Any treatment centres for homos in Poland?

Except for Tyler Clementi's roommate.


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.

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.

yep and few others (interested in closer encounters) too.

Why shouldn't gay people be as miserable as married straight people?

Who is Tyler Clementi?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_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.

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


Hilarious
fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/swift1.html

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 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.


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.

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.

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


Yup, some basic fact checking goes a long way.


Then post that, not some satirical piece.


What exactly?


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?


Absolutely right there!

Not particularly his 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.

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"?

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?

Please don't tell me all the guys 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!)


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


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.

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.

Dunno, I would want my kids first and foremost to be happy, should I choose to have them. My personal ideology would be irrelevant.

What kind of hell? Could you be more specific? (Not sure I understand!)

I know you and you're a smart guy so I'm sure you do exactly understand what I'm talking about AJ :-)

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?)

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.


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


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.


No one is being discriminated against. Failing to grant special rights does not equal discrimination.

This has generally been my approach.


I wouldn't think it's about anything like that.

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


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?


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.

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


Sure did.


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


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


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 no gay marriage harm you?


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.

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 ;-)

Lol. You ever see the South Park movie with the black army regiment? "Operation hide behind darkie". Lol...

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.

: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!

We could send them to fight Muslims while wearing bacon uniforms!