain a perception of truth, that's one of the keys in humor.

Come on, seriously now....are gay people trying to change your way of life? Me and the woman are doing just fine, and will continue to do just fine if gay couples can marry, adopt unwanted children, and see each other in hospitals. What's the problem?

That was sad but hardly a hate crime.

Absolutely right there!
guesswho 4 | 1272  
8 Nov 2010 /  #312
Come on, seriously now....are gay people trying to change your way of life?

Not particularly his but some other people for sure.
convex 20 | 3928  
8 Nov 2010 /  #313
but some other people for sure.

Fight against those other people. Choose your battles for maximum impact. If you boiled down what you actually don't like, and peruse that, you'll be much more effective than going after a broad group.
guesswho 4 | 1272  
8 Nov 2010 /  #314
Fight against those other people

Am I supposed to fight those (some) other people that gays are possibly about to "change" their lives by turning them into homos? By saying other people, I meant especially all those still vulnerable, young boys and guys, the potential prey. If you believe I'm wrong then tell me how else gays are extending their "gay circles"?
convex 20 | 3928  
8 Nov 2010 /  #315
"gay circles"

Never heard that term before.

Some people are gay, some aren't What's the problem with it? If your kids turn out to be gay and completely happy, is there a problem? Why discriminate against someone for something so superficial?
A J 4 | 1075  
8 Nov 2010 /  #316
Please do not put the blame on women.

Please don't tell me all the guys are gay.

I have many girlfriends in Germany who complain that it's hard for them to find a German boyfriend since so many of them are gay.

I know plenty of guys who want to settle down, but they're obviously not good enough for one reason or another. (Go figure!)

If anything it's the sick European individualism that's brings people to search for new experiences, self fulfillment and the market that caters to that.

And you have no other choice? You can't decide for yourself? Come on!

Why would man or woman go into the hassle of raising a family (and it's a hard thing, I know that) if they can be entertained.

The only reason I don't want kids is because I can't see a future for them right now, but maybe that will change one day.
guesswho 4 | 1272  
8 Nov 2010 /  #317
If your kids turn out to be gay and completely happy, is there a problem?

Of course it is. Ask any mother in the world if she wants her child to turn gay one day. Your liberalism might make you very unhappy one day convex, just wait and see how you're going to feel about it one day if you'll ever be in this kind of situation. I know few cases where exactly this had happened and I know what kind of hell those families went through and are still going through. It's easy for you to talk about it as long as you're not emotionally involved in it and all you have to defend is your point and not your life as I strongly assume, you'd see your child as your life or a huge part of it at least.
convex 20 | 3928  
8 Nov 2010 /  #318
Of course it is. Ask any mother in the world if she wants her child to turn gay one day.

Dunno, I would want my kids first and foremost to be happy, should I choose to have them. My personal ideology would be irrelevant.
A J 4 | 1075  
8 Nov 2010 /  #319
I know few cases where exactly this had happened and I know what kind of hell those families went through and are still going through.

What kind of hell? Could you be more specific? (Not sure I understand!)
guesswho 4 | 1272  
8 Nov 2010 /  #320
I know you and you're a smart guy so I'm sure you do exactly understand what I'm talking about AJ :-)
A J 4 | 1075  
8 Nov 2010 /  #321
I want you to say it, because I think that'll give me a valid reason to justify some of my more liberal vieuws. (For the sake of a public discussion?)
trener zolwia 1 | 939  
8 Nov 2010 /  #322
That was my reading of it. Shame some of his ********* associates found his burgeoning sex life so interesting. Though not a hate crime - their motive wasn't a result of hatred.

Right. The jerk was the guy's roommate for crissake. Just how much hate could he have held for gays? He likely would have done the same thing had the guy been straight.

Instead of jumping off the bridge, what he should have done is go sock the jerk in the nose, like most peeps would.
If anything this ugly incident shows the failed logic of forcing straights and gays to bunk together out of some misguided Lib need to force "tolerance" and "inclusion" to the point of cohabitation... repealing DADT comes to mind. Some straights are made uncomfortable and it opens gays to harassment.

see each other in hospitals.

Tired false argument. They already can. Anyone can designate anyone they want to visit them and make medical decisions for them.

What's the problem?

It's about what peeps want society to be. And we don't like having changes forced and bullied on us (see: Rad Leftist Obama's thorough repudiation last week). Every single time We The Peeps have been asked about it via referendum the gay lobby and their Lib enablers have disrespected the results. They disrespect democracy and endeavour to circumvent it, going for judicial fiat to impose their wants instead. Not to mention the absolute ugly that emanates from that quarter. Hardly a sympathetic group/ cause.

What's the problem that needs correcting? Society has been fine for thousands of years without formal gay marriage, as has our nation since its start. Suddenly, now there is this 'great injustice' that needs correcting?? Nah.

Why discriminate against someone for something so superficial?

No one is being discriminated against. Failing to grant special rights does not equal discrimination.
jonni 16 | 2475  
8 Nov 2010 /  #323
Instead of jumping off the bridge, what he should have done is go sock the jerk in the nose, like most peeps would.

This has generally been my approach.

forcing straights and gays to bunk together out of some misguided Lib need to force "tolerance" and "inclusion" to the point of cohabitation

I wouldn't think it's about anything like that.
convex 20 | 3928  
8 Nov 2010 /  #324
Tired false argument. They already can. Anyone can designate anyone they want to visit them and make medical decisions for them.

Not if they're incapacitated. Give them the same rights as a spouse, problem solved. Anyway, don't cherry pick, you forgot the rest.

What's the problem that needs correcting? Society has been fine for thousands of years without formal gay marriage, as has our nation since its start.

Because society never tied basic privileges and massive subsidies to marriage like it does now. Up until very recently interracial marriage was illegal in a lot of places. I suppose society was doing fine for thousands of years without interracial marriages, so that should be rolled back as well? Things change. Why should the state be allowed to say that two consenting adults of legal age shouldn't be allowed to take part in the subsidies and legal framework that is marriage? Doesn't make any sense. How does it harm you?

If anything this ugly incident shows the failed logic of forcing straights and gays to bunk together out of some misguided Lib need to force "tolerance" and "inclusion" to the point of cohabitation... repealing DADT comes to mind. Some straights are made uncomfortable and it opens gays to harassment.

These guys are soldiers first. The unit cohesion argument has been proven not to hold up after removal of the ban. Anyway, US troops are already serving, and bunking, with openly gay British, Dutch, German, Australian, and French troops....and even female troops. The majority of the worlds armed forces have gay troops, no problems. Quite a few also allow women combat roles, no problems there either.
trener zolwia 1 | 939  
8 Nov 2010 /  #325
Up until very recently interracial marriage was illegal in a lot of places.

We're talking about gay marriage, not interracial marriage. The conflating of the two is tired and inacurate, a real grasp... that misses.

I suppose society was doing fine for thousands of years without interracial marriages

Sure did.

so that should be rolled back as well?

No one is talking about rolling anything back, just not granting special rights.

Why should the state be allowed to say that two consenting adults of legal age shouldn't be allowed to take part in the subsidies and legal framework that is marriage?

Not the state; We The People have already decided this issue. A number of times.

Doesn't make any sense.

Doesn't make sense that the gay lobby refuses to get the message and keeps pushing anyway with disregard for democracy. Gays are free to move to Europe if that is how they want to live. Why must we change in order to accomodate them?

How does it harm you?

How does no gay marriage harm you?

The unit cohesion argument has been proven not to hold up after removal of the ban.

No such thing has been "proven". That other armies didn't collapse when they had gay forced on them is hardly a valid argument. Besides, we're talking about the US here, not Lib Europe. The matter of DADT should be put to a vote of active duty troops and the results written in stone. Any attempts to repeal after that should bring jail time.
guesswho 4 | 1272  
8 Nov 2010 /  #326
The majority of the worlds armed forces have gay troops, no problems

I don't have any problem with a (strictly) gay army unit too, especially if it will be a combat unit to be send off to the battle before anyone else (jeez, maybe I'm too liberal here ;-)
trener zolwia 1 | 939  
8 Nov 2010 /  #327
Lol. You ever see the South Park movie with the black army regiment? "Operation hide behind darkie". Lol...
guesswho 4 | 1272  
8 Nov 2010 /  #328
no, not yet but now I will. I wonder if I'll find it on the pirate bay, let me check..................
.........Nope, they don't have it.
kondzior 11 | 1037  
8 Nov 2010 /  #329
:DD "Strickly gay army unit". Good one. This give to the "Army of Faqs" the whole new meaning... Run for your life! Army of Faqs at the doors!
trener zolwia 1 | 939  
8 Nov 2010 /  #330
We could send them to fight Muslims while wearing bacon uniforms!

Archives - 2010-2019 / Life / Any treatment centres for homos in Poland?Archived