More Gay Ranting
A while ago I put this post up which made the following request in the comments section:
Here are some simple facts that you can't dispute. Homosexuality is a high-risk lifestyle. Allowing SSM opens the door to polymagy and sanctioned pedophilia. Don't think it'll happen? Look at the history: gays pushed to have their lifestyle decriminalized all the while saying "we don't wan't equality". Then they pushed for equality while stating, "don't worry, we don't want to get married". Now their pushing for marriage all the while chirping that "we don't like young boys". Do you see a trend there? Can you really trust them when they say that they don't have a agenda?
Now to your inevetable arguments:
Yes, you can call me a bigot or discriminatory but it won't boost your argument. Unlike those from the left, I'm not scared of a label. Especially when it's applied by those from the left. (ie MOONBATS)
Yes, you can accuse me of hate speech but that won't help you either. If you're a homosexual that has "hurt feelings" because of what I've typed, you'll just have to suck it up and accept it "princess". People have opinions other than yours.
If you're going to present research by the gay shrink with the APA, dont. The fact that the researcher is gay renders his work null and void because of his personal bias. His lifestyle is at stake depending on the outcome of his work.
Further to the above point, you will also need to bear in mind that the APA is also the organization that put out a report stating that "pedophilia is not harmfull to children". The APA itself has been discredited for this major error.
If you're going to present other articles or research in support of homosexuality or gay marriage, dont. Every single work you produce will, in one way or another, be traced back to the gay researcher with the APA.
Lastly you need to understand that I understand how homosexuals are being used by the socialists in an effort complete the breakdown of the family as the cornerstone of society. Said cornerstone is to be replaced by the "nanny state".
Finally, there was a comment in the (blogscanada) post that got my attention. It read as follows: "So I have to ask: if the Conservatives are willing to offer homosexual couples the rights to marriage in all but name, what’s in the name?" Using that logic, we could rename the holiday on Oct 31 (currently haloween)to "Christmas". In fact we could call every holiday "Christmas". Think about it. Marriage is something unique unto itself just as Christmas, Haunaka and (sic) Kwanza are unique.
If there are any of you moonbats that think you're smart enough to provide a proper argument against any of my points you'll be able to find me here: http://nomoresocialism.blogspot.com/
My favorite homosexual finally responded and I've provided his text below. My own response to his comments are contained in brackets.
Well, my favourite troll has thrown down the gauntlet regarding same sex marriage. How can I possibly resist so ridiculous a rant? Therefore, let's take this piece by piece:
(those who read me regularly know that I prefer to doit piece by piece)
"Homosexuality is a high-risk lifestyle."
Well, I won't bother asking what 'high risk' means in this context; I'll assume that, like the rest of the world, Rich is talking about AIDS, once known as GRID or Gay-Related Immune Deficiency, before straight people started getting it too, and other sexually transmitted diseases.
(Lets look at that for a second. Did VN just state that AIDS was a gay disease before the rest of us got exposed to it? Did he just say that the Gay community was responsible for the plague of the 20th century? Wow, that's a loaded statement and I'm going to have to put a seperate post together to cover it. Back to the business at hand. As a matter of fact, I was refering to STD's but also included violence and suicide.)
Now I'll grant you that some pretty large segments of the gay community are at high risk to contract AIDS or other STDs. Well? So are heterosexual swingers who bang 15 heterosexual partners a night.
(Another admission as to the current state of homosexual affairs. Notice that VN doesn't argue the point that homosexuality is a high risk lifestyle. Instead he compares it to "Swinging". I'm sorry VN but swinging isin't condoned either and you can't use it to justify homosexuality. I've done some research on swinging and did you know that a very large number of the people involved are bi-sexual?)
See where I'm going here? The major reason gays are at 'higher risk' for AIDS than straights is because straight culture is inculcated heavily with the ideals of monogamous relationships and ** --}} MARRIAGE {{-- **, whereas gay culture is heavily inculcated with a swinging, polyamourous sexual culture due primarily to the historic lack of social and legal recognition of their monogamous relationships and ** --}} MARRIAGES {{--**. No, it's not just about gay vs. straight, it's about monogamy vs. promiscuity in this context.
(Monogamy is not something that comes with a marriage certificate and if you think it does, you're in for a rude awakening. It's something that comes from a comittment between two parties. I know several individuals who are not monogamous in their marriages and conversely, know numerous couples who are not married yet remain faithful to each other. MONOGAMY IS A PERSONAL CHOICE!)
Monogamous married couples, especially those who are lauded and sanctioned by society and the law rather than castigated and denied equal rights, are less at risk to contracy AIDS. Therefore, granting gay marriages legal recognition will decrease the risk factor of STDs in the gay community.
(Monagmous couples, regardless of their social position are at a lower risk for disease because they are, by deffinition, NOT SLEEPING AROUND. Issuing a marriage certificate will not stop AIDS as VN is asserting in that sentence.)
That being said, what the hell difference does it make to this debate? Is being at 'high risk' of contracting or spreading diseases a factor to consider when deciding if people should be allowed to marry? We don't even do this for genetic diseases and defects like Tay-Sachs or Downs Syndrome, let alone mere communicable diseases. What the hell kind of game are you playing?
(My biggest point is that by granting SSM we consequently legitimize a high-risk and dangerous lifestyle. VN's own admission that AIDS was the result of homosexuality should put that in perspective as they not only endangered themselves, they've put the rest of us at risk as well. Homosexuals do not procreate. They have to bolster their numbers somehow. Legitimizing the lifestyle will make their recruiting easier.
As a side note: Notice how VN tries to minimize the impact of STD's by putting them next to "genetic diseases" and uses the term "mere communicable diseases". I don't know about anyone else but I think it's the "mere communicable diseases" that we have to be worried about. That's why they're used in biological weapons dumbass!)
I'll ignore the other possible interperetation of this comment, at least for now, as being too degrading and moronic a thought to be worth my attention.
"Allowing SSM opens the door to polymagy and sanctioned pedophilia."
I don't personally see a major problem with polyamourous marriages, but I find it unlikely that they will be legalized until I'm either very old, or very dead.
(Support for polymagy. Check!)
As to pedophilia, it is my personal intuition that no democratic society is ever going to tolerate legalized child-rape.
(Rape and pedophilia are different things. Consent is the key factor there. Keep it in mind because it'll come up again in a few minutes.)
See, that's the great thing about slippery slopes: they can lead anywhere you want them to. Exactly what evidence is Mr. Evans offering to back up these claims? None, because there is never concrete eveidence for any such claim.
(Here's a quote from Eagle Canada as a part of some survey/petition they were circulating:
"12. Age of Consent - The Criminal Code provides different ages of consent for different types of sexual activity. The age of consent for vaginal intercourse (14) is four years younger than the age of consent for anal intercourse (18). Canadian Courts have ruled that unequal age of consent laws are unconstitutional and actually undermine education efforts about the spread of HIV by driving behaviour underground and impeding young people”s access to information which could save their lives.
Q. 12: Do you support reducing the age of consent for anal intercourse to ensure an equal age of consent for all sexual activity?"
Having read that, one has to ask exactly why these individuals want to make it legal for a 40 year old man to have anal sex with a 14 year old boy? Why exactly is that? Is it really because they wan't to do more to promote the HIV issue? Would education really be any different if the age of consent were changed? For further information on the age of consent issue click here. Here's a quick question: What's it sound like when a gay bubble bursts?)
All you can do is look at the realities around you, and the reality is, we're not asking for any kind of drastic change to the way marital relations and contracts are defined. We're not asking to be allowed multiple marital partners. We're not asking to be legally allowed to rape children; nor would we, since child rape is just as repugnant to every kind of non-pedophile in the world, and the vast majority of the people in the gay community are not pedophiles (being that they're gay, and gays are not pedophiles, nor are pedopholes gay; gays are gay, and pedophiles are pedophiles. End of story.)
(Look at the realities around us? We are. Probably should have done it long ago. Anyway, moving on. VN says that they're not asking for multible partners even though he likes the idea. I'm of the opinion that changing the deffinition of marriage will give him and those like him the option to push the issue should they choose to do so. It should be noted that VN does envision a day when polymagy is mainstream as his earlier comments illustrated.
VN states that they are not asking to be allowed to legally rape children. Well, now, here's the thing. If a homosexual gets a 14 year old boy to consent to the sex, it's not rape. It is still sex with a child though which is, by all definitions, pedophilia.
Now, as for the "pedophiles aren't gay" comments: There is an organization of MEN who like to have and in fact promote, having sex with BOYS. The organization is called North American Man Boy Love Assn. (NAMBLA). Is VN asserting that these pedophiles are NOT gay?
Is VN asserting that homosexuality is not a factor whenever a man molests a male child?)
All we're asking for is the same right every straight person takes for granted: the right to legal recognition of our marriage to the person of our choice.
(Well, if you're dead set on getting married, go strait and get it done.)
"Don't think it'll happen? Look at the history: gays pushed to have their lifestyle decriminalized all the while saying "we don't wan't equality". Then they pushed for equality while stating, "don't worry, we don't want to get married". Now their pushing for marriage all the while chirping that "we don't like young boys". Do you see a trend there? Can you really trust them when they say that they don't have a agenda?"
Well that's a bloody glib way of summing up the entire gay rights movement. Not to mention a completely uneducated, moronic way. I'd be fascinated if you were to supply me with a quote from a gay rights activist who said they wanted their lifestyle decriminalized, but didn't want equality.
(What follows should be a start. I'll post more in the comments section as I dig them up again:
"...the gay movement in Canada never made legal recognition of same-sex marriages a primary concern. Many early liberationists found that cause far too "accomodationist" to warrant serious effort. (1971 We Demand, Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives, http://www.clga.ca/)"
No, Rich, we've always wanted equality. We're not idiots; we know, and have always known, that our equality can only be achieved one step at a time. Decriminalization was the first step towards equality. Official protection from discrimination and homophobic violence was the next step towards equality. Marriage rights are just the most recent step we're taking toward equality. All we want, Richard, the only agenda we have, is the agenda of equality, the agenda of being treated like the human beings we are.
(Alrightythen, there is an agenda. VN uses the term equality, I use the term normalization. Said agenda has little to do with monogamy from what I can tell and is geared toward acceptance.)
Lastly you need to understand that I understand how homosexuals are being used by the socialists in an effort complete the breakdown of the family as the cornerstone of society. Said cornerstone is to be replaced by the "nanny state".
Oh? We're looking for the right to form stable, nuclear ** --}} FAMILIES {{-- ** just like you straights, and yet ultimately we are nothing but pawns in some sinister socialist scheme to destroy... what was that ... the ** --}} FAMILY? {{-- ** So now who's engaging in paranoid ranting?
(As I've posted previously, the gay community has little idea that they are being used by the socialist movement to destabilize the family unit. Here's a quote from "New Socialist Magazine":
"...So, how can such an institution possibly be part of the plan for queer liberation? Well, only in the limited, partial way that all bourgeois rights are. Think, for instance, of same-sex pension benefits. Integrally wound up with capitalist power relations and structures of legitimacy, they are simply an individualist solution to a social issue. Nonetheless, it’s important to fight for queer access to private pensions if only to expand rather than limit the options and rights of individuals in the here and now. It’s also critical to acknowledge that socialist-feminist and queer liberationist forces are too weak to influence the terms of public debate. We can only intervene, which in this case means intervening on a terrain shaped by a constitutional argument on the one hand and bigotry on the other. If the religious right prevails (or even makes significant inroads) today, it will be emboldened to pursue its agenda further, attacking abortions, daycare, teaching evolution in schools and more. And that-taking the wind out of the sails of the right-is one of the most important reasons to support Bill C-38...")
So in summation, Richard Evans' reasons for denying gays the right to marry? Irrelevant, undemonstrable, uneducated, and plain paranoid. Now come back when you have a real argument to make.
(Argument made. And, frankly, you make it too easy VN)
There. I didn't once use the word bigot, nor did I quote any unbiased studies, since the entire American Psychological Association is apparently infected with the sinister Gay Socialist Agenda Meme.
{phew}
Now I AM SO F*****G SICK AND GODDAMN TIRED OF GODDAMN HATEMONGERING BIGOTS TELLING ME I'M A F*****G PEDOPHILE just because I happen to like c**k as much as I like c**t. Well, let me tell you, I'm the one in a position to know, and I certainly don't want to rape children. Nor does anyone I personally know in the gay community. In fact, if I found out one of them was raping children, I wouldn't even bother calling the cops until I had personally CASTRATED the sick asshole. YOU STUPID F***S. HOW MANY F*****G TIMES DO WE HAVE TO F*****G SAY IT. WE'RE NOT PEDOPHILES. WE'RE GAY. GAYS ARE NOT PEDOPHILES, AND PEDOPHILES ARE NOT GAY. GAYS ARE GAY. PEDOPHILES ARE PEDOPHILES. END OF FUCKING STORY. So stop watching the 50's propaganda films and get your head into the 21st century, Richard. Believe me, I want all the pedophiles' nuts cut off just as much as you do.
Sry for the rant. This is just one particular piece of bigoted hatemongery that pisses me off to no end.BTW, Rich, my preferred pronoun is Zie (zer in the possessive), and I'd appreciate if you used it. After all you wouldn't want me referring to you as an 'it', now would you.
(That was special VN. Do you feel better now?)
Here are some simple facts that you can't dispute. Homosexuality is a high-risk lifestyle. Allowing SSM opens the door to polymagy and sanctioned pedophilia. Don't think it'll happen? Look at the history: gays pushed to have their lifestyle decriminalized all the while saying "we don't wan't equality". Then they pushed for equality while stating, "don't worry, we don't want to get married". Now their pushing for marriage all the while chirping that "we don't like young boys". Do you see a trend there? Can you really trust them when they say that they don't have a agenda?
Now to your inevetable arguments:
Yes, you can call me a bigot or discriminatory but it won't boost your argument. Unlike those from the left, I'm not scared of a label. Especially when it's applied by those from the left. (ie MOONBATS)
Yes, you can accuse me of hate speech but that won't help you either. If you're a homosexual that has "hurt feelings" because of what I've typed, you'll just have to suck it up and accept it "princess". People have opinions other than yours.
If you're going to present research by the gay shrink with the APA, dont. The fact that the researcher is gay renders his work null and void because of his personal bias. His lifestyle is at stake depending on the outcome of his work.
Further to the above point, you will also need to bear in mind that the APA is also the organization that put out a report stating that "pedophilia is not harmfull to children". The APA itself has been discredited for this major error.
If you're going to present other articles or research in support of homosexuality or gay marriage, dont. Every single work you produce will, in one way or another, be traced back to the gay researcher with the APA.
Lastly you need to understand that I understand how homosexuals are being used by the socialists in an effort complete the breakdown of the family as the cornerstone of society. Said cornerstone is to be replaced by the "nanny state".
Finally, there was a comment in the (blogscanada) post that got my attention. It read as follows: "So I have to ask: if the Conservatives are willing to offer homosexual couples the rights to marriage in all but name, what’s in the name?" Using that logic, we could rename the holiday on Oct 31 (currently haloween)to "Christmas". In fact we could call every holiday "Christmas". Think about it. Marriage is something unique unto itself just as Christmas, Haunaka and (sic) Kwanza are unique.
If there are any of you moonbats that think you're smart enough to provide a proper argument against any of my points you'll be able to find me here: http://nomoresocialism.blogspot.com/
My favorite homosexual finally responded and I've provided his text below. My own response to his comments are contained in brackets.
Well, my favourite troll has thrown down the gauntlet regarding same sex marriage. How can I possibly resist so ridiculous a rant? Therefore, let's take this piece by piece:
(those who read me regularly know that I prefer to doit piece by piece)
"Homosexuality is a high-risk lifestyle."
Well, I won't bother asking what 'high risk' means in this context; I'll assume that, like the rest of the world, Rich is talking about AIDS, once known as GRID or Gay-Related Immune Deficiency, before straight people started getting it too, and other sexually transmitted diseases.
(Lets look at that for a second. Did VN just state that AIDS was a gay disease before the rest of us got exposed to it? Did he just say that the Gay community was responsible for the plague of the 20th century? Wow, that's a loaded statement and I'm going to have to put a seperate post together to cover it. Back to the business at hand. As a matter of fact, I was refering to STD's but also included violence and suicide.)
Now I'll grant you that some pretty large segments of the gay community are at high risk to contract AIDS or other STDs. Well? So are heterosexual swingers who bang 15 heterosexual partners a night.
(Another admission as to the current state of homosexual affairs. Notice that VN doesn't argue the point that homosexuality is a high risk lifestyle. Instead he compares it to "Swinging". I'm sorry VN but swinging isin't condoned either and you can't use it to justify homosexuality. I've done some research on swinging and did you know that a very large number of the people involved are bi-sexual?)
See where I'm going here? The major reason gays are at 'higher risk' for AIDS than straights is because straight culture is inculcated heavily with the ideals of monogamous relationships and ** --}} MARRIAGE {{-- **, whereas gay culture is heavily inculcated with a swinging, polyamourous sexual culture due primarily to the historic lack of social and legal recognition of their monogamous relationships and ** --}} MARRIAGES {{--**. No, it's not just about gay vs. straight, it's about monogamy vs. promiscuity in this context.
(Monogamy is not something that comes with a marriage certificate and if you think it does, you're in for a rude awakening. It's something that comes from a comittment between two parties. I know several individuals who are not monogamous in their marriages and conversely, know numerous couples who are not married yet remain faithful to each other. MONOGAMY IS A PERSONAL CHOICE!)
Monogamous married couples, especially those who are lauded and sanctioned by society and the law rather than castigated and denied equal rights, are less at risk to contracy AIDS. Therefore, granting gay marriages legal recognition will decrease the risk factor of STDs in the gay community.
(Monagmous couples, regardless of their social position are at a lower risk for disease because they are, by deffinition, NOT SLEEPING AROUND. Issuing a marriage certificate will not stop AIDS as VN is asserting in that sentence.)
That being said, what the hell difference does it make to this debate? Is being at 'high risk' of contracting or spreading diseases a factor to consider when deciding if people should be allowed to marry? We don't even do this for genetic diseases and defects like Tay-Sachs or Downs Syndrome, let alone mere communicable diseases. What the hell kind of game are you playing?
(My biggest point is that by granting SSM we consequently legitimize a high-risk and dangerous lifestyle. VN's own admission that AIDS was the result of homosexuality should put that in perspective as they not only endangered themselves, they've put the rest of us at risk as well. Homosexuals do not procreate. They have to bolster their numbers somehow. Legitimizing the lifestyle will make their recruiting easier.
As a side note: Notice how VN tries to minimize the impact of STD's by putting them next to "genetic diseases" and uses the term "mere communicable diseases". I don't know about anyone else but I think it's the "mere communicable diseases" that we have to be worried about. That's why they're used in biological weapons dumbass!)
I'll ignore the other possible interperetation of this comment, at least for now, as being too degrading and moronic a thought to be worth my attention.
"Allowing SSM opens the door to polymagy and sanctioned pedophilia."
I don't personally see a major problem with polyamourous marriages, but I find it unlikely that they will be legalized until I'm either very old, or very dead.
(Support for polymagy. Check!)
As to pedophilia, it is my personal intuition that no democratic society is ever going to tolerate legalized child-rape.
(Rape and pedophilia are different things. Consent is the key factor there. Keep it in mind because it'll come up again in a few minutes.)
See, that's the great thing about slippery slopes: they can lead anywhere you want them to. Exactly what evidence is Mr. Evans offering to back up these claims? None, because there is never concrete eveidence for any such claim.
(Here's a quote from Eagle Canada as a part of some survey/petition they were circulating:
"12. Age of Consent - The Criminal Code provides different ages of consent for different types of sexual activity. The age of consent for vaginal intercourse (14) is four years younger than the age of consent for anal intercourse (18). Canadian Courts have ruled that unequal age of consent laws are unconstitutional and actually undermine education efforts about the spread of HIV by driving behaviour underground and impeding young people”s access to information which could save their lives.
Q. 12: Do you support reducing the age of consent for anal intercourse to ensure an equal age of consent for all sexual activity?"
Having read that, one has to ask exactly why these individuals want to make it legal for a 40 year old man to have anal sex with a 14 year old boy? Why exactly is that? Is it really because they wan't to do more to promote the HIV issue? Would education really be any different if the age of consent were changed? For further information on the age of consent issue click here. Here's a quick question: What's it sound like when a gay bubble bursts?)
All you can do is look at the realities around you, and the reality is, we're not asking for any kind of drastic change to the way marital relations and contracts are defined. We're not asking to be allowed multiple marital partners. We're not asking to be legally allowed to rape children; nor would we, since child rape is just as repugnant to every kind of non-pedophile in the world, and the vast majority of the people in the gay community are not pedophiles (being that they're gay, and gays are not pedophiles, nor are pedopholes gay; gays are gay, and pedophiles are pedophiles. End of story.)
(Look at the realities around us? We are. Probably should have done it long ago. Anyway, moving on. VN says that they're not asking for multible partners even though he likes the idea. I'm of the opinion that changing the deffinition of marriage will give him and those like him the option to push the issue should they choose to do so. It should be noted that VN does envision a day when polymagy is mainstream as his earlier comments illustrated.
VN states that they are not asking to be allowed to legally rape children. Well, now, here's the thing. If a homosexual gets a 14 year old boy to consent to the sex, it's not rape. It is still sex with a child though which is, by all definitions, pedophilia.
Now, as for the "pedophiles aren't gay" comments: There is an organization of MEN who like to have and in fact promote, having sex with BOYS. The organization is called North American Man Boy Love Assn. (NAMBLA). Is VN asserting that these pedophiles are NOT gay?
Is VN asserting that homosexuality is not a factor whenever a man molests a male child?)
All we're asking for is the same right every straight person takes for granted: the right to legal recognition of our marriage to the person of our choice.
(Well, if you're dead set on getting married, go strait and get it done.)
"Don't think it'll happen? Look at the history: gays pushed to have their lifestyle decriminalized all the while saying "we don't wan't equality". Then they pushed for equality while stating, "don't worry, we don't want to get married". Now their pushing for marriage all the while chirping that "we don't like young boys". Do you see a trend there? Can you really trust them when they say that they don't have a agenda?"
Well that's a bloody glib way of summing up the entire gay rights movement. Not to mention a completely uneducated, moronic way. I'd be fascinated if you were to supply me with a quote from a gay rights activist who said they wanted their lifestyle decriminalized, but didn't want equality.
(What follows should be a start. I'll post more in the comments section as I dig them up again:
"...the gay movement in Canada never made legal recognition of same-sex marriages a primary concern. Many early liberationists found that cause far too "accomodationist" to warrant serious effort. (1971 We Demand, Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives, http://www.clga.ca/)"
No, Rich, we've always wanted equality. We're not idiots; we know, and have always known, that our equality can only be achieved one step at a time. Decriminalization was the first step towards equality. Official protection from discrimination and homophobic violence was the next step towards equality. Marriage rights are just the most recent step we're taking toward equality. All we want, Richard, the only agenda we have, is the agenda of equality, the agenda of being treated like the human beings we are.
(Alrightythen, there is an agenda. VN uses the term equality, I use the term normalization. Said agenda has little to do with monogamy from what I can tell and is geared toward acceptance.)
Lastly you need to understand that I understand how homosexuals are being used by the socialists in an effort complete the breakdown of the family as the cornerstone of society. Said cornerstone is to be replaced by the "nanny state".
Oh? We're looking for the right to form stable, nuclear ** --}} FAMILIES {{-- ** just like you straights, and yet ultimately we are nothing but pawns in some sinister socialist scheme to destroy... what was that ... the ** --}} FAMILY? {{-- ** So now who's engaging in paranoid ranting?
(As I've posted previously, the gay community has little idea that they are being used by the socialist movement to destabilize the family unit. Here's a quote from "New Socialist Magazine":
"...So, how can such an institution possibly be part of the plan for queer liberation? Well, only in the limited, partial way that all bourgeois rights are. Think, for instance, of same-sex pension benefits. Integrally wound up with capitalist power relations and structures of legitimacy, they are simply an individualist solution to a social issue. Nonetheless, it’s important to fight for queer access to private pensions if only to expand rather than limit the options and rights of individuals in the here and now. It’s also critical to acknowledge that socialist-feminist and queer liberationist forces are too weak to influence the terms of public debate. We can only intervene, which in this case means intervening on a terrain shaped by a constitutional argument on the one hand and bigotry on the other. If the religious right prevails (or even makes significant inroads) today, it will be emboldened to pursue its agenda further, attacking abortions, daycare, teaching evolution in schools and more. And that-taking the wind out of the sails of the right-is one of the most important reasons to support Bill C-38...")
So in summation, Richard Evans' reasons for denying gays the right to marry? Irrelevant, undemonstrable, uneducated, and plain paranoid. Now come back when you have a real argument to make.
(Argument made. And, frankly, you make it too easy VN)
There. I didn't once use the word bigot, nor did I quote any unbiased studies, since the entire American Psychological Association is apparently infected with the sinister Gay Socialist Agenda Meme.
{phew}
Now I AM SO F*****G SICK AND GODDAMN TIRED OF GODDAMN HATEMONGERING BIGOTS TELLING ME I'M A F*****G PEDOPHILE just because I happen to like c**k as much as I like c**t. Well, let me tell you, I'm the one in a position to know, and I certainly don't want to rape children. Nor does anyone I personally know in the gay community. In fact, if I found out one of them was raping children, I wouldn't even bother calling the cops until I had personally CASTRATED the sick asshole. YOU STUPID F***S. HOW MANY F*****G TIMES DO WE HAVE TO F*****G SAY IT. WE'RE NOT PEDOPHILES. WE'RE GAY. GAYS ARE NOT PEDOPHILES, AND PEDOPHILES ARE NOT GAY. GAYS ARE GAY. PEDOPHILES ARE PEDOPHILES. END OF FUCKING STORY. So stop watching the 50's propaganda films and get your head into the 21st century, Richard. Believe me, I want all the pedophiles' nuts cut off just as much as you do.
Sry for the rant. This is just one particular piece of bigoted hatemongery that pisses me off to no end.BTW, Rich, my preferred pronoun is Zie (zer in the possessive), and I'd appreciate if you used it. After all you wouldn't want me referring to you as an 'it', now would you.
(That was special VN. Do you feel better now?)
posted by Richard at 06:08
<< Home