Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

reply to post by Jim Scott


Your post is wrong in so many different levels. First, you fail in labeling homosexuality as a fetish. You fail to understand that you, as an heterosexual male, are biologically capable of having sex with another male. In the same way that I, as an homosexual male, am biologically capable of having sex with a woman. It's not about sex, homosexuality is a much wider subject that just sexual relationships. It's also dumb to say that you've "outgrown" fetishes at the age of 8 when you were simply experimenting things as any other young person would do.

Also, this line:

"When the Frenchman brought AIDS to America on his gay tour across the US"

is absolute rubbish. I don't know what your source is for saying that (unless you've been in that gay tour across the US), but actually science believes that AIDS arrived from Haiti when Congo became independent. On the other hand, it's a fact that AIDS was transmitted by both hetero and homosexual sex, as well as drug users. Unfortunately your mind appears to have stucked in the way of thinking of the seventies. Look it up.

And one last thing (I'll not comment on the rest of your post because there's no use), there's no such thing as Sexual Affinity Disorder, unless some church somewhere has created the term, in which case I wouldn't knew it (and wouldn't care basically because it wouldn't have any scientific value at all).

Originally posted by Radiobuzz
Your post is wrong in so many different levels. First, you fail in labeling homosexuality as a fetish. You fail to understand that you, as an heterosexual male, are biologically capable of having sex with another male. In the same way that I, as an homosexual male, am biologically capable of having sex with a woman. It's not about sex, homosexuality is a much wider subject that just sexual relationships. It's also dumb to say that you've "outgrown" fetishes at the age of 8 when you were simply experimenting things as any other young person would do.

sex is integral to it either way you cut it surely

a) I am heterosexaul but could not bring myself to have sex with a man
b) you are homosexual but say you could not bring yourself to have sex with a woman

Therefore sex is integral

Also, this line:

"When the Frenchman brought AIDS to America on his gay tour across the US"

is absolute rubbish. I don't know what your source is for saying that (unless you've been in that gay tour across the US), but actually science believes that AIDS arrived from Haiti when Congo became independent. On the other hand, it's a fact that AIDS was transmitted by both hetero and homosexual sex, as well as drug users. Unfortunately your mind appears to have stucked in the way of thinking of the seventies. Look it up.

AIDs, certainly in the west, is largely confined to homosexuals and drug addicts

You can't forced someone to accept other people's natural differences.

But...it doesn't really matter. Haters are behind the curve. We are moving forward. People are becoming more accepting and more enlightened.

Of course we still have a long way to go, but we are moving in the right direction. Ignorance is not being accepted.

You can try to hide yourself from the world, but as your children grow up YOU are going to be left behind in ignorance.

Originally posted by blueorder
sex is integral to it either way you cut it surely

a) I am heterosexaul but could not bring myself to have sex with a man
b) you are homosexual but say you could not bring yourself to have sex with a woman

Therefore sex is integral

You can't bring yourself to have sex with a man simply because of your own prejudices. You like having sex with woman so you don't feel the need to be looking for sex with a man. Also it's possible (and I say "possible" because I don't know you, but what I'm about to say is true for most people) that you feel that having sex with a man can turn you into an homosexual, or that it would make you less of a man. In the same way, I don't have sex with woman because that's not what I'm looking for. What I said on my previous post, which I think you didn't understand, is that you and me both are biologically capable of having sex with both genres. I'm not talking about your own personal sexual needs but purely about biology.

And I sustain that sex is not completely what defines you as hetero, homo or bi. Imagine an homosexual guy who knows he's homosexual and yet he chooses to live an heterosexual life. He can get married to a girl, form a family and have sex with the wife once a week while mantaining intercourses with men on rare occasions. What does that make him? He may have more sex with his wife than with men, purely to satisfy his sexual need. Does that mean he's straight?

Sex is an important part of being homo or heterosexual, but it's not at all the whole subject.

Originally posted by blueorder
AIDs, certainly in the west, is largely confined to homosexuals and drug addicts

I don't know what happens at the west of your country but according to the World Health Organization (which knows better than you or me) say that:

Worldwide, HIV is still largely driven by heterosexual transmission.

Source: www.who.int...

reply to post by blueorder

AIDs, certainly in the west, is largely confined to homosexuals and drug addicts

I'm not jumping into this argument because I feel it is a waste of time. I'm not saying your statement is untrue or unfounded, but I'd like to point out there are many other nations where AIDs is much, much more common among heterosexuals. PS- currently in the west the spread of AIDs among straight, minority groups of women is far more rampid than among gays.

I must conclude this topic.



On Nov. 4th, 2008, California voted to overturn the Overt Facistic manuvers of powers and people that we yet do not know.


There is not a BONE IN MY BODY, that doesn't fully expect these same power-hungar-gay-facists to do the same thing again.


I give it 6 months until the nest display of this horrible HORRIBLE political ideal...

The Gay-Facists... we all knew facism would never be gone forever... only, i hoped it wouldn't resurface this fast...

As California goes, so does the nation, the near-term future for America is very Grim indeed...



In good news though, Prop 8 passed, AGAIN reaffirming the legitimate vote of the people.

And for the first time in my, smacking down Overt Facism... my fear is next time, they will not allow a vote...

Now Remember, in July, State legistaltors PUSHED HARD to try to make this ballot not exist, they chllenged EVERY SIGNITURE, and tryed to get the california supreme court to rule that this DID NOT NEED A POPULAR vote.


Thankfuly, the supreme court of california hasnt COMPELTY sold the people out yet... i only think they didn't do this because if they would have said,

"You are just the people, and the people do have no say", then thier heads would have been on stake outside Sacaremento.



Reguardless on how you feel about Gays, you have to glad that this facistic manuver was SMACKED down...


I am only scared of the people that ACCEPT facism, because it either benifits them, or they feel good about themselves for supporting it.



I hope the Gay rights groups go about this the right way, the constitutional way, and not the way of Facism.


May this movement Mirror that of Civil Rights, not the Third Reighct.


Its not simple to understand, but that doesnt make it false.


Now, ignore this next part, if you want, its emotional talk, ill admit that up front.

I saw the video that these women made. Of her students at this weding.

It was one of the sadest things i had ever seen. These poor shildren were torn inside. Just looking into thier eyes, you could feel thier pain, their mind being destroyed.

I cryed, i did, and every time i see it, it kills me... the poor little girls face is torn, torn to bits...

Why do they want to expose homosexuality to 7 year olds...

In principal, i don't want the goverment/choold doing ANYTHING having to do with sexuaility.

But, thats just me, i belive in the freedom of choice, and the idea of Self-responsiblilty...

Not the Cradle to Grave mentality...

[edit on 11/5/2008 by TKainZero]

reply to post by TKainZero


From the deepest regions of my pumping heart I hope you one day let go of your hate and realize we all deserve love, happiness, and a fair chance at both.

Reguardless on how you feel about Gays, you have to glad that this facistic manuver was SMACKED down...

No I don't.

I understood and supported that Judicial decision and I still do.

It's called Equality not fascism. It's supported by our Constitution! Our Declaration of Independence! Our Founding Fathers!... the Supreme Court based their decision on this!

And not some stupid immature uneducated fascist radical homosexual make-believe agenda...

Take a philosophy of ethics class. Read the damn Constitution. Grow up.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Adding a new word to the old assenarl of evil doesn't make it better.

Calling something one thing instead of the word people don't like doesnt make it so.


LL, you should lead a prop that gives Civil union ALL THE RIGHTS granted to married couples.


i would vote for that.

Here is one of the Supreme court Justices who Voted on the issue back in May...

Justice Carol A. Corrigan wrote that her personal sympathies were with the plaintiffs challenging the bans on same-sex marriage. But Justice Corrigan said the courts should allow the political process to address the question.

“We should allow the significant achievements embodied in the domestic partnership statutes to continue to take root,” she wrote. “If there is to be a new understanding of the meaning of marriage in California, it should develop among the people of our state and find its expression at the ballot box.”

While me and the Justice may disagree on the Morality of Homosexuality, we share the same view on the legitimacy of the Constitutional process, rather then illigitimate power grabs, that step on the fundemetal rights of the country.



I sincely hope that EVERYONE can see this.

Cause i don't think there was a single political ad telling you the truth about this...

Originally posted by TKainZero

i would vote for that.

Would you really? I don't understand why you would. You just said you don't believe in the morality of homosexuality, in the sense you think it's wrong (not too mention all the previous things you have stated in this thread), and you believe the gay community is a fascist organization. Why would you even want them to have Civil Unions? Are you just trying to sound PC here? Why would you support all those rights for people you believe are morally wrong to begin with??...

LL, you should lead a prop that gives Civil union ALL THE RIGHTS granted to married couples.

I support what the Gay Community (15-30,000,000+) as a whole believes they have the equal Rights to. If it is Civil Unions, and not Marriage, then that's what it should be. But it's Marriage, and so I support that.

I sincely hope that EVERYONE can see this.

Cause i don't think there was a single political ad telling you the truth about this...

Speaking of the political Truth. Here is some for us to all consider as well. This is something The Scientist brought to my attention:

Who is funding California's Prop 8, the country's most controversial ballot measure? The Mormons' donations are well known, and are a source of outrage among the church's more moderate elements. But little attention has been focused on two of the proposition's biggest individual donors: Elsa Broekhuizen, the mother of Blackwater founder Erik Prince, and Howard F. Ahmanson Jr., the reclusive theocratic millionaire who inherited $300 million from his philanthropist father at age 18.

Click for full article

This isn't about Justice. This is about agenda. Your support of it is not about battling supposed fascism, it's about agenda. One has the agenda for equality, and the other has the agenda of inequality. We all have an agenda dude. The question is which one is better for humanity.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

Gay couples shouldn't be stripped of rights that have to do with taxes and such.


Work WITH they system to get the rights.

Don't hope for the court to overturn the vote of the people.


I would vote for it to give them the rights.

You live here in California, work it, there is the will for it to happen, but they have to go thru the correct process.


Im not sure which rights are not given to Civil Unions that are given to Married Couples, but they should be the same.


Fight for that.

That is a joust cause.

reply to post by TKainZero


"Indoctrination"? Oh grow up and start to live in the real world!

It seems these kids wanted to go, because they care about their teacher, and the parents approved.

So, what, you want other parents to raise their kids by your rules? It doesn't work that way.

Homophobia isn't a phobia, it's an irrational and dictatorial view that one should be able to inflict their beliefs upon others against their will. It's amazing that so many people claim to be an advocate of freedom, against dictatorship, and then present a view that is totally the opposite.

The kids chose to be there, the parents chose to allow their kids to be there, and the teacher and her partner chose to get married.

This thread is more about right-wing fanatics wanting to stamp on the freedoms of other people, and nothing to do with people making choices, which they have a right to do even if you don't agree!

reply to post by TKainZero


I will fight for Equality. Equality for Humanity. But thanks for supporting my conviction. That is my moral prerogative as ordained by Lady Justice Herself! And equality to me does not equate to equal taxes

Equality means society gives its citizens equal opportunity at life, liberty, and happiness.

I thought it was the "pursuit of happiness"...

But I pretty much agree with you, even although it isn't my constitution or bill of rights...

Originally posted by Radiobuzz
You can't bring yourself to have sex with a man simply because of your own prejudices. You like having sex with woman so you don't feel the need to be looking for sex with a man. Also it's possible (and I say "possible" because I don't know you, but what I'm about to say is true for most people) that you feel that having sex with a man can turn you into an homosexual, or that it would make you less of a man. In the same way, I don't have sex with woman because that's not what I'm looking for. What I said on my previous post, which I think you didn't understand, is that you and me both are biologically capable of having sex with both genres. I'm not talking about your own personal sexual needs but purely about biology.

I dont have sex with a man because I am not attracted to men, pure and simple- I am physically capable of a lot of things, but I do not find men attractive sexually and would not be able to achieve a hard on with a man, nor would I have any inclination to indulge in sex with a man via other means

And I sustain that sex is not completely what defines you as hetero, homo or bi. Imagine an homosexual guy who knows he's homosexual and yet he chooses to live an heterosexual life. He can get married to a girl, form a family and have sex with the wife once a week while mantaining intercourses with men on rare occasions. What does that make him? He may have more sex with his wife than with men, purely to satisfy his sexual need. Does that mean he's straight?

Dont know about your unusual scenario- he sounds confused, most people are not

Sex is an important part of being homo or heterosexual, but it's not at all the whole subject.

It is fundamental as it is what categorises you as one or other

I don't know what happens at the west of your country but according to the World Health Organization (which knows better than you or me) say that:

I am talkin about the west, ie, Europe, US, Australia etc it is largely confined to homosexuals and drug addicts



[edit on 6-11-2008 by blueorder]

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
I'm not jumping into this argument because I feel it is a waste of time. I'm not saying your statement is untrue or unfounded, but I'd like to point out there are many other nations where AIDs is much, much more common among heterosexuals. PS- currently in the west the spread of AIDs among straight, minority groups of women is far more rampid than among gays.

In Africa the disease is apparently more associated with heterosexuals, however it is hard to get a judge there because of inadaquecy of data and cultural problems about admitting to being homosexual.

The fact is the disease is more likely to be caught via anal sex due to ripping of the area (and blood transference) more likely than vaginal- hence it is much more likely to be caught via anal sex than vaginal. Yes I realise heteros can indulge in anal sex too, however this is less common practice than amongst men having sex who do not have a vaginal option

[edit on 6-11-2008 by blueorder]

This reminds me of the argument I had with my christian friend.

"Homosexuality is wrong! Bible says so!"
"No the bible doesn't say that"
"Yes, it does! Read the passage about Sodom and Gomorrah!"
"Uh, read it careful"
...reading...
"There! Those men wanted the angels! That proves it!"
"Uh no. That isn't the reason why God destroyed Sodom"
....
....
Me - "Can you imagine being homosexual? Can you imagine making that decision to become one?"
"Well no, but I can see how sin can influence one's mind"
"So basically it is possible for you to make the decision to have sex with someone of the same sex?"
"Uhhhh umm well yeah if I get too involved in sin"

And so on and on.

In a nutshell, you CAN'T make the decision to be attracted to someone of same sex if you are not a homosexual.

Originally posted by blueorder

I dont have sex with a man because I am not attracted to men, pure and simple- I am physically capable of a lot of things, but I do not find men attractive sexually and would not be able to achieve a hard on with a man, nor would I have any inclination to indulge in sex with a man via other means

70% of the times you have sex with someone, most of what you feel comes from your brain. If you were drunk enough to let your morals fly out the window, you certainly would be able to achieve a hard on being with a man if you're thinking about girls while you do it.

Dont know about your unusual scenario- he sounds confused, most people are not

I wonder if you, as an heterosexual male, are able to get inside other people's shoes. The example I gave is more common you will ever realise.

I am talkin about the west, ie, Europe, US, Australia etc it is largely confined to homosexuals and drug addicts

Again, what's your source for saying that?

reply to post by Radiobuzz

70% of the times you have sex with someone, most of what you feel comes from your brain. If you were drunk enough to let your morals fly out the window, you certainly would be able to achieve a hard on being with a man if you're thinking about girls while you do it.

Uh maybe if this person completely blacks out and really thought the man was a girl. After all, beer does make women look more pretty and maybe turn men into women.

Originally posted by Radiobuzz
70% of the times you have sex with someone, most of what you feel comes from your brain. If you were drunk enough to let your morals fly out the window, you certainly would be able to achieve a hard on being with a man if you're thinking about girls while you do it.

it isnt about morals, it is about me not finding a man attractive- being with a man I could not achieve any erection, because it is physically the man I would be with, regardless of who or what I was thinking about-

I wonder if you, as an heterosexual male, are able to get inside other people's shoes. The example I gave is more common you will ever realise.

I think it may be less common than you think it is

Again, what's your source for saying that?

data.unaids.org...

74% of AIDS cases in the US are men with most common mode of transmission unprotected sex between men


[edit on 6-11-2008 by blueorder]