4um: Monument To Dead Fags

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Pious Perverts
See other Pious Perverts Articles
Title: Monument To Dead Fags
Source: Reuters
URL Source: http://www.reuters.com/news/picture ... 080527&channelName=newsOne#a=3
Published: May 28, 2008
Author: Dave Graham
Post Date: 2008-05-28 05:52:59 by noone222
Keywords: None
Views: 315
Comments: 41

BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany unveiled a monument to the tens of thousands of homosexuals persecuted under the Nazis, whose laws were used to prosecute gay men for a generation after World War Two.
Berlin mayor Klaus Wowereit, who is openly gay, hailed the grey, concrete memorial as a long overdue acknowledgement of the repression of homosexuals, 50,000 of whom were convicted by Nazi courts during Adolf Hitler's 12-year dictatorship.
"The monument consecrated today is a reminder to us of the horrors of the past and draws our attention to the degree of discrimination that currently exists," Wowereit said.
"Great efforts will still need to be undertaken before the sight of two men or women kissing here or in Moscow or elsewhere on the planet is accepted by society in general."
The 600,000 euro ($950,000) cube in Berlin's central Tiergarten park stands opposite the monument to the 6 million European Jews murdered by the Nazis, and was designed by the Danish-Norwegian pairing of Michael Elmgreen and Ingar Dragset.
Nazi authorities ordered the castration of some gay men, and sent thousands more to concentration camps, many of whom were murdered or died from hunger and disease.
Until 1969, when the centre-left Social Democrats headed a government for the first time since the Weimar Republic, Nazi laws continued to be applied to prosecute homosexuals.
The country's gay and lesbian association (LSVD) said that for years German homosexuals had been cut out of the official culture of commemoration, and denied compensation.
"Commemoration must have consequences," the LSVD said in a statement. "The rehabilitation of those people who were convicted under Nazi laws must therefore be the next step."
(Writing by Dave Graham; Editing by Giles Elgood)
Poster Comment:
you gotta be shittin me.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)

Baby, you're soo sexy I can't hardly maintain myself.

noone222 posted on 2008-05-28 5:55:56 ET (1 image) Reply Trace Private Reply
#2. To: All (#1)
Smile, you're on Candid Camera !

noone222 posted on 2008-05-28 5:58:22 ET (1 image) Reply Trace Private Reply
#3. To: noone222 (#2)
I spent some time in Germany. Although fairies love to prance around there, as they do everywhere, the average German ignores them. Jews seem quite interested in the promotion of fairies, however, introducing them into any culture is a great way to emasculate it.
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
Zoroaster posted on 2008-05-28 7:58:50 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#4. To: noone222, all (#0)
Will someone please tell God to unleash all his weapons? It's time.

Jethro Tull posted on 2008-05-28 8:32:04 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#5. To: noone222 (#2)
you gotta be shittin me.

Those pics are tame. The so-called "gay pride" parades are vulgar in the extreme.
I dont see what they are so proud of.

PSUSA posted on 2008-05-28 9:10:20 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#6. To: All (#0)
I can't believe the comments I am reading here. Please tell me how persecution of anyone because of their sexual preference or practices is okay in your book. And no, I don't mean to include non-consensual acts, but rather two men or women deciding they want to get their jollies with each other than the way that you and I might decide to.
I know many homosexuals, both male and female and I can tell you their sexuality is never an issue. They generally keep it to themselves, just like most heterosexuals. They have a wide range of personalities just like heterosexuals. Every one of them I know is gainfully employed. They just happen to enjoy their sex differently.
I find it hypocritical for people to be posting in a site devoted to individual freedoms to be so critical of people exercising some of that individual freedom. And as far as the gay pride parades, I simply laugh at them. But then I'm not a sexually repressed Puritan afraid of seeing the human body. Neither am I Beavis, sniggering every time someone exposes a nipple or butt cheek.
Grow up people.
When the government wants to take your life (capital punishment), they must first convict you of a crime, thus fulfilling the due process clause of the 5th amendment. When they want to take your liberty (imprisonment), they must first convict you of a crime, thus fulfilling the due process clause of the fifth amendment. When they want to take your property, they must hold a city council meeting, condemn your property via eminent domain, and convict you of nothing other than having property someone else is wants to develop. So when exactly did we pass that amendment striking the word property from the due process clause of the fifth amendment? - Brian Jones
Jeffersonish posted on 2008-06-19 0:32:15 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#7. To: Jeffersonish (#6)
Thank you for the outstanding post, and I am in full agreement. Being heterosexual or homosexual is an individual trait nobody with any maturity and intelligence uses as a wedge issue to try to manipulate others by creating fear that compels them to accept a poisonous political agenda.
I have many dear and important gay and lesbian friends. I stand with them in their struggle against mindless bigotry that poisons and contaminates everything it touches.

"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
Ferret Mike posted on 2008-06-19 0:52:03 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#8. To: noone222 (#0)
"Great efforts will still need to be undertaken before the sight of two men or women kissing here or in Moscow or elsewhere on the planet is accepted by society in general."

Multi-generational brainwashing to accept the unacceptable is what he's talking about.
“The best and first guarantor of our neutrality and our independent existence is the defensive will of the people…and the proverbial marksmanship of the Swiss shooter. Each soldier a good marksman! Each shot a hit!” Schweizerische Schutzenseitunt (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
X-15 posted on 2008-06-19 1:57:33 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#9. To: Jeffersonish (#6)
I find it hypocritical for people to be posting in a site devoted to individual freedoms to be so critical of people exercising some of that individual freedom.

There are limits in civilized society, and open acceptance of homosexuality is wrong. "Growing up" doesn't mean flinging common sense in the gutter. Please don't present yourself as some enlightened individual just because you've lost your mind.
"George Washington, the nation's first Commander-in-Chief, held a strong opinion on this subject and gave a clear statement of his views on it in his general orders for March 14, 1778:
At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778), Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom's Regiment [was] tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false accounts, [he was] found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and [we] do sentence him to be dismiss'd [from] the service with infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return; The drummers and fifers [are] to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose.
General Washington held a clear understanding of the rules for order and discipline, and as the original Commander-in-Chief, he was the first not only to forbid, but even to punish, homosexuals in the military."
“The best and first guarantor of our neutrality and our independent existence is the defensive will of the people…and the proverbial marksmanship of the Swiss shooter. Each soldier a good marksman! Each shot a hit!” Schweizerische Schutzenseitunt (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
X-15 posted on 2008-06-19 2:08:26 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#10. To: Jeffersonish, Ferret Mike, Zoroaster, PSUSA, noone222, Jethro Tull (#6)
I can't believe the comments I am reading here. Please tell me how persecution of anyone because of their sexual preference or practices is okay in your book.

Sigh! Stop hyperventilating. NO ONE IS BEING PERSECUTED.
However, granting people the prerogative to engage in whatever perversion they wish, with another consenting adult, does not require one to accept it or laud it. Tolerance does not require acceptance. Neither does it require anyone to find it attractive for some perv to prance around like a Prong Horn Antelope in heat.
The Gay Pride Parades are tacky and vulgar. I find nothing redeeming in a bunch of fat ugly Bull Dykes parading around topless on Harleys in some abberated aping of no class masculinity. It is funny though - in a vulgar, tasteless, and tacky way. Neither is their anything redeeming in some anorexic Drag Queen in a tu tu or two guys humping each others leg like a dog in heat. However, again it is funny - in a repellent way.
Granting that another person has the right to live their life as they wish, as long as it does not impede another's liberty, DOES NOT require acceptance of the behavior nor is commenting to that effect persecution.
You may please to take your PC attitude that non-acceptance of perverse behavior is persecution and please to insert it in the cavity which does not admit sunshine. No amount of heavy breathing outrage will turn that Sow's Ear into a Silk Purse.

I know many homosexuals, both male and female and I can tell you their sexuality is never an issue. They generally keep it to themselves, just like most heterosexuals. They have a wide range of personalities just like heterosexuals. Every one of them I know is gainfully employed. They just happen to enjoy their sex differently.

What a nicely sanitized way to put it. Were that true there would be little issue but it is not. The insistence that their perversion be accepted as "normal", the attempt to implant the idea that it is genetic (with no proof), or the insertion of it into children's education has made it a public issue. Neither does your generalization about "most homos" keeping it private hold up as such is highly situationally dependent and holds true only in environments where discretion is to their advantage.
In the end you are entitled to adopt whatever attitude you wish, and ignore as much of reality as you wish, but "include me out".
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Original_Intent posted on 2008-06-19 2:42:39 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#11. To: Jeffersonish (#6)
But then I'm not a sexually repressed Puritan afraid of seeing the human body. Neither am I Beavis, sniggering every time someone exposes a nipple or butt cheek.

The above is just another example of people that are so loving and caring, non biased, on and on, and then you have the audacity in the same post to lay out your own bias, dislike, hate or whatever.
Look in the mirror, you do not see a "sexually repressed Puritan", what do you see?
We know what we see from your own posting, your own words.

Cynicom posted on 2008-06-19 3:42:32 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#12. To: Ferret Mike (#7)
I have many dear and important gay and lesbian friends. I stand with them in their struggle against mindless bigotry that poisons and contaminates everything it touches.

Mike...
Careful about throwing stones at others. You are in fact doing the exact thing that you say you abhor.

Cynicom posted on 2008-06-19 3:45:38 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#13. To: Original_Intent (#10)
To: Jeffersonish, Ferret Mike, Zoroaster, PSUSA, noone222, Jethro Tull

I can't really understand the relevance of resurrecting this fag-filled forum folly that is really a series of personal opinions, however let me make my own mindless observation just to get even with you other self-promoting assholes (just kidding-sarcasm has taken control of my jaded mind).
I haven't been able to stomach fags since childhood. I get an uneasy, queasy sick to my stomach feeling whenever in the close proximity of these sexual deviants. Why ? Who the fuck knows ? I don't, I'm just telling it like it is for me.
One cannot argue with a bodily reaction to something when they haven't been programmed in any respect related to it. Before I even knew what queers do to each other (or for that matter, even what normal people do sexually) I felt sick to my stomach immediately when subjected to the lisping, limp wristed and sissified outward projections of homos. Again, don't ask me why because I didn't know then nor do I know now why I felt that way then and even moreso now.
I guess I'm just repulsed by fags !
Anyone that promotes the current State of Israel is either a fascist zionazi, a rapture nutter or simply too stupid to be considered.
noone222 posted on 2008-06-19 5:24:04 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#14. To: X-15 (#8)
Multi-generational brainwashing to accept the unacceptable is what he's talking about.

To comprehend the depth of this brainwashing is to know the mind of evil. We as a whole are so brainwashed today that we have accepted materialism as the basis for existence. More malls is what we need, more flat screen TVs and ... let's kill some more kids because the economy demands it.
Maybe it's because I'm getting closer to the end that I see the frauds imposed from the beginning. I can't justify lying to myself or to anyone else ...
Anyone that promotes the current State of Israel is either a fascist zionazi, a rapture nutter or simply too stupid to be considered.
noone222 posted on 2008-06-19 6:00:18 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#15. To: Jeffersonish, All (#6) (Edited)
I can't believe the comments I am reading here. Please tell me how persecution of anyone because of their sexual preference or practices is okay in your book. And no, I don't mean to include non-consensual acts, but rather two men or women deciding they want to get their jollies with each other than the way that you and I might decide to.

I am not persecuting anyone. I have beams in my own eye that need removal. The difference is, I dont go out in public and throw my sin at other people and have the gall to demand others accept it.
But if you dont see homosexuality as a sin, then you won't agree with me, Try thinking of it as a public health issue instead.
You said:
"I know many homosexuals, both male and female and I can tell you their sexuality is never an issue. They generally keep it to themselves, just like most heterosexuals. They have a wide range of personalities just like heterosexuals. Every one of them I know is gainfully employed. They just happen to enjoy their sex differently. "
You can say the same things about rapists and pedophiles, and many serial killers.
policestateusa.net/
PSUSA posted on 2008-06-19 7:55:24 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#16. To: Cynicom (#12)
"Careful about throwing stones at others. You are in fact doing the exact thing that you say you abhor."

Like that means allot coming from a White Nationalist. Cling to your bigotries and hatreds if you want to, but I sure know better then to do that.
When I get in the face of a bigot locally and give an unsolicited and blunt response to real time expressions of their problem, I am doing exactly what everyone else has a responsibility when they hear racism or homophobia expressed.
I have personally seen to it racists have been convicted of felonies for expressing this poison, and I don't give a shit if that bothers anybody. I live to do it again if and when I can.
I also won't and don't bypass gay bashings or racist baitings, I jump right in and help the intended victim. It is just how I am wired, and that won't ever change.
When I get outraged, I have always had the character trait of not having fear in the face of what caused it. I don't ever intend to change that part of how I help deal with this problem in real time, ever.

"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
Ferret Mike posted on 2008-06-19 8:56:22 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#17. To: Ferret Mike (#16)
Like that means allot coming from a White Nationalist. Cling to your bigotries and hatreds if you want to, but I sure know better then to do that.

Mike...
See Mike, there you go spewing hatred and vitriol at people because they do NOT agree with you, that makes you no better than people you desire to label.
You will have to adopt a different vantage point when viewing others before you start labeling people you do not know.

Cynicom posted on 2008-06-19 9:03:38 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#18. To: X-15 (#9)
1. "George Washington, the nation's first Commander-in-Chief, held a strong opinion on this subject and gave a clear statement of his views on it in his general orders for March 14, 1778:
At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778), Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom's Regiment [was] tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; ..."
2. "There are limits in civilized society, and open acceptance of homosexuality is wrong."

reply to 1: George Washington also had slaves. Does that mean it is a morally upstanding thing to own slaves? No. Our morals keep evolving as we become more civilized. Acceptance of homosexuality is just such a moral evolution.
reply to 2: Yes there are limits in a civilized society... Those limits boil down to the swinging fist rule... I have the right to swing my fist all day long until it comes into contact with something like your face. As long as there is no harm done to you, then you, through government don't have the right to restrict what I do.
When the government wants to take your life (capital punishment), they must first convict you of a crime, thus fulfilling the due process clause of the 5th amendment. When they want to take your liberty (imprisonment), they must first convict you of a crime, thus fulfilling the due process clause of the fifth amendment. When they want to take your property, they must hold a city council meeting, condemn your property via eminent domain, and convict you of nothing other than having property someone else is wants to develop. So when exactly did we pass that amendment striking the word property from the due process clause of the fifth amendment? - Brian Jones
Jeffersonish posted on 2008-06-19 9:33:52 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#19. To: Jeffersonish (#18) (Edited)
Our morals keep evolving as we become more civilized. Acceptance of homosexuality is just such a moral evolution.

It's hardly a natural evolution when the radical homosexual agenda is a tenant of the MSM, college campuses and elite. To make matters worse, this "evolution" is buttressed by legislation in the form of hate law, which is violation of my 1st Amendment rights.

Jethro Tull posted on 2008-06-19 9:41:29 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#20. To: PSUSA, Cynicom, Jeffersonish, All (#15) (Edited)
I yield to wiser voices that have gone before all of us on this topic:
"It can be safely said that the attitude of the Founders on the subject of homosexuality was precisely that given by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws--the basis of legal jurisprudence in America and heartily endorsed by numbers of significant Founders. In addressing sodomy (homosexuality), he found the subject so reprehensible that he was ashamed even to discuss it. Nonetheless, he noted:
What has been here observed . . . [the fact that the punishment fit the crime] ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature committed either with man or beast. A crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved and then as strictly and impartially punished. . . . I will not act so disagreeable part to my readers as well as myself as to dwell any longer upon a subject the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature [sodomy]. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law which treats it in its very indictments as a crime not fit to be named; "peccatum illud horribile, inter christianos non nominandum" (that horrible crime not to be named among Christians). A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: "ubi scelus est id, quod non proficit scire, jubemus insurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquisitis poenis subdantur infames, qui sunt, vel qui futuri sunt, rei" (where that crime is found, which is unfit even to know, we command the law to arise armed with an avenging sword that the infamous men who are, or shall in future be guilty of it, may undergo the most severe punishments). Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1769), Vol. IV, pp. 215-216
Because of the nature of the crime, the penalties for the act of sodomy were often severe. For example, Thomas Jefferson indicated that in his home state of Virginia, "dismemberment" of the offensive organ was the penalty for sodomy. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), p. 211
In fact, Jefferson himself authored a bill penalizing sodomy by castration. Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson M emorial Association, 1904), Vol. I, pp. 226-227, from Jefferson's "For Proportioning Crimes and Punishments."
The laws of the other states showed similar or even more severe penalties:
That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . shall be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that every person being thereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall be hanged by the neck until he or she shall be dead. NEW YORK
That if any man shall lie with mankind as he lieth with womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they both shall be put to death. CONNECTICUT
Sodomy . . . shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labour in the penitentiary during the natural life or lives of the person or persons convicted of th[is] detestable crime. GEORGIA
That if any man shall commit the crime against nature with a man or male child . . . every such offender, being duly convicted thereof in the Supreme Judicial Court, shall be punished by solitary imprisonment for such term not exceeding one year and by confinement afterwards to hard labor for such term not exceeding ten years. MAINE
That if any person or persons shall commit sodomy . . . he or they so offending or committing any of the said crimes within this province, their counsellors, aiders, comforters, and abettors, being convicted thereof as above said, shall suffer as felons. [And] shall forfeit to the Commonwealth all and singular the lands and tenements, goods and chattels, whereof he or she was seized or possessed at the time . . . at the discretion of the court passing the sentence, not exceeding ten years, in the public gaol or house of correction of the county or city in which the offence shall have been committed and be kept at such labor. PENNSYLVANIA
[T]he detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that the offenders being hereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall suffer such pains of death and losses and penalties of their goods. SOUTH CAROLINA
That if any man lieth with mankind as he lieth with a woman, they both shall suffer death. VERMONT"
Jeffersonish: please note that your namesake showed no mercy to faggots.
“The best and first guarantor of our neutrality and our independent existence is the defensive will of the people…and the proverbial marksmanship of the Swiss shooter. Each soldier a good marksman! Each shot a hit!” Schweizerische Schutzenseitunt (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
X-15 posted on 2008-06-19 9:47:28 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#21. To: Jeffersonish (#18)
Our morals keep evolving as we become more civilized. Acceptance of homosexuality is just such a moral evolution.

Excuse me, you meant de-evolution. I don't mind correcting your posts when you err.
“The best and first guarantor of our neutrality and our independent existence is the defensive will of the people…and the proverbial marksmanship of the Swiss shooter. Each soldier a good marksman! Each shot a hit!” Schweizerische Schutzenseitunt (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
X-15 posted on 2008-06-19 9:52:56 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#22. To: Original_Intent (#10)
1. "NO ONE IS BEING PERSECUTED."
2. "non-acceptance of perverse behavior "
3. "the attempt to implant the idea that it is genetic (with no proof)"
4. "or the insertion of it into children's education has made it a public issue"

reply to 1: Nobody being persecuted? Did you read the article? The whole thing was a response to the persecution that took place not just during the Nazi era but right up until the 60's. When somebody took the trouble to speak out against that persecution, people here took offense, which is by extension, supporting the persecution.
reply to 2: Perverse: Purposely deviating from what is accepted as good, proper or reasonable. (Encarta World English Dictionary). So what you are saying is homosexual sex is not good... says you, but then you're not the one experiencing it. Proper? Well, if that's the standard, then no sex is "proper" in this respect. Proper is a reference to etiquette and sex in public is never proper unless of course one has taken pains to ensure only people wanting to see public sex are present. And reasonable? For a homosexual, homosexual activity is infinitely more reasonable than heterosexual because it is what gets them off. So no, I don't buy it is perverse behavior any more than heterosexual behavior. It might seem perverse to you because you were raised to believe "that's just wrong" but then to some people seeing a woman's shoulder is just as "wrong" and in the Middle-East for instance, it could get a woman stoned to death.
reply to 3: It isn't genetic... if it were, it would have died out long ago for obvious reasons... but it is obvious to those who know enough homosexuals that they are born that way. Keeping in mind there are bisexual people who are attracted to both sexes, homosexuals generally know they are attracted to the same sex long before it manifests as a sexual thing. If you think it is a choice, imagine how repulsed you are thinking about this so-called "perversion" and imagine just how silly it seems that these people simply decide to have sex with the same gender out of some need to rebel or whatever motivation you imagine.
reply to 4: I am actually kind of with you on this one because I think they're teaching this possibly at too young an age for the kids to get it, but you have to understand it is a response to the hate. Because of stories like Matthew Shepard, it is thought by many that acceptance must be taught at a young age to prevent future senseless killings.
In general, I know it is hard to imagine now, but some day, all this will seem as harmless as a glimpse of a woman's ankle or seeing a shirtless man at the beach. You might find that repulsive, but then like I said in my original rant, it is all just the human body here which we shouldn't be having such negative reactions to.
When the government wants to take your life (capital punishment), they must first convict you of a crime, thus fulfilling the due process clause of the 5th amendment. When they want to take your liberty (imprisonment), they must first convict you of a crime, thus fulfilling the due process clause of the fifth amendment. When they want to take your property, they must hold a city council meeting, condemn your property via eminent domain, and convict you of nothing other than having property someone else is wants to develop. So when exactly did we pass that amendment striking the word property from the due process clause of the fifth amendment? - Brian Jones
Jeffersonish posted on 2008-06-19 10:01:42 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#23. To: Cynicom (#11)
But then I'm not a sexually repressed Puritan afraid of seeing the human body. Neither am I Beavis, sniggering every time someone exposes a nipple or butt cheek.
The above is just another example of people that are so loving and caring, non biased, on and on, and then you have the audacity in the same post to lay out your own bias, dislike, hate or whatever.
Look in the mirror, you do not see a "sexually repressed Puritan", what do you see?
We know what we see from your own posting, your own words.

Yes, I do think it is loving and caring to point out to others when they are being hateful. Maybe it will lead to them being more accepting individuals when it comes to actions that aren't doing anything to harm them.
You think I am biased when I characterize Puritans as being sexually repressed? I dare say, this is one of the defining characteristics of Puritans. You might find sexual repression to be a good thing. At one time, most people did. The term sexual repression has come to have a negative connotation which I embrace, but apparently you don't. My bias is based on reason... it is not unfounded. I dislike hateful speech and I don't apologize for that. I hate hate and the world would, I think, be a better place if we tried to turn our hate into positive emotions and actions.
When I look in the mirror, I see someone who enjoys his human body and enjoys sex and who is happy to know others can do the same in their own way.
When the government wants to take your life (capital punishment), they must first convict you of a crime, thus fulfilling the due process clause of the 5th amendment. When they want to take your liberty (imprisonment), they must first convict you of a crime, thus fulfilling the due process clause of the fifth amendment. When they want to take your property, they must hold a city council meeting, condemn your property via eminent domain, and convict you of nothing other than having property someone else is wants to develop. So when exactly did we pass that amendment striking the word property from the due process clause of the fifth amendment? - Brian Jones
Jeffersonish posted on 2008-06-19 10:12:55 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#24. To: Jeffersonish (#23)
When I look in the mirror, I see someone who enjoys his human body and enjoys sex and who is happy to know others can do the same in their own way.

I must admit at never having "enjoyed" my body or anyone elses.
It is the behavior of the few that insist on having recognition from the majority that brings conflicts.

Cynicom posted on 2008-06-19 10:21:34 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#25. To: PSUSA (#15)
But if you dont see homosexuality as a sin, then you won't agree with me, Try thinking of it as a public health issue instead.
You said:
"I know many homosexuals, both male and female and I can tell you their sexuality is never an issue. They generally keep it to themselves, just like most heterosexuals. They have a wide range of personalities just like heterosexuals. Every one of them I know is gainfully employed. They just happen to enjoy their sex differently. "
You can say the same things about rapists and pedophiles, and many serial killers.

True, I don't think in terms of sin... I think in terms of morality. Okay... so public health issue. There is nothing inherently unhealthy about homosexuality. Some sex acts that many of them engage in more often than heteros can be without proper precautions, but one of the biggest reasons AIDS has spread so much has to do with the Catholic Church in Africa refusing to teach people about condoms, and the sex that spreads AIDS most there is hetero sex. If there were no homosexual sex activities going on, HIV would still be transmitted.
RE: rapists and pedophiles and serial killers -- the big difference is the word "consensual." Rapists and serial killers by definition are violating others' rights by committing a non-consensual assault on another individual. Pedophiles technically doesn't describe a non-consensual act because it only defines what a person likes. Of course you probably mean a child molester or statuatory rapist and since we have declared children can't give consent and we understand an arbitrary age is necessary to provide clear guidance on who can and can't give consent, they too are guilty of non-consensual acts, so your comparison to people engaging in consensual homosexuality falls flat.
When the government wants to take your life (capital punishment), they must first convict you of a crime, thus fulfilling the due process clause of the 5th amendment. When they want to take your liberty (imprisonment), they must first convict you of a crime, thus fulfilling the due process clause of the fifth amendment. When they want to take your property, they must hold a city council meeting, condemn your property via eminent domain, and convict you of nothing other than having property someone else is wants to develop. So when exactly did we pass that amendment striking the word property from the due process clause of the fifth amendment? - Brian Jones
Jeffersonish posted on 2008-06-19 10:26:42 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#26. To: Jethro Tull (#19)
It's hardly a natural evolution when the radical homosexual agenda is a tenant of the MSM, college campuses and elite. To make matters worse, this "evolution" is buttressed by legislation in the form of hate law, which is violation of my 1st Amendment rights.

The evolution of which I speak is more of a process in which we examine our moral values and ferret out those which have been exposed as either never having had moral standing, or based on circumstances no longer existent in modern society. When something doesn't make sense morally, it matters not whether the MSM, the government or religious figures attempt to change it (well actually, the government usually makes it worse by trying to fix it, but that's another thread) -- what matters is that we recognize the error of our ways and move forward into a society that makes more sense.
Your comment about hate laws and the first amendment are right on. The only entity that should not be allowed to discriminate is the government. Private speech and association are rightfully protected by the 1st amendment and are fundamental to individual freedom.
I also think churches and all non-profits should not have to worry about tax status based on what they say, promote, etc. I think that should be because we don't have income tax, but given that we do, there should be no special privileges for those who give up their first amendment rights.
When the government wants to take your life (capital punishment), they must first convict you of a crime, thus fulfilling the due process clause of the 5th amendment. When they want to take your liberty (imprisonment), they must first convict you of a crime, thus fulfilling the due process clause of the fifth amendment. When they want to take your property, they must hold a city council meeting, condemn your property via eminent domain, and convict you of nothing other than having property someone else is wants to develop. So when exactly did we pass that amendment striking the word property from the due process clause of the fifth amendment? - Brian Jones
Jeffersonish posted on 2008-06-19 10:37:54 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#27. To: Original_Intent (#10)
That was a fine post.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
James Deffenbach posted on 2008-06-19 10:44:48 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#28. To: X-15 (#20)
Jeffersonish: please note that your namesake showed no mercy to faggots.

Hence the "ish"
Note that in the 18th century they didn't have latex condoms and that sodomy is a health concern without condoms... shoot even with condoms, it probably isn't exactly therapeutic. But it should be pointed out that while I am sure it is widely practiced, sodomy is not a prerequisite for homosexuality and in fact often practiced by heterosexual couples. Therefore laws against sodomy were not (technically) laws against homosexuality. Any convictions were practically most likely based on assumptions of what happened in private (albeit likely correct assumptions).
We also had laws against practicing witchcraft in the colonies, we still have laws forbidding certain activities on Sundays, and we still have asset forfeiture laws which violate the 4th amendment. Our Constitution endorsed slavery and women weren't allowed representation by way of voting. They also weren't allowed to have their own bank accounts. Most of these absurdities were just peachy with Jefferson, Washington, Mason, Franklin, Hamilton, Adams and the rest of our esteemed founders. It doesn't mean they were right.
Oh, and do you really need to use perjorative terms like faggot?
When the government wants to take your life (capital punishment), they must first convict you of a crime, thus fulfilling the due process clause of the 5th amendment. When they want to take your liberty (imprisonment), they must first convict you of a crime, thus fulfilling the due process clause of the fifth amendment. When they want to take your property, they must hold a city council meeting, condemn your property via eminent domain, and convict you of nothing other than having property someone else is wants to develop. So when exactly did we pass that amendment striking the word property from the due process clause of the fifth amendment? - Brian Jones
Jeffersonish posted on 2008-06-19 10:54:02 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#29. To: Jeffersonish (#25)
True, I don't think in terms of sin... I think in terms of morality. Okay... so public health issue. There is nothing inherently unhealthy about homosexuality. Some sex acts that many of them engage in more often than heteros can be without proper precautions, but one of the biggest reasons AIDS has spread so much has to do with the Catholic Church in Africa refusing to teach people about condoms, and the sex that spreads AIDS most there is hetero sex. If there were no homosexual sex activities going on, HIV would still be transmitted.

True, It seems to be more thru prostitution than homosexual sex, which is a BIG taboo in most, if not all, African countries. Moreso than it is here. The infection rate is Swaziland is at 33%+
www.avert.org/aids- swaziland.htm
As far as the diseases more associated with homosexuality
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...render.fcgi?artid=1619854
So dont tell me that "there is nothing inherently unhealthy about homosexuality". That is not true.
I as not saying that homosexuals were comparable to pedophiles or rapists. You tried to make the point that just because they keep it to themselves than that means it is all OK. My point was that just because some of them are private about it, doesnt make it right. It didnt fall flat, I just didn't make it clear.
policestateusa.net/
PSUSA posted on 2008-06-19 11:06:05 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#30. To: Jeffersonish (#28)
Oh, and do you really need to use perjorative terms like faggot?

Yes, because that ugly word puts the truth to the lie that there is anything decent about the practicioners of "another offence of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature committed either with man or beast": FAGGOTS.
Your feeble attempts to equate fags/peter-puffers/queers with slavery/witchcraft/etc. are weak and without substance. Quit pimping the Zionist agenda to corrupt Western Civilization.
“The best and first guarantor of our neutrality and our independent existence is the defensive will of the people…and the proverbial marksmanship of the Swiss shooter. Each soldier a good marksman! Each shot a hit!” Schweizerische Schutzenseitunt (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
X-15 posted on 2008-06-19 11:11:23 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#31. To: Cynicom (#24)
I must admit at never having "enjoyed" my body or anyone elses.
It is the behavior of the few that insist on having recognition from the majority that brings conflicts.

You've never "enjoyed" your body? How sad. Or anyone elses? Also sad. Well actually this one depends on your age I guess... Are you old enough to be having sex? Oh, and by the way, I didn't mean any particular activity when I said, "enjoyed."
That second part sounds dangerously close to, "They're trying to convert us all!"
When the government wants to take your life (capital punishment), they must first convict you of a crime, thus fulfilling the due process clause of the 5th amendment. When they want to take your liberty (imprisonment), they must first convict you of a crime, thus fulfilling the due process clause of the fifth amendment. When they want to take your property, they must hold a city council meeting, condemn your property via eminent domain, and convict you of nothing other than having property someone else is wants to develop. So when exactly did we pass that amendment striking the word property from the due process clause of the fifth amendment? - Brian Jones
Jeffersonish posted on 2008-06-19 11:25:34 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#32. To: PSUSA (#29)
True, It seems to be more thru prostitution than homosexual sex, which is a BIG taboo in most, if not all, African countries. Moreso than it is here. The infection rate is Swaziland is at 33%+

You're making my point for me. You will find that monogomy is almost as good as abstinence when it comes to disease prevention and monogomy is not universally practiced by homos or heteros either one.
When the government wants to take your life (capital punishment), they must first convict you of a crime, thus fulfilling the due process clause of the 5th amendment. When they want to take your liberty (imprisonment), they must first convict you of a crime, thus fulfilling the due process clause of the fifth amendment. When they want to take your property, they must hold a city council meeting, condemn your property via eminent domain, and convict you of nothing other than having property someone else is wants to develop. So when exactly did we pass that amendment striking the word property from the due process clause of the fifth amendment? - Brian Jones
Jeffersonish posted on 2008-06-19 11:36:06 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#33. To: PSUSA (#29)
As far as the diseases more associated with homosexuality
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...render.fcgi?artid=1619854
So dont tell me that "there is nothing inherently unhealthy about homosexuality". That is not true.

That link does nothing to compare the risk of homosexual sex with heterosexual sex. It only shows various studies which speak to the prevalence etc. of various diseases among heterosexuals. They have similar studies for all kinds of demographics. Also note I didn't say that homosexuals don't have a higher level of any particular STD. In fact, I don't know the numbers. My point was that it is no more unsafe than the same sexual acts performed between a man and a woman. There is of course one act which can only be performed between a man and a woman (leaving out the absurd exceptions) and that has many of its own unique problems. And that even leaves out that homosexuality is who you're attracted to, not necessarily what you do with them. Practically speaking, maybe it is less healthy (and then again, maybe not) but the key word was inherently.
When the government wants to take your life (capital punishment), they must first convict you of a crime, thus fulfilling the due process clause of the 5th amendment. When they want to take your liberty (imprisonment), they must first convict you of a crime, thus fulfilling the due process clause of the fifth amendment. When they want to take your property, they must hold a city council meeting, condemn your property via eminent domain, and convict you of nothing other than having property someone else is wants to develop. So when exactly did we pass that amendment striking the word property from the due process clause of the fifth amendment? - Brian Jones
Jeffersonish posted on 2008-06-19 11:46:34 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#34. To: Jeffersonish (#26)
Your comment about hate laws and the first amendment are right on. The only entity that should not be allowed to discriminate is the government. Private speech and association are rightfully protected by the 1st amendment and are fundamental to individual freedom.

i wholeheartedly agree.

christine posted on 2008-06-19 11:47:36 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#35. To: Jeffersonish (#32)
You're making my point for me. You will find that monogomy is almost as good as abstinence when it comes to disease prevention and monogomy is not universally practiced by homos or heteros either one.

This is where the sin part comes in. We have been told not to do this. There is a price to pay if we choose to do it anyway.
The thing is, people focus on homosexuality as being a sin, which it is. But it is not the only sin. The way some people focus on it, and attack it to the exclusion of all other sin, is wrong imo. To me, it is enough that I dont have that problem, I just have other problems to deal with.
About 1 in 5 adults you see right now has herpes. That is from the CDC. And that is only 1 disease. They are paying the price. And they are spreading it to other people.
If only people would just stop. But they won't.
policestateusa.net/
PSUSA posted on 2008-06-19 11:52:28 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#36. To: PSUSA (#29)
"I as not saying that homosexuals were comparable to pedophiles or rapists."
>>You can say the same things about rapists and pedophiles, and many serial killers.

Hmmmm, comparable vs. "Can say the same thing about" Sounds like you're splitting hairs.
When the government wants to take your life (capital punishment), they must first convict you of a crime, thus fulfilling the due process clause of the 5th amendment. When they want to take your liberty (imprisonment), they must first convict you of a crime, thus fulfilling the due process clause of the fifth amendment. When they want to take your property, they must hold a city council meeting, condemn your property via eminent domain, and convict you of nothing other than having property someone else is wants to develop. So when exactly did we pass that amendment striking the word property from the due process clause of the fifth amendment? - Brian Jones
Jeffersonish posted on 2008-06-19 11:52:28 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#37. To: Jeffersonish (#36)
It does sound that way, but I already said I know I was not clear about what I was saying.
policestateusa.net/
PSUSA posted on 2008-06-19 11:53:43 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#38. To: Ferret Mike (#16)
I have personally seen to it racists have been convicted of felonies for expressing this poison

convicted of felonies for mere EXPRESSION? surely, you don't believe that americans should be punished for thought, opinion, or expression of such? perhaps you should weigh that strongly. let's personalize this. suppose someone decided that your talking about your particularly religion, for example, was a felony offense?

christine posted on 2008-06-19 11:54:29 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#39. To: PSUSA (#29)
You tried to make the point that just because they keep it to themselves than that means it is all OK. My point was that just because some of them are private about it, doesnt make it right.

OK and "right" are two different concepts and I don't like either word in this context. More to the point, would be morality. There is nothing immoral about homosexuality. Even if it is a little more dangerous than hetero sex (and I am not saying it is, only that it might be) that does not make it immoral. We do all sorts of things every day more dangerous than homosexuality (especially between women). We drive cars and car accidents are one of the leading causes of death in this country. Is it immoral to drive a car? Of course not.
When the government wants to take your life (capital punishment), they must first convict you of a crime, thus fulfilling the due process clause of the 5th amendment. When they want to take your liberty (imprisonment), they must first convict you of a crime, thus fulfilling the due process clause of the fifth amendment. When they want to take your property, they must hold a city council meeting, condemn your property via eminent domain, and convict you of nothing other than having property someone else is wants to develop. So when exactly did we pass that amendment striking the word property from the due process clause of the fifth amendment? - Brian Jones
Jeffersonish posted on 2008-06-19 12:01:51 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#40. To: Jeffersonish (#31)
Are you old enough to be having sex?

Am I????
Looking down the road a bit I can see 80.
"You've never "enjoyed" your body? How sad."
Really??? I agree some people are indeed obsessed with sex, their body, bodies of others, all fits in human nature. Once that obsession transcends acceptable social behavior, society breaks down. It has often been said that the human brain is the biggest sex organ and that some are unable to control it.

Cynicom posted on 2008-06-19 12:03:19 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

.
.
.
Comments (41 - 41) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um