If more men were gay there would be no wars

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Hitler is believed to have been in the closet, so to speak. Ask the French, Polish, Czech, and a few million Jews if the man was violent.

Are women non-violent?
How much blood does Mrs. Clinton have on her hands?
How about Janet Reno, the architect of Waco?

Just sayin...




posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


I think its an insult to us straight guys too. I'm straight, never fight, would never fight or go to war. Its just not in my nature. I avoid any kind of confrontation/arguement at all costs.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


This has got to be among the stupidest things ever said.

My oldest son is gay. I have hung around with quite a few gay folks over the years. One thing I can say for sure is that gay people tend to have the most tumultuous personal lives. Drama is almost always near by.

And we won't even get into the miles long lists of homosexual murderers.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   
That's probalby not true.

I've known several gay man and a couple who were good friends of mine at the times were cruel as cruel can be, very petty, very controlling, conniving, and two faced. I found it amusing at the time but now having grown up I wouldn't spend a second being pals with either of them.

If more men were gay wars would be still be fought but they would be fought differently.

I think poisoning would come back in a big way.

Bottom line is... people are people, men, women, etc... wars will always be fought because greed exists.

perhaps women would become the rulers.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by madmac5150
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Hitler is believed to have been in the closet, so to speak. Ask the French, Polish, Czech, and a few million Jews if the man was violent.





Believed by people who don't believe in proof you mean...



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by madmac5150

Hitler is believed to have been in the closet, so to speak. Ask the French, Polish, Czech, and a few million Jews if the man was violent.



Believed by whom?

I have never seen any strong evidence that suggests he was gay. I have seen evidence that he was having a relationship with his niece (his chauffeur was his niece's boyfriend who fled to the USA). She blew her own Brains out with a revolver. Apparently he had 6 female lovers in his lifetime but the maids in the Eagles nest never saw any evidence of a normal sexual relationship with Eva Braun when doing their morning room cleaning.

Sexuality of Adolf Hitler

I don't think it is likely that he was gay, so he isn't perhaps a great example of to prove that homosexuals are violent.

Maybe some homosexuals are less violent. I'm not sure violence is determined by someone's sexuality though.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Absolute toss

There is quite a large amount of gays in the armed forces.
Percentage wise there's even more within the special forces, my, and others theory to this is a little sterio typical but

hear me out

Gay men tend to take greater care of their bodies, fit, toned, and healthy

And maybe like being around other men of a similar physique ???
edit on 27-2-2013 by Neocrusader because: Auto
edit on 27-2-2013 by Neocrusader because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by madmac5150
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Hitler is believed to have been in the closet, so to speak. Ask the French, Polish, Czech, and a few million Jews if the man was violent.





Believed by people who don't believe in proof you mean...


Fair enough... Hitler's sexuality has been an item of debate ever since he committed suicide in his bunker... which has also been an item of debate since the war's end. The only ones that really know the answers to those questions have probably been dead for years...

The debate implies that homosexual men and women are inherently less violent than heterosexual men.

Dahmer vs. Bundy? Dahmer most definitely was homosexual, Bundy heterosexual... both men committed unspeakable violence toward their victims. Selling sexual preference as a propensity to commit crimes, or as a measure of "war like" tendencies is speculative at best.

I think you also need to look at power and the corruption it breeds. Janet Reno has the blood of 76 souls on her hands from her actions at Waco in 1993. Is Ms. Reno a violent person? I wouldn't necessarily think so. Give her the reins of federal agencies such as the ATF and the woman had no problems telling her agents to shoot first.

You can't stereotype evil.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by madmac5150



Fair enough... Hitler's sexuality has been an item of debate ever since he committed suicide in his bunker... which has also been an item of debate since the war's end. The only ones that really know the answers to those questions have probably been dead for years...



Exactly as it should be. How another man chooses to utilize his penis is something I care absolutely nothing about.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:53 PM
link   
People who can't breathe tend to be less violent too...as violence tends to be a hobby of the living...


If more people were dead there would be no wars...

anyone catching on to how stupid this is yet?

edit on 27-2-2013 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream
He says that assuming and implying that Gay men don't fight? lol... they are humans too lol, which means hate, envy, greed are all tagged to them too.

Men actually most likely to forget grudges and get over things faster. Women don't kill each other? lol the world is actually in one piece is because women are not running it.

Imagine, when a first lady sees another first lady with the same dress as hers.Nukes would be launching from every corner of the earth.


You are correct in respect to my personal experiences in life, I have been in knock down very active fist fights with other men.

More often then not the winner helps the loser up off of the ground and even offers some pep talk on how they were hurt too.

Next time they meet its hey how ya doing? Your stitches are out already eh? Mine too look what you did to my nose you asshole!

Then its usually a pat on the back and lets go for a beer.


Now females are a whole different breed of fighters and grudge holders.
They fight like anyone else but they do not forgive and I mean for life.
There are no handshakes or acknowledgement of a good battle won or lost.

If two chicks mix it up in grade 8 and they see each other 30 years later the odds are good for some language if not a re-match.

The above is just my personal life experiences and should not be taken as fact.

I am male and mid 50's for age, my best three friends that I have had for life all three of them were opponents in fist fights I had.

And just to let you know I lost two of those fights hands down.

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   
if you ask me.. women aren't persuaded to join the military or at least not sought after for a reason and it's not the reason you're thinking i'm about to say.. women, actually the female of every species on the earth, are the most vile, vindictive, dangerous, mean, spiteful, etc.. creatures on the planet and i bet any amount of money.. if we had women at the top branches of any military anywhere and regiments, battalions of all females we'd soon look at any form of torture that we know of or could even imagine as a kitty ride at an amusement park.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by n3mesis
if you ask me.. women aren't persuaded to join the military or at least not sought after for a reason and it's not the reason you're thinking i'm about to say.. women, actually the female of every species on the earth, are the most vile, vindictive, dangerous, mean, spiteful, etc.. creatures on the planet and i bet any amount of money.. if we had women at the top branches of any military anywhere and regiments, battalions of all females we'd soon look at any form of torture that we know of or could even imagine as a kitty ride at an amusement park.


Ahhh yes, "hell hath no wrath like a woman scorned"... I'll back ya on this, but if my wife finds out she will kill me!



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Jeffrey Dahmer was gay and he killed people, so his statement means nothing and was spoken like a true tool.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   
No! First their would be a population problem and second homosexuals are not all peaceful.

The human $%$hole exists in every colour, sex, shape and size. And they all bleed red just like the rest of us.

Peace



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Yeah let's all be gay so there will be no more wars. Instead of killing people, let's just stop having kids altogether. That way we'll get rid of them before they even come out. Of the womb, that is.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Someone mentioned Alexander the Great and funny thing...I just spent a couple class sessions learning about how he kicked the tail off the Persian Empire and then took it for himself just because it was there.


I've spent a bit of time looking into it now, and by what I can tell here ....Alexander either was gay (as others suggested) or very content to be Bi-. Whatever or however I may feel about homosexuality as a way of life and personal matter, I'd never do those folk the disrespect of assuming they are less capable or less able to fight than anyone else.

If Alexander was gay then it means one of the most accomplished and most tactically skilled military leaders in human history was a gay man.

Perhaps I was a bit hasty in resisting the integration of U.S. Military forces. Given that example.....it might even improve our military. lol.... Nothing suggests Gays aren't effective or capable in battle though. The only real problem I've ever heard has been Unit cohesion with straight people anyway.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   
What a load of bs. Even if every male was to turn gay, there would still be wars. They wouldn't be fought with guns and bombs though, more like handbags and butt tampons.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 11:41 PM
link   
yea but if the ambassador broke the gay presidents nail... hed drop like three nukes on the poor mans house



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 01:02 AM
link   
First off, being gay doesn't mean male leaders wouldn't still have pissing contests.
Second, most women don't get along with other women. You think there is a lot of mud slinging at political debates? Try the same set up with two women (although it would be fun to watch on TV. Women get creative with insults) They are VERY competitive and frequently start social wars with other cliques and each other...now imagine they run ALL the countries.
Gay, straight, woman or man, it doesn't matter as long as there are resources, territory and overall power to argue over, war will exist. It's not that I don't think gay people or women don't belong in office, I just don't think those semantics make a leader any better or worse.
edit on 28-2-2013 by PutAQuarterIn because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join