The occultist Illuminati purpose behind the gay agenda in the USA.

reply to post by Dark Ghost


What if the needs of the minority are basic human rights? Frankly I just don't care what most people do provided they do it in an appropriate place. I do not se a credible gay agenda anywhere because people's sexuality is set at or even before birth. Homosexuality is not contagious.

I am scared of witchhunts arising in these tough economic times. I am also irritated by a prurient curtain twitching aspect of humanity that is obsessed by what other people do. Hiding behind such catchphrases as "public good"etc does not do it for me.

If we took the top ten issues affecting us as a country, socioeconoomic group or as planetary dwellers I doubt homosexuality is on that list. I deeply resent the OP as it is a complete fabrication

Originally posted by lordtyp0
reply to post by Vicky32

 

So,, Just seeing if I understand this right based on what you have said: You were dating a gay man, who then wanted to leave you for various reasons-I suspect chief amongst them is he was... Gay-you then stalked them and was threatened with a restraining order or similar, but its not that the love interest was gay it's someone elses fault... Obviously, you feel threatened by teh gayz..

Enjoy your death cult.

Signed,
Nasty Person.

The word prat springs to mind.
I was dating a straight man. (If he was gay, then he was the last to know, and I was the second-to-last to know). Since this happened, he has always been in relationships with women, and still is.
He caught the attention of an older, gay man, who endeavoured to seduce him away. (We were actually living together.) Being naive and optimistic, I thought I would point out to him that L., was taken. Then Mr Gay Businessman pointed out that being very wealthy, he always got what he wanted, and also, that being wealthy, he could make my future employment prospects rather grim.
So, your fantasies about restraining orders and my loving an already gay man are just that, fantasies.
The guy was only 21, and easily seduced by money - but he ended up bitterly regretting it all, and fled back to heterosexuality as soon as he could...
Don't be such a spiteful ass..
Vicky

reply to post by Vicky32


Ah yes, always the issue with dating prostitutes is they go for fat wallets. If the man went for money he did not go because he was seduced into homosexuality-he was seduced by American Capitalism.

Your arguments and rationality are very weak.

Side note: I wasn't being bitter, I was being nasty.

Signed,
Mr. Nasty

reply to post by Vicky32


As a straight male I can tell you, without a doubt, rich or not, powerful or not, I would not engage in gay sex or a gay relationship. If your man was tempted it was NOT based upon those criteria.

~Heff

reply to post by Vicky32


I am not being nasty to you at all but I doubt that most people would be seduced by money. Your ex had a bi-sexual tendency and had a fling. Sorry. You deserved better as that was a rather nasty form of treachery but it happens. Luckily you, like most women can just put on a little black number and get out there and find a nice person. Happy hunting!

reply to post by GodDoesNotExist


Wow, that is one of the harshest comments I have seen on here in a while. There is NO satisfaction to gain by wishing ill on others. Even if it's motivated by seeking revenge for injustices committed against others.

Originally posted by lordtyp0
reply to post by Vicky32

 

Ah yes, always the issue with dating prostitutes is they go for fat wallets. If the man went for money he did not go because he was seduced into homosexuality-he was seduced by American Capitalism.

Your arguments and rationality are very weak.

Side note: I wasn't being bitter, I was being nasty.

Signed,
Mr. Nasty

Yes, of course you were being nasty! I however am more grown up than that... and am reining in the nasty urge!
It wasn't the money, it was the exciting lifestyle that money can bring - did you get where I said he was 21? Just a kid really - and BTW, no one involved is American so do pay attention!
You are emotionally wedded to your point of view, I get that, so I will ignore your nasty crack about my rationality - but in my experience, that's the first dig homosexual men always make against women.
The second is usually the sneer about us being 'breeders'...
Vicky

reply to post by Vicky32


Ah, so grown up and elderly, calling people prats and nasty and all sorts of things. I could go into the evidence but you would dismiss it as my opinion instead of fact.. I could go into reason and rationality but you being attached to your mythology would undoubtedly dismiss it as foolish. I could go into direct observations but you would presume even more there.

You cant even tell the difference between American Capitalism and nationalistic attachment.

But have fun on your cross claiming victimhood.

I am sorry that your views and mythologies prohibit an adult discussion, but do pet your cats for me

Signed
Prat McNasty

Edit to add, since you got confused about this too:
Rationality does not auto-magically mean ones intellect. Just FYI.

reply to post by SeaWind

Just to add: the hijras are controversial, especially since the colonial patriarchal power reduced them to begging and prostitution. However, they are only one of several "third-sex" sects.
A lot of the homophobia brought by the British was internalized by the colonized, who often tried to erase evidence of homosexuality from their own culture. For example, Rictor Norton describes in The Myth of the Modern Homosexual how Gandhi organized scores of devotees to vandalize homoerotic depictions on ancient temples.
www.amazon.com...

But you are correct, according to Vaishnava tradition one of the regulating principles of the devotees means no illicit sex. This means a married couple may only have vaginal sex with the intention of having a child that will be raised as a devotee.
All other sex for sense gratification is just a man and a woman rubbing their urinary parts together, and increases the attachment to maja (illusion) - it is no better than other illicit sex.
Same-sex attraction however can be pure, even when it occurs between a devotee and the deity.
The modern gay movement does not define itself by any sex-act, but attraction to the same sex.
That being said, as we can expect of this age there are attempts to over-sexualize society, which keeps people in karmic bondage and overpopulates the planet. However, that agenda seems to be gay and straight, and the Western gay movement took it's cue from the straight sexual revolution.

Ummmm,

To the OP (I haven't really read any of this crud, so bear with me)

I would, perhaps associate you with some type of by product produced by Cows. That is, without insulting Cows, or their emmisions.

Please be re-assured, not in an insulting way, but more of a "matter-of-fact" way.

With absolute respect,
Shane

p.s - I believe the smell from your speech and the aforementioned animal may smell remarkably similar... Again, respectfully.

Originally posted by lordtyp0
reply to post by Vicky32

 

Ah, so grown up and elderly, calling people prats and nasty and all sorts of things. I could go into the evidence but you would dismiss it as my opinion instead of fact.. I could go into reason and rationality but you being attached to your mythology would undoubtedly dismiss it as foolish. I could go into direct observations but you would presume even more there.

You cant even tell the difference between American Capitalism and nationalistic attachment.

But have fun on your cross claiming victimhood.

I am sorry that your views and mythologies prohibit an adult discussion, but do pet your cats for me

Signed
Prat McNasty

Edit to add, since you got confused about this too:
Rationality does not auto-magically mean ones intellect. Just FYI.

edit on 24-12-2010 by lordtyp0 because: (no reason given)

OK, Gloves off - go and play with yourself, you nasty little man, limp-wristing and squealing about my religion - although you'll notice, I keep refusing to play your game by mentioning it!
The sneer about my being elderly is generally the 4th one gay men use to attack women - after 1/ Mindless
2/ Breeder
3/Jealous stalker who needs restraining order - then along comes 'old/ugly' etc.
I wouldn't try arguing about the definition of words with me, either. Not when you come up with a bizarre neologism such as 'auto-magically'!
If someone with a brain-cell comes along, I shall resume my participation in this thread - otherwise, you'll have to find another woman to torment...
If you are familiar with Terry Pratchett's Hogfather - I will say that your posting style makes me want to say to you what Susan said to Teatime...
Vicky

reply to post by Vicky32


Lol
You stumped in here and shlubbed your opinion on a thread that has voiced your contribution hundreds of times over.

Please elucidate: I dont recall saying you were an ugly mindless breeder. Please show me the evidence that this is true of you.

One line I must point out that you have crossed... How DARE You invoke Pratchet against me!?! In retaliation I feel I must call upon the most holy: Adams. It is a quote as random as it is perfectly illustrative of your attempts at getting attention in this thread.

Dirk was unused to making such a minuscule impact on anybody. He checked to be sure that he did have his huge leather coat and his absurd red hat on and that he was properly and dramatically silhouetted by the light of the doorway. He felt momentarily deflated and said, "Er..." by way of self-introduction, but it didn't get the boy's attention. He didn't like this. The kid was deliberately and maliciously watching television at him.

Vicky, I feel I cannot hold back.. this is for you, please keep on believing:

reply to post by Vicky32


Talk using the Queens English - you'd make far more sense, while still making whatever strange, strange point you are trying to make.

Sincerely,
Shane

Originally posted by Vicky32

OK, Gloves off - go and play with yourself, you nasty little man, limp-wristing and squealing about my religion - although you'll notice, I keep refusing to play your game by mentioning it!

And yet, you have mentioned it. Just now.

Originally posted by Vicky32

The sneer about my being elderly is generally the 4th one gay men use to attack women - after 1/ Mindless
2/ Breeder
3/Jealous stalker who needs restraining order - then along comes 'old/ugly' etc.

Why would gay men attack women? Really? That's like saying that carnivores are invading your broccoli patch. Are carnivores invading your broccoli patch?

Originally posted by Vicky32

I wouldn't try arguing about the definition of words with me, either. Not when you come up with a bizarre neologism such as 'auto-magically'!

He just invented that phrase. It's nowhere near a neologism yet. But it could become a meme. And think, maybe you can look back and say "I inspired a meme!"

Originally posted by Vicky32
If someone with a brain-cell comes along, I shall resume my participation in this thread - otherwise, you'll have to find another woman to torment...

I doubt he's seeking to torment you. He seems to have taken issue with your statements. This is what happens on forums. You say something and others respond and react to it. If this is unacceptable then just saying what you think, out loud, to your monitor is much less interactive.

Originally posted by Vicky32

If you are familiar with Terry Pratchett's Hogfather - I will say that your posting style makes me want to say to you what Susan said to Teatime...
Vicky

Is this a case of "My morals prevent me from saying what I want to say, but they are ambiguous enough to allow me to reference it?" Poor form.

~Heff

reply to post by Dark Ghost


Do you not see what you are doing?

Do you support the right for a Prisoner to choose whether they want to stay on prison grounds or mingle with the general population? There are boundaries set for a reason.

A prisoner is a prisoner, hopefully, for a reason. The boundaries given to them have a legitimacy.

You make a correlation between a prisoner, a bad person, and gay people; yet you have not stated exactly how it is that being gay is bad, for society or anyone for that matter, but yet you make the correlation. You suggest that it is legitimate to put extraordinary boundaries on gays, but you don't say why.

Of course there is no legitimate rationale.

Originally posted by InfowarriorCarson
reply to post by SkurkNilsen

 

You do realize Hitler actually promoted and supported gays. Yes he sent some to the death camps. But only the feminine ones. He believed and had people in his administration that being gay brought you closer to god. Research Hitler and his support of being gay and don't dismiss it just because he did send some gays to the death camps.

The theory that Hitler and the top Nazis were "masculine" gays was popularized by Lively and Abrahms in The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party. en.wikipedia.org...
Scott Lively was also known for being involved with a fundamentalist society called "The Family", and their recent
attempts to influence homophobic laws in Uganda.

The Pink Swastika is taken apart in the Annotated Pink Swastika (available online) which reveals its unreliable sources, often based on blatant anti-German propaganda. It is generally regarded as a revisionist text.
In order to explain the undeniable fact that the Nazis put gays into concentration camps, the authors construct two classes of gays that were allegedly opposed to each other.

The task of dividing masculine from feminine gays is seemingly undertaken according to the authors' own stereotypes. The basic premise seems to be:
Homosexuality is evil (according to Lively); Nazis are evil, and therefore the Nazis were homosexuals!
There was doubtlessly a degree of homoeroticism and secret hanky-panky going on, as there is in all homophobic systems (particularly in the early stages of the Nazis, before the purging of Roehm's SA), but certainly no real evidence that Hitler was gay.

There is a similar patriarchy dividing masculine from feminine in the OP's focus.
Sex can only exist when the male organ is inserted into an orifice, be it "wicked" anal sex, or its defining opposite: "virtuous" vaginal sex.
Lesbianism, or sex between women is pretty much ignored.
So good and bad dichotomies around sex are all about what the male does with his member.

reply to post by wayno


Let me ask you this: do you think people that are Religious are harmful to society? How about White Supremacist? Or how about those who protest abortion? If so, why is it that you harbour negative feelings towards these types of people? What makes them different from you or me?

This is all perception. Your perception on this issue is different to my perception and this is why you cannot understand from where I am coming on this issue.

reply to post by halfoldman


Yes I agree with your post. Can you explain to me why heterosexual anal sex seems to be more acceptable than the gay variety? I notice these good chaps on ATS seem to ignore such acts if done ibetween heterosexual couples!

And I am not intending to offend or to attack gay men in anyway or sterotype them

reply to post by tiger5

No, I personally cannot explain why they ignore anal sex amongst straight people.
All I can say is that after having been on many threads on "gay issues", or "homophobe issues" (certainly not all of them) the only common answer seems to be that they deny that anal sex is widespread or common amongst straight couples.
They will say that they don't do it, and find it disgusting, and therefore they somehow assume that all other straight people share their personal dislike.
I recall that once a guy even replied that even anal sex between a man and a woman seemed "queer" to him.

I've noticed though that female prostitutes seem to tell a different story.
Anal sex seems to be one of those fantasies that many men cannot perform on their wives (for some reason), and it is thus one of the reasons some straight men go to sex-workers. It's also popular in straight porn.

Some straight guys may have a true dislike of it, but some are also ashamed - so they displace that self-loathing on to gay men.

But ultimately, it's not for me to say.

this thread is gay.