It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Anti-gay homophobes - what country would you choose?

page: 9
4
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Maybereal11,
Your lack of knowledge is vast.


Originally posted by maybereal11
You do realize that the vast majority of homosexuals were born to your typical mother and father that demonstrated a loving relationship...at the very least as much as parents of heterosexual children?


Majority? Where is your evidence for that?

I recall there being evidence that the majority of homosexuals are raised in broken homes. A few google searches will reveal lots of sources for this.

A boy raised by a single mother is more likely be to raised more femamine, and is attracted to more femanine things (like the same sex).

A girl raised by a single father is more likely to be raise more masculine, likeing masculine things (like the same sex).

However, there are times where quiet children who do not express their thoughts build them up and they go untreated. If little tommy boy would have not been shy and told his father that he likes his friend jimmy, well his father would have taught him that it is not natural. If that situation doesn't happen, the child goes untreated so to speak.

I never claimed that being subject to a certain environment is the only reason for homosexuality. I am just saying that it has a HUGE effect. There are other reasons homos are homos, and it's ALL MENTAL.


Originally posted by maybereal11
The idea that homosexuals are the result of some failure of education or demonstratitve love by the parents...well I can't get around it...that is the stupidest thing that has been said on this thread so far...and that is saying a lot!.


Once again, your lack of knowledge is vast. You know nothing about the subconsicous mind and the many factors that control it and effect it.

To just deny it without even looking at the facts is pure ignorance, and is probably the most stupid thing anyone can do in their life.... and that is saying a lot!

To outright dismiss the environments effect on a humans preferences is just plain idiotic.


Originally posted by maybereal11
You can't "Teach" straight or gay.


Your problem is that you focus on the word "teach". I am not saying you put someone in a class room, and teach them... I'm saying you subject them to cetain environments at a young age and they "pick up" certain ideas and thoughts.

Your lack of understanding this shows your lack of insight and knowledge of the human mind.



Originally posted by maybereal11
If you are incapable of that, then please don't have kids lest you raise one more broken psuedo-sociopath for the world.


If you are homosexual, please don't have kids. Do us all a favor, and keep that disgusting mental retardation out of this world.

[edit on 9-8-2010 by Unst0ppable0ne]




posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by centurion1211

Hey "real".

Investigate the term "original source" of the virus. You know, the so-called "patient 0" for each case.


Original source? Well - that truly shows your prejudice right there.

What does the original source have to do with the spread of this disease?

That is the most pathetic thing I think I have ever read on ATS.

It take back the apology I made to you. You do not deserve it.


Pathetic is that you are only taking offense because you know what I'm saying is true.

Explain how the AIDS virus got released into the general population in the first place.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Nofoolishness

So you have finally come out of the closet annee? I always knew there was a reason you were so pro LGBT....because your one of them obviously. Sorry annee but there is no scale for me. Just like i bet you there is no scale for the majority either.

I dont know any person who thinks they are bisexual without BEING bisexual.

I dont understand how any of you can say "we are all born bisexual" when proof points to the opposite! How many men do you see looking at two men and finding that attractive? NONE THAT I KNOW.



Sorry to disappoint you. I am pro LGBT because I worked several years for a company who's employees were predominately LGBT. I was the minority being straight. They were free to be themselves - unlike the "token" gay working among straights.

I learned a lot. Mostly that "People are People". Gays are NOT a group think. They are not even a group think on gays. They were very diverse in their opinions. They were actually very critical of each other.

Some gays are horrified by the overt sexual displays of other gays. Some gays really hate this stereotype on public display such as the gay parades. But I don't really see any major difference between a once a year "gay display" and Mardi Gras - - - except in people's minds.

I believe having been forced to the fringe of society - - they had to create their own sub-culture. But the more they are allowed to "just be" living normal among regular society - - the outlandishness will subside quite a bit. At least in public displays.

More and more LGBT are (in my opinion) wanting to settle down into regular family living. Because now they can. Marriage will help them become more main stream.

---------------------------------------

As far as me being bi-sexual. How do you define sexual? Is sexual just a physical act? Or is it a bonding? A comfortable nurturing feeling?

Honestly - I've never had a bi-sexual experience. I grew up in an all boy neighborhood. Didn't have a girlfriend until I was in junior high. By that time - at least in the late 50s - boy crazy was the only acceptable behavior.

I do think with today's - - more open acceptance - - I would have liked to at least have had a same sex bonding experience.

So I'd say my scale reading is more to the hetero side - - but close enough to the middle I'd consider the experience of bi-sexual.

[edit on 9-8-2010 by Annee]


For gods sake annee. Bisexual means being sexually and emotionally attracted to the same sex.

Could you see yourself having sex with a women and enjoying it? do you look at a girl and lust after her? Can you picture yourself with another girl being in a romantic relationship. Like a real "I love you" soul mate kind of relationship.

Bisexuality has nothing to do with 'same sex bonding'. it has everything to do with sexual attraction.

If your not sexually attracted to women then you are not bisexual. Dear god....for people who support the LGBT community so much how can there be so much ignorance on sexual preferance?

Here let me destroy some of the confusion!

Heterosexual=Attracted sexually and romantically to the opposite sex.

Bisexual=Attracted sexually and romantically to BOTH Gender.

Homosexual= Attracted to the same sex romantically and sexually.

Asexual=not sexually attracted to anything.Can still be romantically attracted to either gender.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
Maybereal11,
Your lack of knowledge is vast.


Originally posted by maybereal11
You do realize that the vast majority of homosexuals were born to your typical mother and father that demonstrated a loving relationship...at the very least as much as parents of heterosexual children?


Majority? Where is your evidence for that?

I recall there being evidence that the majority of homosexuals are raised in broken homes. A few google searches will reveal lots of sources for this.

A boy raised by a single mother is more likely be to raised more femamine, and is attracted to more femanine things (like the same sex).

A girl raised by a single father is more likely to be raise more masculine, likeing masculine things (like the same sex).

However, there are times where quiet children who do not express their thoughts build them up and they go untreated. If little tommy boy would have not been shy and told his father that he likes his friend jimmy, well his father would have taught him that it is not natural. If that situation doesn't happen, the child goes untreated so to speak.

I never claimed that being subject to a certain environment is the only reason for homosexuality. I am just saying that it has a HUGE effect. There are other reasons homos are homos, and it's ALL MENTAL.


Originally posted by maybereal11
The idea that homosexuals are the result of some failure of education or demonstratitve love by the parents...well I can't get around it...that is the stupidest thing that has been said on this thread so far...and that is saying a lot!.


Once again, your lack of knowledge is vast. You know nothing about the subconsicous mind and the many factors that control it and effect it.

To just deny it without even looking at the facts is pure ignorance, and is probably the most stupid thing anyone can do in their life.... and that is saying a lot!

To outright dismiss the environments effect on a humans preferences is just plain idiotic.


Originally posted by maybereal11
You can't "Teach" straight or gay.


Your problem is that you focus on the word "teach". I am not saying you put someone in a class room, and teach them... I'm saying you subject them to cetain environments at a young age and they "pick up" certain ideas and thoughts.

Your lack of understanding this shows your lack of insight and knowledge of the human mind.



Originally posted by maybereal11
If you are incapable of that, then please don't have kids lest you raise one more broken psuedo-sociopath for the world.


If you are homosexual, please don't have kids. Do us all a favor, and keep that disgusting mental retardation out of this world.

[edit on 9-8-2010 by Unst0ppable0ne]


Im straight. I was raised by a single mother. Its true what you said. I have some feminine mannerisms. Sometimes i will be standing and notice that my wrist is limp.

Does that make me gay? no i just have some feminine mannerisms because thats all i have EVER known.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Nofoolishness
 


That is great.. That just means there were some other factors in your life that kept you on the straight path.

Not all people are the same, and not all people are subject to the same environments.

Not all people raised in broken homes turn homosexual, and not all homosexuals were raised in broken homes. A broken home is just a common factor that can assist in the creation of a homosexual. There are many factors that can assist the creation of a homosexual.

It's all in the mind. People pick things up subconsciously without knowing it. I think homosexuallity is one of them.

It's sad to me that most humans are not yet aware that their desires and preferences are not all genetic. A lot of it is like being hypnotized. Like a deep rooted subconscious desire picked up unknowingly during some past experience or sometimes trauma.

Have you ever heard of paraphilia? People become sexualy aroused over the weirdest fantasies, and objects, and things, and being homosexual is juat another type of that in my opinion. There are many things that can cause this, and it's all in the mind.

[edit on 9-8-2010 by Unst0ppable0ne]



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Nofoolishness
 


I chose to present it the way I did. Nice response BTW.

Oh Yeah! You're a guy. You mean "Do It".

Gave you the girl version for fun. Sexual bonding is going to lead to "Do It".

Weird I got divorced right in the middle of the sexual revolution and never got it on with a female.

Sure - why not.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by Nofoolishness
 


I chose to present it the way I did. Nice response BTW.

Oh Yeah! You're a guy. You mean "Do It".

Gave you the girl version for fun. Sexual bonding is going to lead to "Do It".

Weird I got divorced right in the middle of the sexual revolution and never got it on with a female.

Sure - why not.






You meant SEXUAL bonding. People can have same sex bonding and not be sexual. I can bond with my pal by playing football or watching a movie together. Does not mean i want to jump his bones.

You are probably what is known as bicurious.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   
We haven't evolved. This thread alone shows the magnitude of our development as a people, especially ones who declare a Soul attached.

I stopped reading after pg 7, it was just dribble after a while.

How can I explain? I am what I call "Butch Muffy"; a term not so often heard outside of the circle of a bunch of Queens, but who am I to judge!

I was an effeminate boy who grew up to be a big old beefy man that cannot cut hair! I went through the trades: welding, automotive, construction, fabrication, most of those years of course I was 'out' it is just no one could tell. Later it was the medical fields which is quite gay-friendly anyways.

I do not condone PDA, public display of affection; I don't like it, I find it to be distasteful for any sex. I am not talking about a peck on the cheek or a hug.

I do not agree with "gay marriage", I never have agreed with that. This is clearly a bunch of fags wanting to justify to someone that they can step on the "Institution of Marriage", be it the parent, the church, or society. Marriage is a religious doctrine, at least the kind of marriage these people want; what ever happened to the simple idea of civil union? This has always made me suspect for anyone wanting some kind of white wedding. I think they just have a lot of pain inside of them and they are lashing out.
I have been in my relationship for 23 years, a civil union stamp on a legal document would be fine by me.

I don't have gay friends. Most are so closeted and those that aren't I cannot relate to them. I am as expressively gay as any I can imagine but people do not see that, they see what they want to see. Women catch on to me a lot sooner, some men just think I am a flirt when I compliment them.

Getting to a point here, people are never who they appear to be, no matter the kind of people, the spirituality of the people, or any other socio-political thoughts they have, we cannot judge the book by its cover. Yet here on the posts we hear the inner person who likely would never express themselves so negatively in public. It makes you wonder how many gay people they don't know that they really do know.

Currently I am moved by Spirit in my life. I am fully on board with the Coming of Christ on Earth. I know Demons quite intimately, we all do; so forgive me if I find any religious doctrine as a means to justify hate.

Any religion, any hate, and you will find yourself on the wrong side of all that is showing itself to the World.

Trust me when I say this. It is not about Gay or Straight, Religious or not, it is about the Truth. Each and every one of us will face our moment of Judgment and we will either have lived in Hate and Fear, or we lived in Love and Light. We get to choose. I know this because why would a big ole Fag like me have the Spirit of God within me? It is whether I lived a truthful life. It is whether I lived an honest life. It is whether or not I harmed others and whether or not I recognize my trespasses and ultimately forgive those that have trespassed against me.

It is all so very simple. However, as simple as all of this is, no one can get to Heaven by Proxy. One will be taken and one will be left behind, yet the house of the two fundamentally believed as one, it is just one believed without judging. Are we really praying the same under the same roof? No we are not.

So wake up! Let the sun shine through those dusty curtains, don't worry if they think you're gay for cleaning house! We can all use a bit of Spiritual House Cleaning because now is the time to Forgive yourself and to stop Lying to others.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Dear Halfolded over man, It never really was homophobia, as such, it's always been exactly as the King of Rome (Goths) decreed in the latter days of the Fifth Cent.. "One man marries one woman, and no homosexual activities, permitted, under pain of death". It wasn't just against the gays per se, but rather to save the Roman populace, from the visicitudes of a plethora of suffering farmers, having to sell themselves into slavery, to the fundis, (large landowners), to prevent their property, ie. their sons, from being auctioned off to homosexual corporations, to pay their back taxes. At that point in Rome, these organizations of homosexuals literaly ran the civic machinery, (fundamentals?), of the dying Western Republic.
This harsh, dare I say; "Gothic" imperial decree, permeated the Western Empire, even as it faded away, and gave the West it's miraculous nuclear family. One man took one wife, and left no markets, anymore, for concubines of any flavor. The Goths didn't kill these homosexuals, but those gay boys and girls then flooded into walled villas that were being transformed into convents and monestaries, in a kind of, land rush scale business, for the next 250-275 years. This is some of the neat historical data coming out of the old Eastern Commie Bloc. Anthropology and Archeology were two disciplines that escaped the commisars' evil eye, there.
Unfortunately, these books are being censored right out of our libraries, as our local queers have infiltrated academia deep enough to block out the sunlight. And yes, the church, under Pope Alexander III, was right up to their eye balls too, in homosexuals, back then, as it still is today. Without the nuclear family, we would never have survived the dark ages, the plagues, and no way in hades, would we have conquored both North and South America.
Concubinage could now slip back in with Gay marriage, real easily, IMHO. Face it, a homosexual man, keeping another man, is concubinage, pure and simple. As such a concubine accrues rights under the law, how could we then stop another man with hetero tastes from having a couple of female concubines? Would he even have to buy them private health insurance, or will Obamacare, expand to cover both flavors, of some new gay marriage, and concubinage paradigm? Look where we've come from, in the last 1500 years. The Romans pleaded with the Goths, to get them out from under their failed Republic, which was being run by these homosexuals. The deal was; "we'll make you King of Rome, if you do this". Odoacer did just that, until the quisling Prince of the Goths, Theodoric, ran them all out of Italy, to be resettled in Iberia and the French Coast. This just strengthened the resolve throughout the West for the nuclear family, and completely destroyed the market for concubines.
FWIW. The demise of Rome was due to two major volcanic eruptions of Krakatoa. The first happened in 450 AD, and the larger, of the two, in 530 AD. So it was a nuclear winter whut whelped the polygamous, Christianised, Romans into the sleek, modern, and devoutly Christian, nuclear family. Their crops failed for a quarter century, up to 474 AD, but then they were forcibly moved to sunnier climes, before the 530 eruption brought on the dark ages, in their full fury, and then they eventually, became us.
In one man's lifetime, these Goths made it from Northern Anatolia, all the way to the Atlantic Seaboard of Europe. A thousand years later, these same nuclear families exploded accross the Atlantic, and settled the Eastern Seaboards of North and Central America, in a two hundred year period, that doomed the native populations, to diseases and conquests. The nuclear family did in the Incas, as well as many other native civilizations, throughout the Americas. The homosexuals, themselves, are picking this fight, and I do believe they will sorely regret doing it. It won't be the churchmen that do them in this time, either.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Greensage

I do not agree with "gay marriage", I never have agreed with that. This is clearly a bunch of fags wanting to justify to someone that they can step on the "Institution of Marriage", be it the parent, the church, or society. Marriage is a religious doctrine, at least the kind of marriage these people want; what ever happened to the simple idea of civil union? This has always made me suspect for anyone wanting some kind of white wedding. I think they just have a lot of pain inside of them and they are lashing out.


Cool that you found God.

Marriage as a religious docterine? If that was the case then I would have no issue what-so-ever with the church deciding upon whether gays or heterosexuals get married.

As it stands though it is a LEGAL institution with implications ranging from Tax Status, Court Testimony, Property Rights all the way to who is permitted to visit you or not when you are in critical care in the hospital.

As long as Marriage is a legal institution in this country, denying one minority group the status of marriage will be unconstitutional.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by maybereal11]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Taking into account your blatant sarcasm and deliberate intention on causing a "morals war" implying that people that are conservative should be compared with the extremes of lack of freedom, having no respect what so ever for people's right to an opinion and freedom of speech, I answer you this:
reply to post by FraternitasSaturni
 

Blatant sarcasm? That's your opinion.
There are many conservative people (incluging gay people). It's up to individuals to decide whether they align themselves with homophobia.
Which country would I choose? Not that I'm desperate to leave SA, but I wouldn't mind visiting or living in any of the countries without legal sanctions against homosexuality, and with some civil and protective rights.
That could include Iceland, Western Europe, Canada, the US, Argentina, New Zealand, Australia (too many to mention) - most of the Western democracies that also have women's rights and also come out tops with a free press. Homophobc countries also lack many other freedoms, which makes its "morality" questionable.

I wouldnt choose a country to live in. I would stay and drive you out. Now you can think about a country whos all gay friendly and ask yourself the same question: What country that is currently "oh-so-gay" would you choose to live in?

As for your point on your desire of driving gays out: yes I know some people would drive us out. That's why it's important to engage in discussion and recognize the extent of the hate, so that we can organize and be prepared.



[edit on 10-8-2010 by halfoldman]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by halfoldman
 

Could I ask that only people interested in the topic reply?
The mods will decide in any case whether the topic stays, goes, or is moved.
Professional topic/thread-killers - please don't tell me it's been done, or use those sub-troll posts to intimidate me.
All on-topic posts are welcome.[edit on 8-8-2010 by halfoldman]


First you declare in your OP that anyone that has issues with the gay agenda is a "homophobe". False. Recall that the word homophobe means fear of gays. Anyone can dislike something without being afraid of it. Example: I may dislike the look, smell and taste of liver, but I am NOT a "liver-o-phobe" - afraid of it, OR anyone else that does.


Then in the post above you make a second attempt to demonize anyone that would disagree with your point of view. I guess by "on topic" you mean only those that agree with you are allowed to post here?

This is generally not how it's done here on ATS.

IMO the homophobe card is being played way too often as a demonization tool against those that simply do not agree - just like the race card. Where is YOUR tolerance?

Remember deny ignorance? To that I often add deny hypocrisy.

[edit on 8/9/2010 by centurion1211]

People are and have been more than welcome to disagree, and even personally attack, stereotype and generalize. In fact people have even used slurs (like "fag") and references to "mental retardation" that would get them banned if the discussion was on race.
My second post had nothing to do with everyone having to agree (why else have a discussion?).
It's more of a board issue.
What I've noticed on my threads and lingering over several others is a tendency of some people to pretend they are mods, and saying that the topic has been done (without evidence, or links to duplicate posts) or telling people to go to BTS and other non-topic critiques of the thread.
That can effect everyone, no matter what slant a future thread of yours may take. It baffles me that people would select a thread and go to the trouble of simply making such short, off-topic posts that really contribute nothing to the discussion. It is one way of derailment and attack.
People playing mods has nothing to do with limiting opinions on the topic.
I just wasn't intersted in five immediate posts that said "go to to BTS", or "not another thread on gay issues", but to everyone's credit that hasn't happened.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by halfoldman]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by carpooler
 

Thanks for your creative reworking of history and my username!
Concubinage continued well into the colonial era, often under different labels, since the colonizing male had sexual power over his slaves and the native women.
Pizarro had his concubine, Donna Angelina, whose armies saved his butt at the battle of Lima. It was used for forging alliences, but more often it was just a way of increasing the slave population, and the eventual rights of the mixed off-spring would be an endless source of debate.
In fact, regionally concubinage survives in long-term concurrent partnerships with mistresses (not only tolerated but expected in some societies). Yet, such adulterous unions have little effect on the Institution of marriage. Where women are more empowered, sexual variety for the male is easier when hidden by prostition or forms like serial monogamy.
In any case, concubinage was alive and well when Balboa conquered the Mayas and threw 40 transvestites to his dogs.
Polygamy is the norm in homophobic Islamic countries, so marriage can exist successfully without the Western concept of the "nuclear family".
Despite the ideal of the nuclear family, the wealthy always had sexual access to serfs and their maids into modern times.
Gay marriage would be the partnership of two adult induviduals. Whatever other partners they may (or may not) have wouldn't have legal rights, just like straight marriage.
Nevertheless, fascinating.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by halfoldman]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   
well glad finally somebody admits that America is the center of the freak show basically.

Japan personally. I mean if you come out of the closet your whole family gets dishonored and outcasted because of it.

BTW I am not fear of homophobes. I am just sick of the nonsense.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by dragnet53]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53

BTW I am not fear of homophobes. I am just sick of the nonsense.



What is the nonsense?



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


causing a rift between both sexes and making it hard for guys like me to find the right significant other. my god homosexuality is spreading like wild fire.



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
reply to post by Annee
 


causing a rift between both sexes and making it hard for guys like me to find the right significant other. my god homosexuality is spreading like wild fire.


I don't find that funny.

A minority group that has been forced to live underground on the fringe of society for fear of death (in many cases) - - is slowly getting legal rights - - and a chance to live normal lives in the open.

There is no spreading like wild fire - - there is only Freedom to Be - - by legal means - - and evolvement of human understanding.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Every minority wants special treatment. There is no law against homosexuality, Islam, anarchism etc.

But now the homosexuals, wants to be married in the church, they demand their RIGHT to adopt children. They demand they are allowed to walk naked up and down our streets while they imitate sex, and play loud music.

The Muslims, demand their right to practice their religion in the public place, get special breaks during work to pray, remove our traditions (like easter, Christmas firm dinners etc.) Raise Minarets, where from they can cover our city with their prayers.

The anarchists (or wannabe anarchists as I personally call them, as they are just a spoiled generation) demands government paid places to congregate, that they control, but do not have to pay for, and if they do not get it, they burn my car, throw a stone through my window, beat me up and cause general mayhem in the streets!


Above are just examples, of a sexual, religion and political orientation!
But the scary thing is, that everything is true and is happening right now here in Denmark! Nothing of the above is made up.

Now I ask you, me as a majority, I have to conform to all of this, it is the opposite of integration. (Now as already stated I am actually a minority myself, as a heathen and anarchist. But you do not see me flaunting this in public, or demanding that people should change their way of life, so I can feel less suppressed)

Can you at least understand, why we are starting to get tired of all the different minorities demanding special treatment?

And yes it is special treatment, men demanding offspring, but have no intention of making one themselves. women demanding a position on a board of directors because they are female, not because they are the best qualified for the job. Muslims demanding that we change our work policies, so we do not offend them with our heathen culture, or using the excuse that they are allowed to rape our women, because they deserve it, when they do not dress according to the Islamic culture. Homosexuals, walking naked on the street, while there is a law against it for everyone else, imitating and in some instances having public sex, which is also again a crime for everyone else.

Or the autonomous youth, that demand that they should have a place to party and take drugs, while the rest of us pay for it, and if they do not get it they start a war in the streets.

Now remember none of these examples are hypothetical! They all happened, and they all happened in this millennium!

Enough is enough, I have personally had it with this, and like minded have started to organize themselves preparing to detach from society and form a parallel community, because we are so tired, of seeing what our grandparents worked so hard for, getting destroyed by a ton of different vocal minorities. (a country that today have the lowest income disparancy, highest happiness, lowest corruption and highest equality! But the trends are starting to go down)



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


slowly getting rights by turning every straight person bisexual or gay/lesbian.

The new slogan for you people "convert the non-believers to further our goal for normalism".

Further and further humanity will destroy itself and then what????

truth hurts and nobody can handle it.




top topics



 
4
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join