So, What Is It That The Anti-Gay Grou...

So, What Is It That The Anti-Gay Groups Actually Fear?

There are 18008 comments on the lezgetreal.com story from Aug 17, 2012, titled So, What Is It That The Anti-Gay Groups Actually Fear?. In it, lezgetreal.com reports that:

What makes hate, well, hate? Given that today is something of a quiet news day, it may be nice to give ourselves a breather and think about some things.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at lezgetreal.com.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#14982 Dec 10, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
"ridiculously malinformed fool" ? Ya mean he's a Democrat.
Enough with the off-topic opinions...it's getting tedious.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#14983 Dec 10, 2012
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it is.
<quoted text>
Actually, yes, it is...And don't call people stupid, it's impolite and serves little but demonstrate that the one calling people names lacks the intellectual acumen to devise an intelligible response and so, has resorted to belittling them with a slur when, in reality, all that they are actually doing is displaying their own ineptitude and uncertainty.
Think about it.
Please provide proof that it is INHERENTLY harmful, or even harmful at all. See, there's a difference between harm and the RISK of harm. On top of that, explain how anal sex is demeaning while providing a source to back you up.

You will never do so because it is an invalid claim and the fact is that they are uneducated opinions, not backed by facts.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#14984 Dec 10, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>
"Coined in the pre-HIV era, the term "gay bowel syndrome" comprised a rather unselective potpourri of unusual anorectal and GI symptoms experienced by homosexual males... with better understanding of the underlying causes, this term is outdated: the derogatory terminology should be abandoned and more specific entities and terms recognized and used."
McGraw-Hill Manual of Colorectal Surgery. pp. 205
"In 1976, a group of physicians in private proctologic practice in
New York City coined the illness "Gay Bowel Syndrome" in reference to a constellation of gay male anorectal disorders. Through analysis of biomedical discourse and popular media, it is apparent that Gay Bowel Syndrome is an essentialized category of difference that is neither gay-specific, confined to the bowel, nor a syndrome. The use and diagnosis of Gay Bowel Syndrome must be abandoned before it further lends itself to the formation of social policies and governing practices that seek to force gay male bodies into positions of social, cultural, and political subordination."
Scarce M (1997). "Harbinger of plague: a bad case of gay bowel syndrome". J Homosex. 34 (2): 1–35.
The explanation of "Gay Bowel Syndrome" is that it is proof that you are a ridiculously malinformed fool.
Great! Now could you give me the unbiased version, you know, one from an authority that is NOT gay, an activist and gay men's health advocate like the author of your referenced source, Michael Scare, is?

Thanks in advance!

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#14985 Dec 10, 2012
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually the article, written by a Bridgette P. LaVictoire (Bridgette), was authored in an effort on their part to rationalize the issue of the ignorance they faced while growing up during their childhood and the negative interactions they experienced in their social circles, all of which soon enough dissolved into a rather blatant attempt on their part to erroneously define what they had experienced as "hatred", going on to insist that the reason for this 'hatred' was that "[t]he problem with those who are hateful of others is that they feel threatened."
http://lezgetreal.com/2012/08/so-what-is-it-t...
It is a well known fact of Human psychology that being "threatened" does not give rise to "hatred", only fear, and while fear isn't real, danger is, but that is not an aspect of the issue we're discussing.
Bridgett mistakenly attributed the bullying they experienced to others being threatened by them when, in fact, the other children were likely only lashing out at them because they didn't fit within modern cultures' pre-defined mode of what is acceptable which, of course, is due ONLY to ignorance, NOT "hatred" or feeling "threatened", just ignorance, which can be easily resolved with education.
I assure you that not only am I NOT "threatened" by the gay community, my and other heterosexuals' feelings/beliefs/perspectives regarding the practices/behaviors of gays are NOT derived from being "threatened" or "hatred", as I've tried to illustrate with my comments here, but are instead only the result of a rationale and logical review of the various/contributing factors surrounding the issue of gays.
Oh, and for the record, while they DO make one(1) reference to "LGBT Americans", they do so only in passing, in the last paragraph I think, although they DO specifically mention "gays" on more than one occasion throughought the dialogue, just so you know.
You are obviously obsessed with men having anal sex with each other, even though the majority of those participating in anal sex are straight. Also, how do you misspell "throughout" so badly?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#14986 Dec 10, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
Enough with the off-topic opinions...it's getting tedious.
No. It's EXACTLY on point. And not only that, it is, as ALWAYS, Fair. And Balanced.

:)

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#14987 Dec 10, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that ALL citizens are GUARANTEED equal protection of the laws by the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. When that amendment was ratified, there was no federal income tax, nor state income taxes, and thus married couples and unmarried couples were treated equally as far as tax laws are concerned. But for many decades, married couples have been treated differntly in myriad ways, under state and federal tax laws. Now one reason always cited for this is that the government[s] want to encourage marriage. Which I think is a goood thing.
But IF a gay or lesbian couple is legally married, WHY should they be treated differently, under federal tax laws or ANY federal laws or state laws, than a married heterosexual couple ? What is the rational basis for that different treatment under the laws ? And "We just don't like you" is not a valid legal reason (Even though that ultimately IS the real reason).
I think that the distinction lies in defining what constitutes a "legal" marriage, which has traditionally/historically been defined as being between a man and a woman/a heterosexual couple, whereas members of the homosexual community are pushing to have the definition revised to account for their persuasion, so you've got inherent physiological predisposition versus individual persuasion/inclination and an effort to lend legitimacy to a persons' sexual preference on a level equal to that of actual genealogically predisposed sexuality.

IMHO, the homosexual community should have NEVER pushed the issue to the level of the United States Supreme Court who are charged with reviewing the matter from a purely objective perspective which, I'm guesssing, is NOT going to be good for the same-sexers.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#14988 Dec 10, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
I like this post very much.
Thank you...I have my moments.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#14989 Dec 10, 2012
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that the distinction lies in defining what constitutes a "legal" marriage, which has traditionally/historically been defined as being between a man and a woman/a heterosexual couple, whereas members of the homosexual community are pushing to have the definition revised to account for their persuasion, so you've got inherent physiological predisposition versus individual persuasion/inclination and an effort to lend legitimacy to a persons' sexual preference on a level equal to that of actual genealogically predisposed sexuality.
IMHO, the homosexual community should have NEVER pushed the issue to the level of the United States Supreme Court who are charged with reviewing the matter from a purely objective perspective which, I'm guesssing, is NOT going to be good for the same-sexers.
The FACT of the matters is that THOUSANDS of American coouples have been LEGALLY MARRIED in the states that allow it, as well as D.C.

Now you may not like it, but it is a FACT that those gay and lesbian couples who are legally married are JUST AS LEGALLY MARRIED AS ANY MARRIED HETEROSEXUAL COUPLE.

And religion has NOTHING to do with it.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#14990 Dec 10, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
Please provide proof that it is INHERENTLY harmful, or even harmful at all. See, there's a difference between harm and the RISK of harm. On top of that, explain how anal sex is demeaning while providing a source to back you up.
You will never do so because it is an invalid claim and the fact is that they are uneducated opinions, not backed by facts.
Though those 'moments' are, apparently, fleeting.

Just remember, you asked for it:

Gonorrhea is but one face of a many faceted pattern of anorectal and colon diseases which are encountered with unusual frequency in homosexual patients termed the "gay bowel syndrome" (as coined in '74) which include, but are not limited to anal fistulas, perirectal abscesses, anal fissures, irritable bowel syndrome(IBS), incontinence, viral hepatitis, polyps, syphilis, rectal ulcers, chlymydia, shigellosis, HIV, AIDS, etc., etc.

In otherwords, basically every STD known to Man.

(Covering the variety of diseases):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez...

(A little more detail on same):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez...

(Noting the connection between HIV/AIDS and other diseases):
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm

(How having the one breeds the other):
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/transmiss...

Further, with all of the pushes to develop and strides made in the concoction and manufacture of so-called 'anti-retroviral' drugs designed to treat the symptoms (AS THERE IS NO CURE, ONLY TREATMENT), each one more powerful than the last, is it any wonder that the diseases they were designed to treat have developed/are developing tolerances to combat the treatments that are surpassing them at a rate we are unable to keep up with in those who simply refuse to refrain from the type of practices that led to their illnesses to begin with?

What I'm getting at is that it seems like simple matter of common sense to me in that, if a certain type of behavior has led to your contracting an incurable disease from your practice of it, then you should refrain from engaging in it and live out your life under care, or risk becoming a carrier that wantonly and heinously spreads the disease(s) to each and every person you engage in the manner that is conducive to the transmission of the disease(s) while your concocted cocktails and treatment options strenghten the diseases' immunity to them beyond our ability to even handle.

So, stop butt sex, problem solved.

(NWS Gay Bowel Disease vid, Part 1):
www.youtube.com/watch...

(Part 2):
www.youtube.com/watch...

Again, remember, YOU asked!

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#14991 Dec 10, 2012
Lacez wrote:
You are obviously obsessed with men having anal sex with each other, even though the majority of those participating in anal sex are straight.


Yet more derogatory, belittling commentary intent on demeaning me instead of responding to the actual subject matter under discussion...Pitiful.

Your sort really should leave the intelligent discussions to the educated adults...Really!
Lacez wrote:
Also, how do you misspell "throughout" so badly?
Lol! Finger dyslexia...It happens sometimes. Seriously, I think that my fingers were having trouble keeping up with my thoughts.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#14992 Dec 10, 2012
just an allusion wrote:
Great! Now could you give me the unbiased version, you know, one from an authority that is NOT gay, an activist and gay men's health advocate like the author of your referenced source, Michael Scare, is?
Thanks in advance!
Sweetie, are you seriously suggesting that the McGraw-Hill Manual of Colorectal Surgery, you know, the first source that I gave you proving what a malinformed fool you are, is some sort of biased source? Give me a break. How about this cupcake, you give me your source for your "education" on the subject?

Reality check dumpling, no legitimate medical professional believes in the existence of "gay bowel syndrome", quit before you make a complete ass of yourself.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#14993 Dec 10, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
The FACT of the matters is that THOUSANDS of American coouples have been LEGALLY MARRIED in the states that allow it, as well as D.C.
"LEGALLY MARRIED" as defined by individual State-level legislation, but now we're talking about the homosexual community having pushed the issue to the level warranting FEDERAL judicial review.

FEDERAL > STATE...FACT!
Fa-Foxy wrote:
Now you may not like it, but it is a FACT that those gay and lesbian couples who are legally married are JUST AS LEGALLY MARRIED AS ANY MARRIED HETEROSEXUAL COUPLE.
Point of clarification...It is irrelevant what I like or dislike as I, much as is the case with everyone else in the U.S., am not positioned to influence judicial decision one way or another based solely upon my 'opinion' alone, which is the point I was making about the U.S. Supreme Court and their intrinsic responsibility of adherence to the Letter of the Law.
Fa-Foxy wrote:
And religion has NOTHING to do with it.
I've never mentioned "religion", not once, in ANY of my responses...YOU DID!

Remember that!

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#14994 Dec 10, 2012
just an allusion wrote:
<quoted text>
"LEGALLY MARRIED" as defined by individual State-level legislation, but now we're talking about the homosexual community having pushed the issue to the level warranting FEDERAL judicial review.
FEDERAL > STATE...FACT!
<quoted text>
Point of clarification...It is irrelevant what I like or dislike as I, much as is the case with everyone else in the U.S., am not positioned to influence judicial decision one way or another based solely upon my 'opinion' alone, which is the point I was making about the U.S. Supreme Court and their intrinsic responsibility of adherence to the Letter of the Law.
<quoted text>
I've never mentioned "religion", not once, in ANY of my responses...YOU DID!
Remember that!
DOMA is obviously unconstitutionla. The federal government has no right to pick and choose which marriages to legally ricognize and which marriages no to legaly recognize. And numerous federal courts have ruled exactly this.

Now if you are going to maintain that they DO have that right, then what is to stop the federal government, or particular administration from time to time, from not legally recognizing marriages because of age ? Or ethnicity ? Or them simply saying we're not going to legally recognize ANY marriages from "State X" because we don't want to and that's our right as the federal government." ?
Passing Through

Cincinnati, OH

#14995 Dec 10, 2012
United in faith wrote:
<quoted text>
the only addictions i have are COFFEE.
You're also addicted to lying and bad grammar and spelling.
Passing Through

Cincinnati, OH

#14996 Dec 10, 2012
United in faith wrote:
<quoted text>
KNOW is spelled KNOW not 'now'.
just so ya know.
I've never claimed I don't make typo's, Patricia. Particularly when posting from my phone (whihc that post was). It's still not comparable to your wholesale butchery of the English language.
United in faith wrote:
and i don't recall naming you as a blessing in my life.
I was posting about how I was proof that you reap what you sow and that God works in mysterious ways. You then chimed in that God has given you many blessings, so it follows you consider me one since you made your comment in reply to my post. Or was that just another of your irrelevant, tangental responses that don't actually address what others say in the posts to which you reply?
United in faith wrote:
<but if it gets you through the night to think i did, by all means you can certainly pretend.
I have no need to pretend about my life the way you do, Patricia.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#14997 Dec 11, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Sweetie, are you seriously suggesting that the McGraw-Hill Manual of Colorectal Surgery, you know, the first source that I gave you proving what a malinformed fool you are, is some sort of biased source? Give me a break. How about this cupcake, you give me your source for your "education" on the subject?
Reality check dumpling, no legitimate medical professional believes in the existence of "gay bowel syndrome", quit before you make a complete ass of yourself.
First off, I was originally replying to EdmondWA's response to me:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/T85ELBGC7...

When you then decided to chime in on the matter with your own take on the issue:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/T85ELBGC7...

Wherein you erroneously cited an obviously biased commentary from one "Michael Scare", who I mentioned by name to avoid the potential for any confusion in askance for a 'non-biased' source to support your position which was, apparently, a complete waste of my time:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/T85ELBGC7...

Hell, I even thanked you in advance...Silly me, huh?!

Now, if you could only explain to me how such World reknown institutions as the National Center for Biotechnology Information:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

The National Library of Medicine:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/

The National Institutes of Health:

http://www.nih.gov/

And the Centers for Disease Control (and Prevention):

http://www.cdc.gov/

(All of which I specifically referenced as MY sources of unbiased authorities for my position on the matter:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/T85ELBGC7... )

Do not count as "legitimate medical professionals", I'd really appreciate your enlightening me of such because these governmentak entities should all be held responsible for supplying the entire World with decades worth of disinformation.

Go ahead...!

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#14998 Dec 11, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
DOMA is obviously unconstitutionla. The federal government has no right to pick and choose which marriages to legally ricognize and which marriages no to legaly recognize. And numerous federal courts have ruled exactly this.
Now if you are going to maintain that they DO have that right, then what is to stop the federal government, or particular administration from time to time, from not legally recognizing marriages because of age ? Or ethnicity ? Or them simply saying we're not going to legally recognize ANY marriages from "State X" because we don't want to and that's our right as the federal government." ?
The point you seem to have overlooked is that, by pushing the issue to the level of the U.S. Supreme Court, you've forced the hand of the Supreme Court to define whether or not an individuals' sexual preference/orientation rises to a level equal to that of our inherent sexual disposition/genealogical gender designation, that is, does an individuals' mere sexual choice equate to an individuals' true sexual designation, among numerous other equally intensive inquiries all oriented towards examining the validity, if any, of sub-sex designations.

To put it in laymens' terms, you've thrown yourselves into the crucible of judicial legitimacy/under the microscope of judicial review and I, personally, do not feel that you'll hold up under the close scrutiny you're subjecting yourselves to.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#14999 Dec 11, 2012
ADDENDUM:

Afterall, look at how easily I've dissected your arguments and I'm not a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, I'm just some guy fiddling around on the Interwebs.

Imagine what it'll be like once THEY start reviewing the case(s)...It doesn't look good for the homosexual community, not good at all.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#15000 Dec 11, 2012
EDIT:

Just remember, YOU asked for it! Albeit DEMANDED it!

You really should be careful what you wish for....
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#15001 Dec 11, 2012
The Lone Gunmen wrote:
..
The statistics on homosexuality and its effects
Some statistics about the homosexual lifestyle:
* One study reports 70% of homosexuals admitting to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners .
* One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year . The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime.
* Many homosexual sexual encounters occur while drunk, high on drugs, or in an orgy setting .
* Many homosexuals don't pay heed to warnings of their lifestyles: "Knowledge of health guidelines was quite high, but this knowledge had no relation to sexual behavior" .
* Homosexuals got homosexuality removed from the list of mental illnesses in the early 70s by storming the annual American Psychiatric Association (APA) conference on successive years. "Guerrilla theater tactics and more straight-forward shouting matches characterized their presence" . Since homosexuality has been removed from the APA list of mental illnesses, so has pedophilia (except when the adult feels "subjective distress".
* Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States. They make up only 1-2% of the population.
* Homosexuals live unhealthy lifestyles, and have historically accounted for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the "gay bowel syndrome" (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus .
* 73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization .
* 25-33% of homosexuals and lesbians are alcoholics .
* Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands or, as one homosexual admits in the film "The Castro", one minute stands. Also, it is a favorite past-time of many homosexuals to go to "cruisy areas" and have anonymous sex.
* 78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs .
* Judge John Martaugh, chief magistrate of the New York City Criminal Court has said, "Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities" .
* Captain William Riddle of the Los Angeles Police says, "30,000 sexually abused children in Los Angeles were victims of homosexuals".
* 50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexuals .
Part 2
* Dr. Daniel Capron, a practicing psychiatrist, says,
"Homosexuality by definition is not healthy and wholesome. The homosexual person, at best, will be unhappier and more unfulfilled than the sexually normal person" . For other psychiatrists who believe that homosexuality is wrong, please see National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.
* It takes approximately $300,000 to take care of each AIDS victim, so thanks to the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals, medical insurance rates have been skyrocketing for all of us.
New York Gay parade
Close-up of one of the New York "Gay Parades"
We have zero abortions;
.
zero accidental pregnancies;
.
and zero orphans

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 2 min June VanDerMark 12,687
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 37 min Sitka 4,999
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 1 hr carter county res... 24,068
Why Are We Being Forced To Accept Homosexuality? (Feb '12) 1 hr Baron 959
News Inside Gays for Trump's Deploraball Dance Party 2 hr Cordwainer Trout 5
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr Respect71 44,157
News DeGeneres says her show is no place for anti-ga... 2 hr Phillip 340
More from around the web