Aripyanfar wrote:
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- LBGT Terrorism
LBGT TerrorismFollow
Just as Planned.
Marres wrote:
Oh, I see, so gay marriage would just be a "sexual lifestyle" and should be fine with everyone since it's like eating carrots, or something.
No, I didn't say SSM was a lifestyle. I said homosexuality is a lifestyle. Just because two men decide to marry, that doesn't make them homosexual.
Since it seems like you are being genuine, I will explain.
What I did was make a metaphor/simile. I was making a conceptual comparison between an action and a lifestyle and I used something that you could relate to in order to convey the difference. A single action doesn't make a lifestyle. You getting high after work once, doesn't make you a druggie. You getting high every weekend, makes you a druggie.
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
FTFY
I'm okay with you telling yourself that
You and I both know that isn't what you mean. I'm just giving you a nudge. I take "JUL" (Jophiel, Ugly, lolgax) more seriously than others.
Belkira wrote:
Calling someone a bigot is terrorism...?
Alma has gone off the deep end.
Alma has gone off the deep end.
Uh... no... I didn't say that.
Almalieque wrote:
Calling people bigots and homophobes who are either secretly gay or afraid of homosexuality because they simply don't accept homosexuality is terrorism in itself. You can't just start making up bogus reasoning on their beliefs and react to them. You are creating a hostile environment for people who disagree with your opinions and you have the audacity to belittle someone else for bolstering a "hate group".
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism?s=t wrote:
ter·ror·ism
   [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
   [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
Calling a bigot a bigot is not terrorism. Scaring people into agreeing with your beliefs, falls under these definitions. It's exactly why pro-homosexual supporters claim that FRC is a hate group. If it's valid one way, then it has to be valid the other way.
Why do you think Homosexuality is wrong, Alma? Your answer to that question, which odds are you will never actually answer, will let you know if you're a bigot or not.
Like I said previously, I think furries are creepy, as I can't quite wrap my head around sexualizing anthromorphic cartoon characters (Unless that character is Jessica Rabbit). However, I wouldn't campaign to prevent them from marrying, serving in the military, or working. As far as I'm concerned, two consenting adults in this country should be able to do whatever the hell they want in their bedroom. Legislating sexuality is pretty ******* stupid.
You don't approve of homosexuality due to your religion? That's cool with me. What isn't is the whole "Imma pick & choose which parts of the bible to believe in" & use a couple sentences (that most likely were actually referring to man-boy love & not homosexuality in general. But that's what happens when your 2K year old book gets translated & retranslated...but I digress) to justify Fred Phelps type behavior. How you could ever use the bible to justify hatred is beyond me...
You think gays are creepy? That's cool, but why?
You think gays are amoral, pedophiles, unable to serve in the military, shouldn't be able to marry (Legally. I fully support one's faith based aversion to homosexuals marrying in their church if its "against" their religion), & shouldn't have equal rights...well then you're either a bigot or overcompensating. Balls in your court, but I fully expect you to remain a coward.
Like I said previously, I think furries are creepy, as I can't quite wrap my head around sexualizing anthromorphic cartoon characters (Unless that character is Jessica Rabbit). However, I wouldn't campaign to prevent them from marrying, serving in the military, or working. As far as I'm concerned, two consenting adults in this country should be able to do whatever the hell they want in their bedroom. Legislating sexuality is pretty ******* stupid.
You don't approve of homosexuality due to your religion? That's cool with me. What isn't is the whole "Imma pick & choose which parts of the bible to believe in" & use a couple sentences (that most likely were actually referring to man-boy love & not homosexuality in general. But that's what happens when your 2K year old book gets translated & retranslated...but I digress) to justify Fred Phelps type behavior. How you could ever use the bible to justify hatred is beyond me...
You think gays are creepy? That's cool, but why?
You think gays are amoral, pedophiles, unable to serve in the military, shouldn't be able to marry (Legally. I fully support one's faith based aversion to homosexuals marrying in their church if its "against" their religion), & shouldn't have equal rights...well then you're either a bigot or overcompensating. Balls in your court, but I fully expect you to remain a coward.
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
Quote:
It's exactly why pro-homosexual supporters claim that FRC is a hate group.
Yeah, see when you use language like this, you've already lost. See those links I provided? The actions of FRC certainly DO make them a hate group
Omega wrote:
I think furries are creepy, as I can't quite wrap my head around sexualizing anthromorphic cartoon characters (Unless that character is Jessica Rabbit).
See? Everyone has their threshold.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Omega wrote:
I think furries are creepy, as I can't quite wrap my head around sexualizing anthromorphic cartoon characters (Unless that character is Jessica Rabbit).
If Puss-in-Boots purrs in Antonio Banderas, I could totally let the feline sleep at the foot my bed.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Marres wrote:
Yeah, see when you use language like this, you've already lost.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Almalieque wrote:
Elinda wrote:
age isn't arbitrary at all. it's beyond dispute that a child isn't an adult. a person that's 50 can't make the claim they're a child.
It's completely arbitrary. The age of an adult and level of maturity to do certain things (i.e. drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes) vary among cultures in the world. We picked an age that coincides with our laws. There is nothing life changing that happens to a person on their 18th birthday that s/he didn't posses 24 hours previous to that day.
Quote:
Elinda wrote:
likewise there is really no arbitrary line of acceptance for homosexuality. you can't deny people are gay. it's accepted. your acceptance is some kind of line where 'you' can decide how 'right' or wrong it is to be gay.
You're not understanding the concept. There is a line of acceptance in regards of what society thinks is right or wrong. That line will always exist. Currently p-philes, polygamists, etc. are considered as "unacceptable" in our culture. The current movement is to shift that line so homosexuality isn't included in that group as it once was.
When you can understand that, then maybe you can see how ridiculous it is to argue about acceptance (approval).
Edited, Aug 21st 2012 2:59pm by Elinda
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I see someone is being purposefully ignorant. Whatever floats your boat. So, I guess being a ***** isn't a lifestyle either huh? So, what defines a "lifestyle" Mr. Denial?
Since your sexuality does not have a significant impact on the way you lead your life aside from who you want to sleep next to it is not a lifestyle.
So once again, you're a @#%^ing ******.
Do you actually read these definitions or do you just quote them in the hopes that they say what you want them to say? First of all, when defining an "Is-A" relationship, you define the child (sexuality), not the parent (lifestyle), since we're talking about sexuality. Doing the reverse is a "Has-A" relationship. In other words, if you want to know if an apple is a fruit, you look up "apple", not "fruit".
In any case, let's continue down your backwards logic. Unless you believe the relationship you have with a person starts and ends in the bedroom, then it has a huge impact on your life. Do you expect to see monks and nuns trying to pick up hot dates in a club? Do you expect virgins who are saving themselves for marriage to put out on the first date? Do you expect whores to have a "90-day/5 date" rule before putting out? Do you expect someone who is sexually expressive to wear sexually conservative clothes? Do you expect a heterosexual to seek partners of the same sex?
Omegavegeta wrote:
Why do you think Homosexuality is wrong, Alma? Your answer to that question, which odds are you will never actually answer, will let you know if you're a bigot or not.
Like I said previously, I think furries are creepy, as I can't quite wrap my head around sexualizing anthromorphic cartoon characters (Unless that character is Jessica Rabbit). However, I wouldn't campaign to prevent them from marrying, serving in the military, or working. As far as I'm concerned, two consenting adults in this country should be able to do whatever the hell they want in their bedroom. Legislating sexuality is pretty @#%^ing stupid.
You don't approve of homosexuality due to your religion? That's cool with me. What isn't is the whole "Imma pick & choose which parts of the bible to believe in" & use a couple sentences (that most likely were actually referring to man-boy love & not homosexuality in general. But that's what happens when your 2K year old book gets translated & retranslated...but I digress) to justify Fred Phelps type behavior. How you could ever use the bible to justify hatred is beyond me...
You think gays are creepy? That's cool, but why?
You think gays are amoral, @#%^philes, unable to serve in the military, shouldn't be able to marry (Legally. I fully support one's faith based aversion to homosexuals marrying in their church if its "against" their religion), & shouldn't have equal rights...well then you're either a bigot or overcompensating. Balls in your court, but I fully expect you to remain a coward.
Like I said previously, I think furries are creepy, as I can't quite wrap my head around sexualizing anthromorphic cartoon characters (Unless that character is Jessica Rabbit). However, I wouldn't campaign to prevent them from marrying, serving in the military, or working. As far as I'm concerned, two consenting adults in this country should be able to do whatever the hell they want in their bedroom. Legislating sexuality is pretty @#%^ing stupid.
You don't approve of homosexuality due to your religion? That's cool with me. What isn't is the whole "Imma pick & choose which parts of the bible to believe in" & use a couple sentences (that most likely were actually referring to man-boy love & not homosexuality in general. But that's what happens when your 2K year old book gets translated & retranslated...but I digress) to justify Fred Phelps type behavior. How you could ever use the bible to justify hatred is beyond me...
You think gays are creepy? That's cool, but why?
You think gays are amoral, @#%^philes, unable to serve in the military, shouldn't be able to marry (Legally. I fully support one's faith based aversion to homosexuals marrying in their church if its "against" their religion), & shouldn't have equal rights...well then you're either a bigot or overcompensating. Balls in your court, but I fully expect you to remain a coward.
Nice try, but I'm sure that I asked you a series of questions. I've answered that question several times before. I have no problem going down that tangent, but not before closing up these other tangents. This is exactly what happens. People branch off unto other topics, then blame me for not "staying on topic". However, not answering is me "avoiding" the questions.
Answer my questions first, then we can talk.
Hint: It's none of those ridiculous reasons that you listed.
Marres wrote:
Quote:
It's exactly why pro-homosexual supporters claim that FRC is a hate group.
Yeah, see when you use language like this, you've already lost. See those links I provided? The actions of FRC certainly DO make them a hate group
You're reading too much into it. That statement wasn't meant to say that FRC was innocent, but to show the reasoning behind the accusation. You can't accept one line of logic to label someone a hate group, but then not for another.
Almalieque wrote:
There are fundamentally universal actions that all society considers as bad or good.
I don't want to be rude to you, but that is pretty laughably wrong.
A fair number of people think it's morally reprehensible for me to eat pork. Our views on when a girl is of proper marriageable and impregnable age differs widely for our own culture over time and for other cultures within the present. Pillaging, slaughter, and slavery were all pretty ok as long as it was perpetrated against the next tribe over. It's ok for a man to rape a woman, but it's not ok for a woman to be raped, because that's adultery.
What people think is right and wrong is highly mutable.
Almalieque wrote:
Is that what the women want? If that's what the women believe and want to do, then it's not oppression. Just because in our culture, we see that as negative, doesn't mean it's negative. When I went to college, I saw a variety of Muslim women who clothes varied from fully clothed to tank-top and mini shorts. We can't project our beliefs onto other people and say that they are being oppressed.
I guess I should have been more specific. Take an orthodox Muslim man who believes women should wear a burka, not be able to leave the home without a male escort, and should not participate in government. Many of the women of his society would like to be free from these rules and do consider it oppression. Do you think he believes he is oppressing women or rather that he believes he is doing the right thing?
Almalieque wrote:
If your thought is communal, then it isn't a thought of stealing, it's sharing.
But that's the point. IF I come by to get a pencil, and you're not there I might think it's ok to take it from you because I see pencils as communal. You don't think it's ok because a pencil is personal property to you.
You think I've stolen from you, but I don't think I've stolen from you. It's not that I know I did wrong but won't accept/admit it. I genuinely believe I've acted appropriately while you genuinely believe I've slighted you.
Almalieque wrote:
The original concept is specifically in reference to being a bigot and not knowing it. That is impossible.
But it is possible. Just like a religious man who is oppressing women but believes he is enforcing benevolent divine order or just like the pencil taker who doesn't see himself as a thief, Bigotry is in actions not feelings. When a bigot espouse separation of the races, most probably feel it is for the benefit of society and their children. "Blacks can do whatever they want, but we don't want them around us, dragging us down. Here's some research I found showing a correlation between blacks and crime."
Almalieque wrote:
Do you expect to see monks and nuns trying to pick up hot dates in a club? Do you expect virgins who are saving themselves for marriage to put out on the first date? Do you expect whores to have a "90-day/5 date" rule before putting out? Do you expect someone who is sexually expressive to wear sexually conservative clothes? Do you expect a heterosexual to seek partners of the same sex?
I don't get why you think this "arguing" is fun either, all you do is desperately try to derail the discussion to some tangent without ever having enough courage to give your own opinion or stand by that. And when someone tries to argue with you all you can do is run and hide behind some nonsensical comparison (like your persistent comparing of homosexuality and prostitution) while insisting that it is totally the same.
No offense to lolgaxe and others around here who are in the army but they must have some ridiculously low standards that someone with your intellect has been able to progress beyond cannon fodder.
EDIT: Well, that was a ******* waste of my 19k non ding.
Edited, Aug 22nd 2012 12:31am by Aethien
#88Almalieque,
Posted: Aug 21 2012 at 5:06 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That's not necessarily bigotry. You are just proving my point of not understanding the word. There is absolutely nothing bigoted about doing research about the correlation between blacks and crime. If anything, for the said community, it can be used beneficially. There are correlations between crime and every race, so you're not really providing anything that isn't already known. As long as you're not making stuff up or twisting facts around to mislead people into believing what you say, then it isn't inherently wrong to do such a study.
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
EDIT: Well, that was a @#%^ing waste of my 19k non ding.
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
Almalieque wrote:
As I said, there are also many women who willingly follow that lifestyle.
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
Alma, we get it! You hate women because they won't have sex with you. 
#92Almalieque,
Posted: Aug 21 2012 at 7:07 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Nope. Even though I only lived in the middle east for a short time, I've seen women cover themselves at different levels. What I was told prior to my deployment, matched exactly what I saw on my college campus and in Iraq and Kuwait. Traditional women cover themselves up completely, modern women may only have a veil. When I was downtown Kuwait, I saw the whole range of women. I can't say that holds true for everywhere, but I haven't seen a place to the contrary yet. Just because they choose to cover themselves up in support of their beliefs, doesn't mean that they are being oppressed. Not every country needs the US to "save" them.
If a woman in that situation is covering up, how do you magically decide she's Ok with it? Did you ask? Of course you didn't, because that's prohibited.
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
It is not whether or not the women in question are ok with it that makes it oppression. It's whether or not the women in question have a choice that matters when deciding if it is oppression or not. Since you like definitions so much (even though here's only a 5% chance you'll understand it):
Bolding mine.
The dictionary (at Google) wrote:
op·pres·sion Â
/əˈpreSHən/
Noun
Prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.
The state of being subject to such treatment or control.
/əˈpreSHən/
Noun
Prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.
The state of being subject to such treatment or control.
Bolding mine.
You people keep talking to Alma. Why?
Nadenu wrote:
You people keep talking to Alma. Why?
It doesn't count if I don't quote him... Right??
Belkira wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
You people keep talking to Alma. Why?
It doesn't count if I don't quote him... Right??
Alma wrote:
Nice try, but I'm sure that I asked you a series of questions. I've answered that question several times before. I have no problem going down that tangent, but not before closing up these other tangents. This is exactly what happens. People branch off unto other topics, then blame me for not "staying on topic". However, not answering is me "avoiding" the questions.
Answer my questions first, then we can talk.
Hint: It's none of those ridiculous reasons that you listed.
Answer my questions first, then we can talk.
Hint: It's none of those ridiculous reasons that you listed.
By all means, ask me some questions. I've got the balls to answer them, you have demonstrated consistently that you do not.
Coward.
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
Guenny wrote:
Alma, we get it! You hate women because they won't have sex with you.
#100Almalieque,
Posted: Aug 22 2012 at 3:31 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Uhh. You obviously don't read my posts.... I said that I already asked you questions and you haven't answered them. I guess you're a coward after all huh? Go figure. I mean, unless I overlooked your post, then I apologize.
Dear Alma,
Failing to acknowledge your own short-comings and attempted to cover them up with stupid rhetoric is what makes people sub-default you (ie - it's not your opinion that gets rated down).
I'm so ashamed I got sucked in. I'm saying ten "hail Uglies" in penance.
Failing to acknowledge your own short-comings and attempted to cover them up with stupid rhetoric is what makes people sub-default you (ie - it's not your opinion that gets rated down).
I'm so ashamed I got sucked in. I'm saying ten "hail Uglies" in penance.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Recent Visitors: 453
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (453)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- LBGT Terrorism
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC