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

[Ally]

More gay people than blue eyed people? You've lost your mind. And I think green eyes is the aberration, is it not? And red hair? So, you've decided that there is no such thing as 'birth defect', even though it's a defined term? Humans and the vast majority of animals are intended to be attracted to the opposite sex. You said so yourself when you wrote that to be otherwise is an aberration. Therefore, no, my attraction to the opposite sex is not a personal choice I made, but is as nature intended. Same with the fact that I'm not attracted to small children, or compelled to murder people to get my rocks off.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hate to break it to you, but blue eyes are totally on the decline. In another 20 years, there will be more people born gay in the United States than will be born with blue eyes. Gays number about 8 percent of the population and blue eyed people currently being born at about a 10 percent rate, and declining. So eventually yes, blue eyes will be outnumbered by gays. I should have made that more clear, but yes, currently, blue eyes are about as rare a genetic mutation as gays.

See I love how you keep saying "as nature intended" but when natural examples of animals and whatnot come up, you say "I DON'T CARE ABOUT ANIMAL gays". You cannot use "as nature intended" in your argument when you completely discount all the natural studies that PROVE YOU WRONG. Obviously, nature didn't intend everyone to be straight, otherwise there wouldn't be so many examples of ANIMALS in NATURE having gay pair bonds. Dur.

To be other than brown eyed and right handed is an aberration as well, just like gays, but you don't see nutballs like you stating that people ought to choose to use their right hands (any more) and surgically improve their eyes.

[Errata]

And Errata, finding it disgusting to watch two males go at it does not make someone homophobic. Friendships happen on their own terms. If you're going out of your way to make gay friends, then you're either gay yourself, or you've got something to prove to yourself and are using gay people to that end. I think straight women who surround themselves with gay men have the same issues as the women who get into relationships with prisoners who will never get out.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Yeah. See, I'm pretty sure I defined homophobia in my previous post. It is the irrational fear of homosexuals. So of course, no. "Finding it disgusting to watch two males go at it" is not homophobia. I find it disgusting to watch two males go at it. Two females to go at it. Two heterosexuals go at it. Two people having sex is never aesthetically pleasing. "An industrial film covered in fur" I believe is the quote. However, there is a very simple solution to this problem of yours. Stop watching gay men have sex.

My best friend was terrified of getting hit on. He had an irrational fear of gay men. Lesbians he was fine with. So his problem was neither ideological nor religious. It was fear. A fear that was interfering with his work and social life.

As for my life, despite the fact that it is none of your business, I am an open book. I was gang raped at the age of 12. I have discussed this before on here. Not unpredictably, it screwed with my ideas of sex and attraction. Now it is entirely possible I was bisexual before the attack, but given that it was at the age when I just starting to develop attractions, we'll never know. I do know that my early relationships were with women. Slowly, as I started to heal and stop being afraid of men, I was able to admit to my attraction to males.

I do not regret the relationships I had with women. They were extraordinary, deeply caring, devoted to my healing, and they put up with a lot of crap from an angry and scared girl trapped in a woman's body. They saved my life. Literally on a few separate occasions. And I am still attracted to women, though obviously I will never again be in a relationship with one. Which goes for men as well. And I am engaged to a man. In truth, I do not consider myself bisexual. I consider myself heterosexual with a fine appreciation for the female form.

As for my friendships, I do not surround myself with gay men. I worked in theater for 15 years, and my friends are from that realm. Yes, many of them are homosexual. Male and female. In goes with the territory. My best friends on this planet consist of two women and three men. All heterosexual. The reason I said that people cannot hate gay people and be friends with me is because of my personality and my politics. People cannot be friends with me and be aggressively Christian. Nor can they be friends with me and think a woman's place is in the home. They can have those beliefs. They have a right to them. But I am always going to confound those beliefs. I will never agree with them, those kinds of views are such a huge part of someone's personality. In essence, it will always be oil and water, and while there are some subjects that people can agree to disagree on, there are some that people cannot. I will not change myself to suit their fundamental beliefs. I'm never going to not be butch. I'm never going to be a Christian. I'm never going to alter my views on civil rights and social equality, and I'm damn sure not going to become some meek and mild female to preserve a friendship. Love me, love my personality, my world view, my right to a dissenting opinion, and my passion. Because if you don't love those things about me, you don't love me. They ARE me.

By the way, homosexuality is at 8% worldwide, while blue eyes is at 2%. a birth defect is defined as
"a physical or biochemical defect (as cleft palate, phenylketonuria, or Down syndrome) that is present at birth and may be inherited or environmentally induced"
and a defect is defined as
"a lack of something necessary for completeness, adequacy, or perfection"
so clearly "birth defect" (which is a dated term by the way) does not apply to homosexuality. Heterosexuality is not required for adequacy or completeness, and hell... nobody's perfect.

[Errata]

And by the way, what on earth does homosexuality have to do with effeminate boys?

[Magpie]

Yeah. See, I'm pretty sure I defined homophobia in my previous post. It is the irrational fear of homosexuals.

Just to be nitpicky (but it's an important nitpick), "phobia" actually means a irrational or disproportionate aversion to something--which may include, but is not limited to, fear.

[Errata]

Just to be nitpicky (but it's an important nitpick), "phobia" actually means a irrational or disproportionate aversion to something--which may include, but is not limited to, fear.

Indeed. Point taken. From a treatment standpoint, a phobia triggers the atavistic survival reaction. Fight or flight. A homophobic would react poorly to being hit on, or even touched by a homosexual. It would trigger an atavistic reaction. Possibly even a violent one. But some douche who thinks beating up gay kids is hilarious is not phobic. No matter how profound their disgust. Nor are people who think lesbians are "hot" and gay men are "gross". That's just insecurity.

If you look at any other phobia, there is a recognition that it is irrational. Arachnophobes acknowledge that spiders can't help being spiders, nor are they to blame for the arachnophobe's fear. People who are afraid of flying do not despise those who do fly. Coulrophobics may not understand what could possibly make someone dress up as a clown, but have no problems with those who do as long as they aren't dressed as clowns. And dentophobics do not try to destroy the institution of dentistry.

So there is a difference between genuine homophobia and a culturally or ignorance induced loathing of a lifestyle that harms no one. Which is not to say that I am okay with any and all sex practices. I am not. Which is why I don't participate in them. And would rather not hear them described in detail, but I don't especially want to hear even the most mundane sexual practices described in detail. But if you want to participate in those sex practices and it only involves adults who have given informed consent, knock yourself out. There are real problems in the world, we don't need to focus on people's consenting lifestyles. I mean, not for nothing, but if you can't have a conversation with a guy without thinking about him having sex with another guy, maybe you need to explore that particular fascination. Because I talk to all kinds of people without picturing them in any kind of sexual situation. Ever.

[Limehouse]

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.

Firstly, Tom, I personally do not believe it is true that we are born to procreate. Many people cannot procreate or choose not to, but most of them live worthy and valuable lives. I would therefore also take isue with the idea that homosexuality is a 'birth defect'. To me, it is a variation.

Secondly, when you equate homosexuality with paedophilia you are overlooking the fact that homosexuality is between consenting adults whereas paedophilia is not. Children cannot consent to sex, adults can.

It is true that homosexuality was once illegal in the UK and is still illegal in some countries. However, that does not make the act a perversion. The law can be in error. For example, in Victorian times, sex between two men was illegal but it was perfectly legal to have sex with a 12 year old girl.

Finally, you have a right to express your views, I would never deny that, but people have the right to challenge your views.

[mariab]

I find it disgusting to watch two males go at it. Two females to go at it. Two heterosexuals go at it. Two people having sex is never aesthetically pleasing. "An industrial film covered in fur" I believe is the quote.

You've just decimated the porn industry, lol.
Which, by the by, (and for completely transparent reasons) would almost have us believe that all women are naturally bisexual. It's interesting (and pretty transparent) to note that most men would pleasantly watch two women going at it, but not two men.
Personally I'd rather watch 2 gay guys going at it that two lezs. Might learn something. (Technically speaking.)

[c.d.]

Two guys together? I wonder if they both fall asleep immediately afterward?

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

Errata,

Yes, it's no secret that molestation at an early age is a common trait among lesbians. This is a good example whereby such an 'orientation' is neither a choice or inborn.

Ally and Limehouse,

But brown eyes aren't as pretty as blue. And IF they're on the decline in the U.S., they won't be for long. So, what are your opinions about the substantial percentage of lesbian couples who have sex with dogs?

Secondly, when you equate homosexuality with paedophilia you are overlooking the fact that homosexuality is between consenting adults whereas paedophilia is not. Children cannot consent to sex, adults can.

Well, duh. But that's a law. My point is that a true pedophile has no more control over his sexual inclination than a gay. Having said that, I would never be mean to a gay, but I would happily infringe upon the rights of a child molester if I caught one in the act. I'm in Oklahoma, so I doubt I'd get in much trouble. I'm not opposed to giving real sex offenders the option of chemical castration over a prison sentence. By real sex offenders, I mean those who do harm, as opposed to prossies and johns who shouldn't be lumped in with rapists and molesters.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

So, what are your opinions about the substantial percentage of lesbian couples who have sex with dogs?

Lol. Or snakes?

Yes, it's no secret that molestation at an early age is a common trait among lesbians. This is a good example whereby such an 'orientation' is neither a choice or inborn.

Sounds very much like a choice to me, Tom, conscious or not.

My point is that a true pedophile has no more control over his sexual inclination than a gay. {...} By real sex offenders, I mean those who do harm, as opposed to prossies and johns who shouldn't be lumped in with rapists and molesters.

Agree, yet you did throw in the gays in the same category as pedophiles. Maybe cuz in reality you do get the fact that for both in most cases it's an inborn inclination.

[Tom_Wescott]

Yes, and gays fit in with pedophiles in regards to what we're discussing, though clearly they are legally and morally different. And pedophiles are notoriously bad dressers, which might be why they often stick to all black outfits with little white neck collars.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Yes, and gays fit in with pedophiles in regards to what we're discussing, though clearly they are legally and morally different.

Good. Then we finally came full circle and got this cleared, and this is precisely why I didn't take your post comparing homosexuality to pedophilia/bestiality/lust murdering at face value from the start, as stated in my post #48.

And pedophiles are notoriously bad dressers, which might be why they often stick to all black outfits with little white neck collars.

:-)

[Ally]

Ally and Limehouse,

But brown eyes aren't as pretty as blue. And IF they're on the decline in the U.S., they won't be for long. So, what are your opinions about the substantial percentage of lesbian couples who have sex with dogs?

Since you are now just going off with your irrelevant offensive stupidity, rather than even attempting to pretend you have a reasoned argument, I will presume that you are well aware you have no rational ground on which to stand, are well aware that your prejudice is simply your irrational fear of your own desires to do guys, and that you prefer to play the obvious buffoon rather than just admitting you have no argument.

Enjoy your irrelevant tangents.

[Tom_Wescott]

If you know any lezzies, just tell them you read somewhere that a lot of lesbian couples have large dogs, etc. and ask if it's true. I think you'll be shocked at what you learn. Oh sure, your friends might not be into that, but I can assure you many will know what I'm talking about.

And blue eyes are prettier than brown. That's a fact, not an opinion. No way they're on the decline.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

You're kinda methodical, Tom. You started with gays. Now it's lezzies. You should do she-males as next.