Homosexuality and Abortion

Plaro wrote:

So let him express that agitation and homophobia. He has the right to speak his mind and emotions as he is not hurting anyone in the process of it.

Nobody is treading on him, cowboy.

Why is it do you dolts think you are experiencing censorship when you're accused of homophobia? If you can't handle a bit labeling/name-calling, then you're every bit a part of the pussification of males that you claim to fighting against.

It's a form of social censorship intended to push his views outside the bounds of "respectable discourse". The very term itself is a clinical one which indicates that there is something psychologically wrong with disliking homosexuals, even though it is perfectly ordinary.

It's extremely dishonest for liberals, who mostly control public discourse, to accuse conservatives of being weak for not gladly tolerating liberal bullying.

Dave wrote:

It's a form of social censorship intended to push his views outside the bounds of "respectable discourse". The very term itself is a clinical one which indicates that there is something psychologically wrong with disliking homosexuals, even though it is perfectly ordinary.

It's extremely dishonest for liberals, who mostly control public discourse, to accuse conservatives of being weak for not gladly tolerating liberal bullying.

Liberals are simply interpreting the rule of law in liberal societies. This is worth mentioning since you have described yourself as a liberal in the past.

Dave wrote:

The very term itself is a clinical one which indicates that there is something psychologically wrong with disliking homosexuals, even though it is perfectly ordinary.

I would agree that it's strategically dangerous to conflate fear with hatred. Fear is something which can be dissolved with education and experience, unlike loathing which implies something more visceral and which liberals lack the critical framework and methodology to address.

Anyway, I voted Other. We should abort all the non-homosexual foetuses and sell them to upscale restaurants.

Drlee wrote:

It is amazing that these days we still have the hee-haw crowd who are so frightened by homosexuals. I don't know what scares them so much unless it is fear of their own feelings.

Anyway Godstud is right. Homophobia is anything but harmless. And homophobes are nothing but stupid.

I don't know ANYONE who is afraid of homosexuals. Having hatred towards certain people is not even in the same ballpark as fear.

Donald wrote:

Liberals are simply interpreting the rule of law in liberal societies. This is worth mentioning since you have described yourself as a liberal in the past.

In the classical sense I could be called a liberal in that I believe in a meritocratic society governed by law rather than status, clique, or superstition. Today's liberals are wholly illiberal in that they routinely oppose the rule of law and seek to impose a pseudo-theocracy of liberal values and myths. We are entering into a new puritan period of religious hatred.

Rei wrote:

I'd love for you to expand on this. Somehow, I've never really thought about it like that before, and I don't want to colour the statement by trying to guess around, so I can only say "tell me more".

I think pansy bashing is something which will continue to exist as a social phenomenon, and exists fairly separately from middle class lip service about "tolerance awareness". Meanwhile liberals will gradually lose their vocabulary if everything they don't like is made into a pathology.

It's not really a phenomenon. I can perfectly understand pansy bashing. It's disgusting to see weak, lazy, soft people in this world being a drain on the world's resources. There are many strong, hard working, tough people in this world busting their asses to get stuff done and get ahead, so of course they're gonna be fucking pissed when they come into contact with weakness.

Exactly. All us forthright, manly men aren't gonna see any righteous busting of asses around here if all we have is a society of weak, flaccid, soft individuals. We want only the strongest, toughest, most cocksure gentlemen to take on the noble and tradition-steeped rite of assbusting. Not weak, lazy, soft huh?

Right, and the weakest and softest are those who see homosexuality as any kind of threat to their manhood and marriages.

On the other hand, everything but fully clothed heterosexual intercourse is out... right TP? Surely it would be pure effeminate weakness to let any of those soft, decadent girlybits get in the way of what should be a manly and respectable occasion.

Holt wrote:

Exactly. All us forthright, manly men aren't gonna see any righteous busting of asses around here if all we have is a society of weak, flaccid, soft individuals. We want only the strongest, toughest, most cocksure gentlemen to take on the noble and tradition-steeped rite of assbusting. Not weak, lazy, soft huh?

I don't understand what you're trying to say...

You're reading into me the wrong way.

You raised the issue of "pansy bashing". I'm responding to that specifically, not gay bashing. Yes many gays are weak and effeminate but they don't have to be.

I definitely agree that many of today's gays lack the working class culture they had during the years of liberation. On the other hand, these particular gays aren't terribly distinguishable from a lot of yuppie straight men. The post-industrial service-based economy allows people to bypass a lot of character-building experiences.

The thing that I don't understand about gays is this:

If someone who's gay is feminine and they want to have a masculine male to be with, how can their partner who thinks the same way they do possibly get anything out of it? Assuming that all gays feel like women on the inside, they all want real men. So theoretically wouldn't gay men prefer STRAIGHT men over other gay men? Or do half of gay men want a gay, feminine man to dominate over?

I just don't get homosexuality. I just think it's twisted and fucked up.

I don't really care about their sex lives. Why should I?

Feminine men are pursued if they are attractive to someone else.

Would you like a finger-puppet demonstration, TP?

^It's not that I can't picture it happening, Donald, but I just don't understand WHY it happens.