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

[Tom_Wescott]

I don't know. In spite of white America's mistrust and fear of the black man, we gave him the right to vote before women and elected one president first. There are very few women in upper politics, and even fewer who actually belong there. According to polls, women aren't particularly keen to vote one of their own president, and I could see them putting a gay in office first, because women just LOVE them some gays. As for men, we'd vote just about anything in to office to keep a woman out. To be honest, if Obama doesn't pick it up and become the 'man of change' he promised, I think America will deem it a failed experiment and we will not see a president who isn't a hetero white male in our lifetime. He's safe for another term, due to the Republican party's inability to produce a candidate who is even remotely worthy of the office. But after that, it's back to Wonder bread.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

It would depend on the person slinging the arrow at me as to whether I'd get angry, hurt, or find it amusing.

Know what you mean.

Incidentally, I believe a gay man will be elected president in the U.S. before a woman ever is.

Unlikely. Has almost happened in France and Germany, with several influential ministers/the mayors of Paris and Berlin having been openly gay, showing their partner publicly etc.. FYI, Germany's current foreign minister is openly gay (and he's a total douchebag, unrelated to his gayness).

As a by the by: Historical presidential election in France today, with François Hollande taking over Sarkozy. Expected to be followed by the SPD and the Green Party winning the German election in the fall. Wouldn't hurt if the EU axis shows a bit more governmental control against the bank lobby.

[Tom_Wescott]

None of those words mean anything to me on their own. It would depend on the person slinging the arrow at me as to whether I'd get angry, hurt, or find it amusing.

Incidentally, I believe a gay man will be elected president in the U.S. before a woman ever is.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

yet the media continues to perpetrate the myth about second-hand smoke

So sayeth the smoker. As for secondary smoke exposure, just try sitting for 20'min. at a bistrot in Paris. You'll get an entire secondary pack of Gitanes, lol. From all sides of the table.

Yeah, alcoholics and drug addicts are another group who no longer have to be held accountable. In America, drunk driving kills more people than cancer

Not just in America.
But there are non active alcoholics and struggling alcoholics, Tom, those who can't even drink one glass without restarting. As a matter of fact, one of my bosses (not the American one) happens to be a functional alcoholic. (No wonder he hired me, lol.) Has revolutionized the field and has never had a DUI. In spite of. And sometimes I can smell brandy on his breath at 11.00 a.m.. On days he knows not to drive.

Originally Posted by mariab
Tom, what about the label "gay", does it have negative power?

Of course it does. Always has, always will. I hope that was a rhetorical question.

Hmm. More than "racist" and "nazi"? And the REAL, historical implications of these epithets?

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom, what about the label "gay", does it have negative power?

Of course it does. Always has, always will. I hope that was a rhetorical question.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Yeah, alcoholics and drug addicts are another group who no longer have to be held accountable. In America, drunk driving kills more people than cancer, yet the media continues to perpetrate the myth about second-hand smoke (which has never claimed a life) while for the FIRST TIME IN 50 YEARS the major networks are allowing hard liquor products to be advertised. A kid wouldn't have a clue who Joe Kamel is, but he could sure tell you all about the Budweiser Frogs!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Wow, did you take pictures? Is the delivery of a gay baby different from that of a straight baby? What color of cigar do you hand out?

Smartie. Maybe gayiness comes cuz the mother was playing Cher when she was pregnant.
But I truly believe that in many, many cases the "gay gene" exists, as does the "alcoholic gene". Though it tends to fluctuate between different cases of different people.

I personally feel these words have no power whatsoever, so bring 'em on. I ain't scared of no feminazis!

Tom, what about the label "gay", does it have negative power? And how about being scared of gays? Or being scared about being perceived as gay? (By a certain wiki author, ROFL.)

For the record, I'm neither gay, nor bi, nor an alcoholic. Just happen to think that sometimes they're fun people to hang out with. Unlike Robert, I wouldn't say that the idea of homosexuality repels me. It just doesn't move my furniture. But I say, live and let live.

[Tom_Wescott]

As for gay people having been born gay, I've observed it and heard about it by acquaintancies.

Wow, did you take pictures? Is the delivery of a gay baby different from that of a straight baby? What color of cigar do you hand out?

Hi Robert,

Great post. Like you, I rarely think about this kind of stuff. But it appears a lot of other people do and for some reason are given quite a loud mouthpiece these days to force their views upon the rest of us. I think it's reprehensible to punish someone for being gay, or even to hate them. I also find the bigotry evinced on this thread to be reprehensible and thought someone should speak up against it. There are many, quite unlike myself, who wish to avoid being publicly labeled a homophobe or misogynist and therefore choose to keep their opinions to themselves (which is of course WHY these labels are used in the way you see on this thread). I personally feel these words have no power whatsoever, so bring 'em on. I ain't scared of no feminazis!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[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. :-)

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[Robert]

Oh blimey!

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