Bush Aligns Himself With Southern Baptists (homophobic?)

[Lunar]

The so called "Religious Right".

Other civilized nations do not have this trouble.

Other civilized nations do not have a religious right?  Are you serious?

Japan and Eastern Europe are the only exceptions I can think of.

they exist but they don't wield as much power as in the US. the only nations that have more powerful ones are theocratic ones.

The only ones?  Is that what you want to believe?

Let's see: Israel, Ireland, and parts of Britain all have very strong "religious rights."  If you're branching out to all countries that aren't theocratic, then I can list thousands, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Egypt, Nigeria, Pakistan, most of South America, etc.  I don't know enough about most of these to give direct comparisons, but they all have strong "religious rights"

[Alfie]

Men and Men don't belong together. Basic biology tells you the plumbing don't fit. I don't consider oral sex sodomy.

You originally posted;


"I know a few homosexuals and they are really good people, their lifestyle however I find abhorent."

You then stated, upon request, that the "lifestyle" that you find "abhorrent" is "the sexual act of sodomy"[/i] (which is not a lifestyle, but rather, it is a sex act).  I raised to your attention the fact that over seventy five percent of heterosexuals engaged in oral sex, and (roughly) seven percent of heterosexuals engaged in anal sex.  I asked "where is your "abhorrence" with straights.  You reply;

"Men and Men don't belong together. Basic biology tells you the plumbing don't fit. I don't consider oral sex sodomy."

Hate to tell you this, but an anus is an anus..  That part of human plumbing is the same for men and for women.  

So your basis for "abhorrence" for Gays is set to a very different level thans straights, even though both hets and Gays practice this same "evil".  Is that about accurate?  Is that a factual statement?


- Alfie

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

"homophobia" arises in the sense that many people do not feel comfortable being around gays, much less so than being around other "sinners".  Joe Six-pack, who believes that adultery and stealing are wrong, views these transgressions as moral lapses that people wrongly fall into, whereas homosexuality is seen as a lifestyle...

Adulterers, thieves, and other "sinners" are NOT (late edit) trying to get their sins accepted as "acceptable".  Most "sinners" have sense enough not to throw their sins in public's face.  That's the difference.

[??????????]

Men and Men don't belong together. Basic biology tells you the plumbing don't fit. I don't consider oral sex sodomy.

You originally posted;


"I know a few homosexuals and they are really good people, their lifestyle however I find abhorent."

You then stated, upon request, that the "lifestyle" that you find "abhorrent" is "the sexual act of sodomy"[/i] (which is not a lifestyle, but rather, it is a sex act).  I raised to your attention the fact that over seventy five percent of heterosexuals engaged in oral sex, and (roughly) seven percent of heterosexuals engaged in anal sex.  I asked "where is your "abhorrence" with straights.  You reply;

"Men and Men don't belong together. Basic biology tells you the plumbing don't fit. I don't consider oral sex sodomy."

Hate to tell you this, but an anus is an anus..  That part of human plumbing is the same for men and for women.  

So your basis for "abhorrence" for Gays is set to a very different level thans straights, even though both hets and Gays practice this same "evil".  Is that about accurate?  Is that a factual statement?


- Alfie

The penis was not meant to enter the anus. It is not what the anus was designed for. The purpose of sex is procreation, homosexual sex produces no children. Men and men aren't supposed to lay together and yes it IS a lifestyle as homosexuals choose to be that way.

[Alfie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well WHAT do you think enters a woman's anus when engaging in anal sex?  AFAIK, heterosexual anal sex doesn't lead to procreation.  So WHERE OH WHERE is your "abhorrence" of heterosexuals who engage in anal sex?

you also state;

"...and yes it IS a lifestyle as homosexuals choose to be that way."

No, YOU choose to "see" it that way.  You set up your filters, and that  is what YOU "see"; it is not a "lifestyle" -- it's called SEX.

So Where Oh Where is the long-awaited condemnation of your het pals who choose to engage in sodomy via anal sex?


- Alfie

[??????????]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well WHAT do you think enters a woman's anus when engaging in anal sex?  AFAIK, heterosexual anal sex doesn't lead to procreation.  So WHERE OH WHERE is your "abhorrence" of heterosexuals who engage in anal sex?

you also state;

"...and yes it IS a lifestyle as homosexuals choose to be that way."

No, YOU choose to "see" it that way.  You set up your filters, and that  is what YOU "see"; it is not a "lifestyle" -- it's called SEX.

So Where Oh Where is the long-awaited condemnation of your het pals who choose to engage in sodomy via anal sex?


- Alfie

I am done with you Alfie. Homosexuality is wrong, plain and simple. It goes against nature as it's not natural.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

This conversation is going nowhere fast....

[Alfie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well WHAT do you think enters a woman's anus when engaging in anal sex?  AFAIK, heterosexual anal sex doesn't lead to procreation.  So WHERE OH WHERE is your "abhorrence" of heterosexuals who engage in anal sex?

you also state;

"...and yes it IS a lifestyle as homosexuals choose to be that way."

No, YOU choose to "see" it that way.  You set up your filters, and that  is what YOU "see"; it is not a "lifestyle" -- it's called SEX.

So Where Oh Where is the long-awaited condemnation of your het pals who choose to engage in sodomy via anal sex?


- Alfie

I am done with you Alfie. Homosexuality is wrong, plain and simple. It goes against nature as it's not natural.

Coordinated Universal Network Translation:  You, Senator, are a bigot.  "What do we have for the stoopid Senator, Jim?"

"We have Bigot, definition Number Two, Alf!!"

"2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion."

Ta, Mary!


- Alfie

[??????????]

You're a troll. Plain and simple. Have a nice day. Like I said you fit the argument to the "t".

If you agree with the so called "cause" or "plight" you are a hero to be raised up.

If you disagree you are a bigot, racist, chauvinist.

You sir hate America. Plain and simple and your posts show it. Have a nice day.

[Gustaf]

To Lunar, the argument still stands that there is no strong Religious Right in most Western European countries. Spain and Italy I'd say are the main exceptions. THen there's Poland in Eastern Europe as well. And I don't think we're counting non-democracies.

[Brambila]

Alfie, one thing you must be open to is the possibility that homosexuality is disordered. Although I’m all for keeping sodomy and civil unions legal, I think that America should halt for a second and realize that homosexuality is a disorder. We know this because studies done by Psychologists (even though the APA refuses to admit this) have shown clear studies that point homosexuality as a disorder. The premises of this thesis are the following.

Premis A) Homosexuality and Pedophilia have obvious links. In a study done by Journal of Sex Research, homosexuals compromise one third of child sex abuse cases. But the effect is a result of a cause, and the cause is from homosexuals having been molested themselves with 22% of lesbians and 46% of gays having been molested as children, according to Archives of Sexual Behavior. Further, in a study done by Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 20% of homosexual children have had sexual contact with men.

Premis B) Homosexuals live shorter lives than heterosexuals. This is on account of AIDS, promiscuity, and violence. A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, which is a famous study used to support homosexuality, reported in Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women that 43% of homosexuals have had sex with over 500 partners, and 28% have had over a thousand. This is clearly above the norm for heterosexuals. Journal of Interpersonal Violence reported that 31% of lesbians had reported incidents of physical abuse by their partners. Another study by Journal of Soicial Service Research[/] in a study of over a thousand lesbians found that over half had been abused by their female lover. In the book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence the author reported that domestic violence among homosexuals is double that of heterosexuals.   nternational Journal of Epidemiology reported:

In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age twentyfor gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.

Premis C) Suicide and Depression. Archives of General Psychiatry reported that homosexualsare 6.5 times more likely to commit suicide. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology studied lesbians and found that 75% of them seeked psychological counseling of some kind.

[Alfie]

Alfie, one thing you must be open to is the possibility that homosexuality is disordered. Although I’m all for keeping sodomy and civil unions legal, I think that America should halt for a second and realize that homosexuality is a disorder. We know this because studies done by Psychologists (even though the APA refuses to admit this) have shown clear studies that point homosexuality as a disorder. The premises of this thesis are the following.

Premis A) Homosexuality and Pedophilia have obvious links. In a study done by Journal of Sex Research, homosexuals compromise one third of child sex abuse cases. But the effect is a result of a cause, and the cause is from homosexuals having been molested themselves with 22% of lesbians and 46% of gays having been molested as children, according to Archives of Sexual Behavior. Further, in a study done by Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 20% of homosexual children have had sexual contact with men.

Premis B) Homosexuals live shorter lives than heterosexuals. This is on account of AIDS, promiscuity, and violence. A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, which is a famous study used to support homosexuality, reported in Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women that 43% of homosexuals have had sex with over 500 partners, and 28% have had over a thousand. This is clearly above the norm for heterosexuals. Journal of Interpersonal Violence reported that 31% of lesbians had reported incidents of physical abuse by their partners. Another study by Journal of Soicial Service Research[/] in a study of over a thousand lesbians found that over half had been abused by their female lover. In the book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence the author reported that domestic violence among homosexuals is double that of heterosexuals.   nternational Journal of Epidemiology reported:

In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age twentyfor gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.

Premis C) Suicide and Depression. Archives of General Psychiatry reported that homosexualsare 6.5 times more likely to commit suicide. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology studied lesbians and found that 75% of them seeked psychological counseling of some kind.

Lots of claims; zero linked cites.  Sorry, but I'll take a pass on your theories.   The "disorder" that I see spreading like wildfire in this country is the disease of groupthink -- of Rush and Sean and the other babblers of hate.  What does the APA say about them?

- Alfie

[Brambila]

They're not linked becuase I don't have links to them. Go search them yourself.

The APA is run by homosexuals (they took over the organization in 1971) so their opinion is of course going to be in support of homosexuality.

[??????????]

Brambila is tired of posting these links over and over on this forum.

[Alfie]

They're not linked becuase I don't have links to them. Go search them yourself.

The APA is run by homosexuals (they took over the organization in 1971) so their opinion is of course going to be in support of homosexuality.

Listen, Queen, you are the one who posted the crappy, half-assed tripe.  Most intelligent people provide a link so as to (a) verify they know what they are talking about; (b) afford the reader the opportunity to peruse the cited data, and (c) afford a richer, deeper context for their posting.  That you choose not to provide links is your business, but I must say, and with no small amount of regret, that it confirms the weakness of your position, however poorly stated it may have been.

As to the APA being a "homosexual" organization... let me give you a clue: you are talking through your hat.  You know jack.  Get your nose out of the gutter press and elevate your sights, and cites.

- Alfie

[The Duke]

Alfie, a few questions related to your tabbytitsworth pictures.

1. Is it accurate to say that no person who has not served in war can argue in favor of a war from a moral perspective?

2. Would this mean that someone who was born deaf, blind, or paralyzed or became such before turning 18, and therefore could not have served has no moral right to argue in favor of their opinions, even in a free society?

3. Would this mean that an openly gay person, also prohibited from serving in the military, has no moral right to argue in favor of their opinions, even in a free society?

4. Should I take your posts to mean that you believe that a veteran who is now homeless and addicted to heroine has a moral right or intellectual expertise to argue for a war, but foreign policy luminaries do not have this moral or intellectual expertise and should not argue in favor of their opinions, even in a free society?

5. Should I assume that you do not support the concept of civilian control of the military?

6. Should I assume that you opposed Bill Clinton's intevention in Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo, and Iraq?

7. Should I assume that you believe that, because no non-veteran is qualified to mount a war effort, that no non-veteran should ever be President since they are not qualified to be commander-in-chief of the armed forces?  Should I also assume that you voted for Dole in 1996 and Bush in 1992?

Hope to hear your answers soon .

[Lunar]

I have another question

8.  Taking into account that none of those images are particularly clever, why do you keep posting the same ones irrelevant of the subject matter?  How about you just post a link and whenever we feel the urge to look at them, we'll know how to satisfy it.

[Mr. Fresh]

Men and Men don't belong together. Basic biology tells you the plumbing don't fit. I don't consider oral sex sodomy.

lol, States, I love your posts.  You give me a good laugh quite a bit.  

[Alfie]

Re: Lt. Gov Ford's Query (or "What Becomes a Chicken Hawk Most?")



What is a Chicken Hawk?  Typically, three criteria need be met:

#1:  To be worthy of his feathers, a candidate for Chicken Hawkhood must have had the opportunity and ability to serve their nation.  Directly tied to criteria #1 is criteria #2:

#2:  Said person, who chose not to serve their nation, becomes an advocate for war.  War can be defined as the invasion or occupation of a sovereign state.

#3:  Said person believes war is a preferred solution, and during the conduct of the war will seek to glorify it.

I chuckled when I read your post, the word “moral” dripping all over the screen.  War is immoral.  It is the worst possible solution to most modern challenges.  It is an unspeakable vulgarity that guts civilizations.  In precious few circumstances war is a scalpel, and in a skilled surgeon’s hand, a scalpel is tool to lope off a tumor – a radical mastectomy that scars, but saves


To your queries:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have yet to hear a “successful” argument for modern war from a moral perspective.  Modern being post WWII.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See criteria #1.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See criteria #1

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Everyone has a right to argue, just as everyone has a right to call someone a Chicken Hawk.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why would you assume that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now there’s a carefully chosen word – ”intervention”[/b].  And (Gasp!) to isolate your examples to Clinton!  Cuts no ice with me, Mister.  I believe the adventures of President Truman through and including Bush to be folly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I believe war is immoral, it doesn’t matter whether the CIC is a vet or not.  No, I did not vote for Bush or Dole, or any Pug at any level, ever.  

BTW, are you implying that Bush is a (gak!) veteran?  Please!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My pleasure.

- Alfie

[The Duke]

First of all, George Herbert Walker Bush is a veteran of World War II, the youngest fighter pilot to have served in that war.

Second, war and intervention can be used almost interchangably.  Kosovo was a 72 day long bombing campaign, I described it as an intervention.  It could have easily and accurately been called a war as well.

Third, when asked whether someone could argue for war from a moral perspective without having served, I was asking not whether war was moral, but whether they had a moral right to argue for war.  I wouldn't imagine that this changes your answers though, since you believe that war is immoral.  Very well, you have chosen to claim that all war since World War II was immoral (knowing that you could not defend a policy of non-intervention against the Nazis and Japanese).  But you were willing to say that all wars from Truman to Bush were "folly".  So a new set of questions:

1. Why was it immoral for the United States to defend South Korea from foreign invasion?

2. Why was it immoral to defend Kuwait from foreign invasion?

3. Was it immoral to topple the Taliban, even after it became clear beyond any reasonable doubt that they posed a threat to innocent civilians around the world?

4. Was the United Nations, and by extension, nearly every government in the world, immoral for having sanctioned those wars?

5. Was it more moral for America NOT to intervene in Rwanda with military force than it would be had we gone in, guns blazing?

6. Since you say it does not matter whether the CIC is a veteran or not, because war is immoral, are veterans also by extension unqualified for the office having participated in such immoral behavior?

7. If #6 is true, doesn't that obligate you not to vote for John Kerry?  How about Al Gore?