Pastor Urges Parents to "Man Up" and Punch Effeminate Children

[Ally]

You have to wonder if that pastor would advise that parents encourage "manly" behavior in their young sons. Every time they belch, fart, scratch their private parts or smash a beer can into their head, you slap them on the back and say "nice job, son. Now you're getting it."

c.d.

LOL...

[Limehouse]

then it's because you are choosing to date girls despite your overwhelming desire to go down on a guy

How in the hell you can continue to pull this crap, attack people who dont agree with you, chase useful posters off this site and not get banned is beyond me. get a life.

To be fair to Ally, she was responding to quite a provocative and offensive post.

Not only did Tom associate being gay with a 'defect' he went on to categorise it with seriously illegal sexual perversions.

[mariab]

To be fair to Ally, she was responding to quite a provocative and offensive post.
Not only did Tom associate being gay with a 'defect' he went on to categorise it with seriously illegal sexual perversions.

I can almost understand how people who don't have contact with gay people in their life can be so uninformed as to associate being gay with a defect (or being lefthanded as a defect, lol), but anyone under the impression Tom was genuine when associating being gay with, whatever it was, pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, took that post at face value. Anyone who can spell "Rorschach test" correctly in another thread cannot be SOOO retarded. Tom simply likes to provoke. It validates him to put on a show as the resident "redneck" and then complain with all his whiney might that "everyone hates him", "the world is out to get him", "noone accepts his suspect". Lol. It's completely transparent.

I would love to see you take a Rorshach test. Your unwavering ability to overlook compelling evidence in favor of the irrelevant and mundane is a much bigger mystery to me than who killed Stride.

PS.: On second thought, he didn't spell "Rorschach test" right. I wouldn't have either. That and "Saskatchewan" has always been a spelling "tongue twister", lol. At least I can spell "Macnaghten".

RPS.: Pertaining to gender confusion, last night when producing the flyer/program for my conf I butchered a couple of peeps' names and spelled a "Lesley" as a "Leslie". Boy, she was pissed. (Plus spelled a "Falk" as "Frank", but this is unrelated. He got whiney.)

[Errata]

And no, I can't admire people or "work with" people who admit that they are judging for actions they know the person is incapable of helping. That would be no different than wishing a life time of loneliness on a white guy because he's in love with a black girl, or a skinny guy who is in love with a fat girl, or any other attraction. Knowing someone cannot help who they love and condemning them for it anyway makes you even more despicable in my view. Ignorance, while pathetic, is a defense, but knowing someone is suffering and damning them for it for your own ego and comfort, makes you a tool and far worse in my opinion.

Well, I wasn't thinking about it in terms of damning people for their homosexuality. Most of the homophobes of my acquaintance are the colossally vain variety, where they think gay men will hit on them or sexually assault them. It doesn't occur to them that a gay man might not find them attractive, or that gay men are aware that straight men exist and respect that choice. And they don't go the "your going to hell" route, or the "beat the gay out of them" type. They typically just get profoundly anxious in the company of homosexuals. Which is unkind and unwarranted, but I get the same way about children, so I'm not unsympathetic to the notion of being uncomfortable around people who haven't done anything wrong. So when I see some guy white knuckling it through a social activity with a gay man, and he admits that it's not the gay man's fault, I feel like the kid is not entirely a lost soul. My best friend was like that, and it took about 5 years, but we beat it out of him. We made fun of him mercilessly and kept telling him that "god is love, but friends are awful", and unless he wanted to go out and make a new pack of friends, he should embrace god's love of all mankind and build up a tolerance before we drove him mad.

[Archaic]

If the need is a male influence, we need to target absent fathers rather than blame single mothers?
Men...get your act together...think of a way to get these men to bring up their sons?!

I agree with you Debs. And I agree with Drummond who said that children need male and female role models as well as exposure to diversity. Children are young human beings; therefore they need HUMAN role models.

Legislators in the state of Wisconsin want to pass a law saying that being a single parent is de facto "child abuse".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/02/glenn-grothman-wisconsin-law-single-parenthood-child-abuse_n_1316834.html

It's insane. Supposedly this bill will "promote marriage". Won't letting gay people who sincerely want to be married promote marriage?

As for parents, if you get married but divorce the day after the baby is born, is that OK? If your spouse dies of cancer and you choose not to remarry, are you a child-abuser?

Just for the record, 1 in 3 Wisconsin parents are single. There are 5 times as many female single parents as male single parents. Lets just hope those single parents have the time & energy to vote!

There seem to be a lot of pastors, preachers etc in America. Do they pass exams and get appointed to these positions, or can anyone open a church?

There is one requirement Robert: You have to have absolutely perfect hair. (Expensive suits and blindingly white teeth help.)

Best regards,
Archaic

[Magpie]

Well, I wasn't thinking about it in terms of damning people for their homosexuality. Most of the homophobes of my acquaintance are the colossally vain variety, where they think gay men will hit on them or sexually assault them. It doesn't occur to them that a gay man might not find them attractive, or that gay men are aware that straight men exist and respect that choice.

I've met a lot of homophobes for whom the only thing worse than the idea of a homosexual man hitting on them is the idea that a homosexual man might not find them attractive....

[Robert]

Hi Bunny

Ah, the American teeth! Why do they do it? You can't have a 60-year-old bloke sporting dazzling white choppers. It just looks silly.

[Archaic]

Hi Bunny

Ah, the American teeth! Why do they do it? You can't have a 60-year-old bloke sporting dazzling white choppers. It just looks silly.

Combined with plastic surgery and Botox, I think it looks scary!

Some of them look like perfectly coiffed white-fanged wax dummies from a horror show... it creeps me out.


OK... some of them don't have perfect hair. Unless you're into pink My Pretty Pony hair.

[Robert]

Oh blimey!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8R0hB65G7T0

[Tom_Wescott]

To be fair to Ally, she was responding to quite a provocative and offensive post.
Not only did Tom associate being gay with a 'defect' he went on to categorise it with seriously illegal sexual perversions.

Well, considering that in nature, we and all animals are born to procreate, if one is to argue that homosexuality is a born trait, then that person is clearly arguing that it is a birth defect. Any barrier to procreation must be. That's not theoretical, it's nature. That's a no brainer. And yes, it is a perversion. Perhaps none of you know what that word means. Again, I'm surprised by Robert and his exceptionally naive (though politically correct) stance on the issue. I don't think anyone does a person any good by denying who and what they are, so let's be honest here. Homosexuality, regardless of whether you love it or hate it, is a perversion. If you want to believe you're born that way, then you should accept it as a birth defect. And you can't simply argue that only THIS perversion, which is last year's cause celebre (this year's appear to be weak children, with the new buzz word being 'bully'), is a birth defect, without arguing that the same might be true for the currently less socially acceptable perversions, such as pedophilia. I wonder how many years away we are from pedophiles being coddled and told there's nothing wrong with them and it's not their fault? Maybe Todders & Tiaras will be expanded into an entire network for them? It's coming, and when it does, I've little doubt those on this thread will jump on that bandwagon too. Robert is like 60 and yet pretends he's ALWAYS thought gays were born that way and this is the first time anyone's pointed out it's a sexual perversion. Puhleeeze.

Look up on this post and read my quote from Limehouse again. Was not homosexuality at one time a seriously illegal offense? Do you think 100 years ago anyone could have imagined that ever changing to the extent it has today? Of course not. On this I'm certain we can all agree. Just remember THAT when you're arguing that homosexuality should be separated from other sexual inclinations that the majority today consider to be perversions. How long until we're looked upon as close-minded as we see our recent ancestors? Scary.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Very funny to me how the gays used to herald the 'Don't ask, don't tell' law as a breakthrough for their cause, yet now regard it as homophobic in the extreme.

[Tom_Wescott]

Well, I wasn't thinking about it in terms of damning people for their homosexuality. Most of the homophobes of my acquaintance are the colossally vain variety, where they think gay men will hit on them or sexually assault them. It doesn't occur to them that a gay man might not find them attractive, or that gay men are aware that straight men exist and respect that choice. And they don't go the "your going to hell" route, or the "beat the gay out of them" type. They typically just get profoundly anxious in the company of homosexuals. Which is unkind and unwarranted,

Listen to yourself. Homophobes are specifically the people who beat up gays for being gay, or look them in the eye and tell them they're going to hell. These people you know who do not participate in (and quite likely condemn) such behavior cannot be homophobes. You appear to be condemning THEM for the feelings that come natural to them. And you feel justified in this behavior? Does it not matter to you that THEY might feel their behavior is justified? And how is it unkind if they're not verbally or physically expressing their discomfort? Sounds to me like they're going out of their way to BE kind and considerate? But that's not good enough for you?

My point is simply that Errata is a bigot, as are most of you. No offense, and I don't hold it against you, but you're all bigots. But she's a a socially acceptable bigot, in the way the KKK was 100 years ago, or separatists were 50 years ago, etc. So no worries. Just keep calling everyone else racist, homophobe, misogynist, bigot, etc so you can keep patting yourselves on the back for being so 'open-minded'. LOL. Bunch of ****in brainwashed sheep, but I love ya.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Well, considering that in nature, we and all animals are born to procreate, if one is to argue that homosexuality is a born trait, then that person is clearly arguing that it is a birth defect. Any barrier to procreation must be. That's not theoretical, it's nature.

FYI Tom, homosexuality has been observed on animals. Not domestic animals, but in wildlife conditions. And even with stray dogs. (Or so I've heard about the dogs).

Was not homosexuality at one time a seriously illegal offense? Do you think 100 years ago anyone could have imagined that ever changing to the extent it has today?

Learn you history, Tom. In the antiquity, in the Renaissance and in the 17th/18th century homosexuality was NOT perceived as a perversion. The condemnation of homosexuality (for hardly 2 centuries, the 19th and part of the 20th) is a very recent and short-lived occurrence if you consider the entire human history.

Just remember THAT when you're arguing that homosexuality should be separated from other sexual inclinations that the majority today consider to be perversions.

Tom, you're appearing completely confused here! Don't even attempt the biology argument. Biology evoluates, and species develop or drop the traits that they need/don't need over time. Even Darwin knew that. Today with the overpopulation of the planet and the natural resources being endangered (and with the easy access to contraception) procreation is slowly but increasingly being reduced, quasi abandoned in the Western world. Mainly the Third World procreates today compared to previous centuries.
What classifies as a factor for separating homosexuality from the other sexual inclinations you mentioned is the LEGAL factor. Pedophilia, bestiality, lust murdering are illegal cuz they lack consent. Homosexuality doesn't – unless it were rape. Got it now?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Maria. You mean to say that scientists in the wild followed around specific animals and observed them having only same sex relations and not procreating with members of the opposite sex? Those are some patient scientists! In any event, you seem to be thinking that what you're telling me contradicts what I said, but it doesn't at all as I never said what was true for humans wasn't true for other animals. I would assume it would be, and if YOU believe humans are born gay, then I would presume you would believe other animals are as well.

Learn you history, Tom. In the antiquity, in the Renaissance and in the 17th/18th century homosexuality was NOT perceived as a perversion. The condemnation of homosexuality (for hardly 2 centuries, the 19th and part of the 20th) is a very recent and short-lived occurrence if you consider the entire human history.

So there were no laws against homosexuality? Leonardo didn't allegedly get in trouble for this? And you mean to say that prior to the 1900's, homosexuals were embraced? The Bible was written in the 1800's? Can you name me one significant leader who was openly gay? Okay, how about one INsignificant leader who was openly gay? Okay, forget about leaders. How about an influential man who was openly gay and had a 'life partner'? There must be a massive list of them somewhere, since homosexuality wasn't 'condemned' prior to the 1800's.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Robert]

Hi Tom

Well, I think that's the first time anyone's accused me of being politically correct.

I can't say that I've always thought that gayness is inborn, for the simple reason that I hardly ever think about gays. They don't loom large on my horizon, except when they're funny. If someone says he's gay, that's cool. If someone says he doesn't like gays, that's cool too. Why should I meddle with people's likes and dislikes? The trouble only starts when you get compulsion - when the guys who dislike gays beat them up, or when the gays get laws passed which tell people whom to employ, whom to let their hotel rooms to etc.

I wouldn't say we're born to procreate. What we end up doing will be a combination of our genetics, our environmental influences and our choices. Obviously the majority of people do procreate, else we wouldn't be here. Obviously some of the procreation might be a deliberate choice to procreate, but it can happen without any thought of procreation at all. From nature's point of view, a male animal desires simply to copulate with a female animal. The resultant offspring appear like a jack-in-the-box. You would need to use the language of the subconscious to argue that the male animal's "ultimate aim" is to father offspring.

Sure, in evolutionary terms homosexuality is a dead end, and parents are probably secretly disappointed on learning that their children are gay. Bang go the grandchildren. But there is no risk that homosexuality will lead to the extinction of the species.

As far as my own personal feelings are concerned, the thought of having a homosexual experience repels me. But so does the thought of eating cold fish, or listening to Barbara Streisand's singing. It doesn't bother me if other people have homosexual experiences - even if they eat cold fish and listen to Barbara Streisand while they do it.

[mariab]

Hi Maria. You mean to say that scientists in the wild followed around specific animals and observed them having only same sex relations and not procreating with members of the opposite sex? Those are some patient scientists! In any event, you seem to be thinking that what you're telling me contradicts what I said, but it doesn't at all as I never said what was true for humans wasn't true for other animals. I would assume it would be, and if YOU believe humans are born gay, then I would presume you would believe other animals are as well.

Lol. Point taken. As for gay people having been born gay, I've observed it and heard about it by acquaintancies. Of course, there are tons of gays who lived in confusion and hesitation before they "came out of the closet". Not to mention those who got a wife and kids at an early stage, before they figured out that they were gay.

The Bible was written in the 1800's?

There are even historians who have argued that Jesus and his disciples – you know what. At that time it wouldn't have been unusual, Tom. The Romans truly did it. A lot!

Can you name me one significant leader who was openly gay? Okay, how about one INsignificant leader who was openly gay? Okay, forget about leaders. How about an influential man who was openly gay and had a 'life partner'? There must be a massive list of them somewhere, since homosexuality wasn't 'condemned' prior to the 1800's.

Try ALL the ancient Egyptians, ancient Greeks, ancient Romans. Though I should have clarified and said "bi", not just gay. In the antiquity women were for the most part considered as commodities for procreation while sexual relations between men were considered as the "higher, more intellectual" thing to do. Even Plato features quotes like that.

My point is simply that Errata is a bigot, as are most of you. No offense, and I don't hold it against you, but you're all bigots. But she's a a socially acceptable bigot, in the way the KKK was 100 years ago, or separatists were 50 years ago, etc. So no worries. Just keep calling everyone else racist, homophobe, misogynist, bigot, etc so you can keep patting yourselves on the back for being so 'open-minded'. LOL. Bunch of ****in brainwashed sheep, but I love ya.

I appreciate it that you're thinking outside of the box of political correctness, Tom. Only in this case you're making the mistake of becoming a reductionist (vs. a minimalist, lol!), as you're only focusing on this from your point of view and esp. from our current time. You have to look at the big picture, at the entirety of human history. Plus humans are developing (in a Darwinian fashion, if you want) both biologically and as a society. It never stops. Thus you can never say "It should be done like this because it was like this in the past."

in evolutionary terms homosexuality is a dead end

You know, the way life on our planet is evolving, it's starting to appear that procreation's a dead end, lol. :-)