Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070528090003.xafs5doi&show_article=1


*Scratches his head.*

That's so Gay

Meh. As long as hotels can also no to homosexuals, I see no problem with it.

Well, I do. But I see less of one.

Originally posted by Kinneary
Meh. As long as hotels can also no to homosexuals, I see no problem with it.


Now if that happened, every single gay group would up in arms against it. Rosie O'Donnell would be the posterchild for them, screaming her ugly head off.

Originally posted by Kinneary
Meh. As long as hotels can also no to homosexuals, I see no problem with it.

Well, I do. But I see less of one.

I agree, I don't think they can though.

Also, if that is one of Fece's tricks again, I will publicly state now that neither did I read the article nor click the link to make sure that it is not a straight hotel banning homos...

In which case I would also hold the same opinion.

No, it's not a trick.

It's true...

And it's absolutely ****ing ridiculious. Discrimination is just wrong, unless it's against the majority then it's okay...

What kind of an idiotic decision is that?

If other hotels could say no to gays then it would be somewhat fine, but they can't and they won't. So this is just a lot of bullshit.

Originally posted by FeceMan
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070528090003.xafs5doi&show_article=1


*Scratches his head.* their money is just as green as straight people. sounds like a dumb business move to me.

that's retarded. homophobes wouldn't want to stay in a gay hotel anyway and militant bigots don't need to get in legitimatley to stage an attack anyway. This is just plain segregation and some twisted misogynist and homosexist elitism.

At first I thought this said queeqs hotel......

His taverns so cool, what the hell.......hahaha

WTF? I thought Melbourne was smarter than this.

Blatant discrimination. FEDERAL LAWBREAKAGE.

If it doesn't offer accomodation, in what sense is it a hotel?

This is a private club; it can admit whoeever it likes and reject whoever it likes.

There is no equality discrimination issue here.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
If it doesn't offer accomodation, in what sense is it a hotel?

This is a private club; it can admit whoeever it likes and reject whoever it likes.

There is no equality discrimination issue here.

If it was a hotel, would different rules apply?

Denying accomodation is a little different.

But it is fairly well established that it is not the business of Government to demand who private clubs can and cannot allow in. Else things like Women's Institutes could not exist.

It is also very discriminatory to, effectively, deny one group of people their place to socialise with each other, and allow another group of people to have theirs.

Equality does not mean forced amalgamation.

Those racists . . .

Originally posted by Ushgarak
If it doesn't offer accomodation, in what sense is it a hotel?

This is a private club; it can admit whoeever it likes and reject whoever it likes.

There is no equality discrimination issue here.

Indeed. I hate it when someone beats me to the punch.

What happens if one denies admittance to homosexuals at a heterosexual club?

If we work on the idea that it was a large group of homosexuals seeking to deliberately upset the point of the club AND we assume that the locations available for heterosexuals to go are limited in the same way then we would have an equitable situation. Seeing as there is no such thing- or any need for- a heterosexual club, that seems unlikely.

Fact of the matter is, there is absolutely no problem at all for heterosexuals in this social sense. There ARE problems for homosexuals.

*Yawn*

Originally posted by Ushgarak
If we work on the idea that it was a large group of homosexuals seeking to deliberately upset the point of the club AND we assume that the locations available for heterosexuals to go are limited in the same way then we would have an equitable situation. Seeing as there is no such thing- or any need for- a heterosexual club, that seems unlikely.

Fact of the matter is, there is absolutely no problem at all for heterosexuals in this social sense. There ARE problems for homosexuals.

It should still be alright for heterosexuals to have hetero only clubs.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It should still be alright for heterosexuals to have hetero only clubs.

In theory, perhaps, but there's no demand (because there's no need) and so it's really not a relevant issue at all.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
If we work on the idea that it was a large group of homosexuals seeking to deliberately upset the point of the club AND we assume that the locations available for heterosexuals to go are limited in the same way then we would have an equitable situation. Seeing as there is no such thing- or any need for- a heterosexual club, that seems unlikely.

Fact of the matter is, there is absolutely no problem at all for heterosexuals in this social sense. There ARE problems for homosexuals.
Not the point.

People would scream "discrimination," "hatred," and "superintelligent monkeys poisoning our damn toothpaste."

Yes, and justifiably, because the situation would not be equitable unless it as I say above, and that being the case it absolutely IS the point. It's exactly the point. It's not what you wanted to hear, but it is the point.

Originally posted by Kinneary
Meh. As long as hotels can also no to homosexuals, I see no problem with it.

Well, I do. But I see less of one.

Except if they did there would be riots and gay pride shit happening all over the place.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Not the point.

People would scream "discrimination," "hatred," and "superintelligent monkeys poisoning our damn toothpaste."
That is inaccurate.

You say that....it didn't happen though.

Originally posted by J-Beowulf
Except if they did there would be riots and gay pride shit happening all over the place.

Again, justifiably.

I dont get the fuss.....its not like hetero people would go to a gay club anyway, so who cares if its restricted to gays?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Again, justifiably.

Wait... are you saying straight people cant have private clubs for themselves?

Originally posted by Bardock42
It should still be alright for heterosexuals to have hetero only clubs.

Agreed, it should work both ways... Not sure how someone can justify one and then forbid the other.

How do you propose they 'test' the patrons though?

Originally posted by Robtard
Agreed, it should work both ways... Not sure how someone can justify one and then forbid the other.

How do you propose they 'test' the patrons though?

Hardly my problem, really.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yes, and justifiably, because the situation would not be equitable unless it as I say above, and that being the case it absolutely IS the point. It's exactly the point. It's not what you wanted to hear, but it is the point.
It would be equitable.

It is still retarded. For the sole purpose that a ''private clubs'' for hetrosexuals would NEVER win the right to addmit only hetrosexuals - or they'll have every single gay rights group on ther backs, and there would be sheer media panic about intolerance.

Besides, how are lesbians stopping gay men from expressing their sexuality?

Originally posted by Robtard
Agreed, it should work both ways... Not sure how someone can justify one and then forbid the other.

How do you propose they 'test' the patrons though?

Ever seen History of the World Part I?

Originally posted by FeceMan
It would be equitable.

That is an exceptionally ignorant comment that borders on the homophobic, to try and even vaguely pretend there is quity in social situation between heteosexuals and homosexuals.

How absurd.

Again, Lil- you are not comparing equal situations. These comparisons are not fair.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
That is an exceptionally ignorant comment that borders on the homophobic, to try and even vaguely pretend there is quity in social situation between heteosexuals and homosexuals.

How absurd.

Again, Lil- you are not comparing equal situations. These comparisons are not fair.

Heterosexuals should have the right to be among themselves as well. Assuming it is a private club. Regardless of whether it is an equal situation or not, which it is indeed not really.

Again, it is irrelvant to talk about an issue that absolutely does not arise. There is absolutely no need for straight only clubs, or any demand for them.

Theoretically, if the situation was absolutely reversed- which would mean quite a shift in culture- then yes, the same would apply.

But that's simply not going to happen.

It's like all those feeble arguments about there being minority programming but not majority programming being prejudiced against the majority- which is crap because nearly all the television is majority television.

People who have trouble with this simply haven't thought properly about the subject of equality. It's more complex than many people- especially from the majority- understand.

Things like Equality Commissions have to look at these things in a broad sense. And they have to take into account the idea that wihtout this happening, you end up with a situation where homosexuals have no clubs to go to without being victimised, whilst heterosexuals have plenty.

That is social discrimination on the highest level. All this whining about "oh, the gays would moan if it was reversed" is irrelevant. The only relevant factr is whether homosexuals are being given the same social opportunities as other people, in private clubs designed for just that. Remove for them the ability to get that access and you are part of the problem.

I will remind people that this is a discretionary, not absolute, power. He's not going to do a 'gay check' of people at the doors. He wants to expel groups of people that have come there just to hassle the regulars. No problem there.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Again, it is irrelvant to talk about an issue that absolutely does not arise. There is absolutely no need for straight only clubs, or any demand for them.

Theoretically, if the situation was absolutely reversed- which would mean quite a shift in culture- then yes, the same would apply.

But that's simply not going to happen.

It's like all those feeble arguments about there being minority programming but not majority programming being prejudiced against the majority- which is crap because nearly all the television is majority television.

People who have trouble with this simply haven't thought properly about the subject of equality. It's more complex than many people- especially from the majority- understand.

Things like Equality Commissions have to look at these things in a broad sense. And they have to take into account the idea that wihtout this happening, you end up with a situation where homosexuals have no clubs to go to without being victimised, whilst heterosexuals have plenty.

That is social discrimination on the highest level. All this whining about "oh, the gays would moan if it was reversed" is irrelevant. The only relevant factr is whether homosexuals are being given the same social opportunities as other people, in private clubs designed for just that. Remove for them the ability to get that access and you are part of the problem.

I will remind people that this is a discretionary, not absolute, power. He's not going to do a 'gay check' of people at the doors. He wants to expel groups of people that have come there just to hassle the regulars. No problem there.

But there might be a demand. It might be a very rewarding business venture. If it's not then of course the issue does not arise, but in case someone was going for that, they should have the right, don't you think?

Basically I mean, that the certain social structures we have don't even need to be considered. The owner of the "hotel" should be allowed to make it "gay only" for the sole reason that it is his private business.

So, basically, I agree with your point, I just think it is irrelevant.


On the added part: For one it seems like they wont accept women at the doors and it seems obsolete in that case as every bar has the right to ban trouble makers....dont really need regulations in that case, eh?

Well, basically, I think the world itself shows there is no such demand. Nor will there ever be large groups of gays going out to laugh at the heteros- culturally speaking that would be laughable; it is minorities that get singled out.

Also because this had to go past an Equality Commission, they would certainly be correct to come to the conclusion that passing laws allowing people to throw gays out of clubs in general is not an advancement to the equality cause whilst in this case the reverse is such an advancment.

The privacy of the club is simply an extra detail that people should not ignore.

Originally posted by Bardock42

On the added part: For one it seems like they wont accept women at the doors and it seems obsolete in that case as every bar has the right to ban trouble makers....dont really need regulations in that case, eh?

Well apparently exisiting laws have proven insufficient in that respect.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well apparently exisiting laws have proven insufficient in that respect.

Then I wonder what additional rights they have.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, basically, I think the world itself shows there is no such demand. Nor will there ever be large groups of gays going out to laugh at the heteros- culturally speaking that would be laughable; it is minorities that get singled out.

Also because this had to go past an Equality Commission, they would certainly be correct to come to the conclusion that passing laws allowing people to throw gays out of clubs in general is not an advancement to the equality cause whilst in this case the reverse is such an advancment.

The privacy of the club is simply an extra detail that people should not ignore.

Well, I don't think there is demand for it because of that reason...but homophobes might feel the need to get their own straight only clubs....and homophobes have money....I like money. I am thinking of opening a straight only club.

Yeah, it certainly wouldn't be an advancement of equality, but there are other reasons to be considered, I think. I feel the equality issue should be seen as a minor issue, though the thread starter seems to make it to be the major issue also spinning it around.

Well, we approach the issue differently I guess.

Er...

If I'm not mistaken, the law allows for specialized 'discrimination' in order to, in plain terms, 'make up for past wrongdoing'.

You can think of it in this sense:

Because homosexuals have suffered at the hands of the heterosexual majority in the past, they are entitled to certain compensatory rights.

Much like there are racial groups and gender groups which are legally allowed to discriminate between patrons, if certain gay communities feel uncomfortable in situations involving heterosexuals or lesbians, we allow them the freedom to restrict access to said elements.

Please keep in mind what 'discrimination' means. Though it has a colloquially negative context, it refers only to the process of differentiation or the making of distinction. Discrimination isn't inherently wrong, we use it every day, in all parts of our life. Think about it and you'll see what I mean...unless you're one of those people who believe having different washrooms in restaurants and not allowing 7 year olds to drive is 'discriminatory'.

Then you can shut up.

Originally posted by offtheset
Er...

If I'm not mistaken, the law allows for specialized 'discrimination' in order to, in plain terms, 'make up for past wrongdoing'.

You can think of it in this sense:

Because homosexuals have suffered at the hands of the heterosexual majority in the past, they are entitled to certain compensatory rights.

Much like there are racial groups and gender groups which are legally allowed to discriminate between patrons, if certain gay communities feel uncomfortable in situations involving heterosexuals or lesbians, we allow them the freedom to restrict access to said elements.

Please keep in mind what 'discrimination' means. Though it has a colloquially negative context, it refers only to the process of differentiation or the making of distinction. Discrimination isn't inherently wrong, we use it every day, in all parts of our life. Think about it and you'll see what I mean...unless you're one of those people who believe having different washrooms in restaurants and not allowing 7 year olds to drive is 'discriminatory'.

Then you can shut up.

Who is that directed at?

B]2e8oWKMnKU8

durfist

Haha, Gay...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Haha, Gay...

Yet, I can't recall ever once hearing a village people song in a gay club....

Originally posted by Devil King
Yet, I can't recall ever once hearing a village people song in a gay club....

Weird me neither.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Weird me neither.

Have you ever heard them in a straight club? I have.

Originally posted by Devil King
Have you ever heard them in a straight club? I have.

No.

But my experience in both fields are similarly limited.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No.

But my experience in both fields are similarly limited.

I just think the village people are one of those baseless intrests assigned to gay people by straight people, because they're so gay.

I don't have a problem with Gay people, i believe in equal rights for everyone..

Originally posted by Faceman
I don't have a problem with Gay people, i believe in equal rights for everyone..

Oh, I wasn't accusing you of anything. I was just talking.

Originally posted by Faceman
I don't have a problem with Gay people, i believe in equal rights for everyone..

Well good, because the logical extension of equal rights is exactly what has happened here.

If you are silly enough to think homogoneity of laws = equality for everyone, then you are forever going to think that there is some sort of unfair agenda here. But that would just be the bias in you.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Who is that directed at?

Anyone who's interested ^_^;;

Originally posted by Ushgarak
That is an exceptionally ignorant comment that borders on the homophobic, to try and even vaguely pretend there is quity in social situation between heteosexuals and homosexuals.

How absurd.

Again, Lil- you are not comparing equal situations. These comparisons are not fair.

Why are they not fair? Homosexuals are not different to heterosexuals.
If one can have exclusively homosexual club, then there should be a strictly heterosexual club.

Even if there was demand for heterosexual clubs only, noone dare say it, as that would imply they are homophobes, and the big question is posted as to ''why would someone want strictly heterosexual club - they MUST be homophobic, otherwise they wouldn't mind homosexuals''.

Homophobes would not go into a homosexual clubs anyway, so what's the problem?

Originally posted by offtheset
Much like there are racial groups and gender groups which are legally allowed to discriminate between patrons, if certain gay communities feel uncomfortable in situations involving heterosexuals or lesbians, we allow them the freedom to restrict access to said elements.

Right. Because lesbians are heterosexual and all, and are making other homosexuals uncomfortable.

Its not only a display of discrimination (heterophobia), but it is also incredibly misogynist.
Which is extremely ironic.

I'm not homosexual, but lesbians make me uncomfortable.

Doing all that stuff.

Together.

They make me "uncomfortable" too.

http://www.clubplanet.com/news/blogpics/girls%20kissing%202.jpg

Originally posted by Robtard
They make me "uncomfortable" too.

http://www.clubplanet.com/news/blogpics/girls%20kissing%202.jpg

I cant bring myself to look at that

disgusting

i need to go wash up. be back in a few

Originally posted by Robtard
They make me "uncomfortable" too.

http://www.clubplanet.com/news/blogpics/girls%20kissing%202.jpg

Very sick indeed.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well good, because the logical extension of equal rights is exactly what has happened here.

If you are silly enough to think homogoneity of laws = equality for everyone, then you are forever going to think that there is some sort of unfair agenda here. But that would just be the bias in you.

Actually heteros not being allowed straight only clubs is not equal.

Not saying it is wrong to not let them have it....but it certainly is not equal....English language-y ... we can at least agree on that, right?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Why are they not fair? Homosexuals are not different to heterosexuals.
If one can have exclusively homosexual club, then there should be a strictly heterosexual club.

Even if there was demand for heterosexual clubs only, noone dare say it, as that would imply they are homophobes, and the big question is posted as to ''why would someone want strictly heterosexual club - they MUST be homophobic, otherwise they wouldn't mind homosexuals''.

Homophobes would not go into a homosexual clubs anyway, so what's the problem?


Umm....Heterosexuals ARE allowed in Homosexual clubs Lil...trust me, ive been there before

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Homophobes would not go into a homosexual clubs anyway, so what's the problem?


Not always true:


1) Some homophobes happen to actually be homosexual


2) Heterosexual Homophobes have went to Gay Clubs to start fights...it still happens today, but not to the same extent as it did 10 or 20 years ago

Originally posted by Ushgarak
That is an exceptionally ignorant comment that borders on the homophobic, to try and even vaguely pretend there is quity in social situation between heteosexuals and homosexuals.
Quick, throw out the "homophobe" label, 'cause I'm gonna kill me some queers and discrimnate against 'em in mah clubs.

OK I know its the principal, yet who would check in a gay hotel ............apart from from homosexuals ?

even though if you are desperatetend . , you could still pretend you are a homosexual

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Umm....Heterosexuals ARE allowed in Homosexual clubs Lil...trust me, ive been there before

I live in a city with the 2nd biggest gay nightlife scene in the UK and everyone i know has been to a gay club pretty much and they are to my knowledge straight
its not a big deal
mind you were not talking the cliche men with chaps and beards dancing to a bit of HI NRG type clubs here
they are mostly trendy bars full of harmless young gay dudes with loads of decent looking chicks who can go there and have a good night away from being hassled by leary pissed up mancs

whats the prob with the lesbian chicks kissing?
chicks kissing is hot..............as the long as the chicks in question are

I think its unfair. if other hotels get sued for not allowing Homosexuals in, how can a club choose to be exclusive to homosexuals. how do they determine that the person walking through their door is Gay? would the door keeper ask him to Kiss him.... or worse. I dont get it!!!!!!

Originally posted by GCG
OK I know its the principal, yet who would check in a gay hotel ............apart from from homosexuals ?

even though if you are desperatetend . , you could still pretend you are a homosexual
It wasn't a gay hotel. The customers, though, were primarily gay men.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Quick, throw out the "homophobe" label, 'cause I'm gonna kill me some queers and discrimnate against 'em in mah clubs.

Call a spade a spade. Denial of the problems faced by homosexuals is akin to homophobia. You attempt to try and discredit an argument by taking it to a ludicrous extreme- a sophisticated tactic for a thirteen year old, worthy of no respect in the adult world.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Why are they not fair? Homosexuals are not different to heterosexuals.
If one can have exclusively homosexual club, then there should be a strictly heterosexual club.

Even if there was demand for heterosexual clubs only, noone dare say it, as that would imply they are homophobes, and the big question is posted as to ''why would someone want strictly heterosexual club - they MUST be homophobic, otherwise they wouldn't mind homosexuals''.

Homophobes would not go into a homosexual clubs anyway, so what's the problem?

C'mon, Lil, don't even try to pretend that the general social situation for homosexuals is the same as it is for heteros. Following that kind of logic is not intelligent.

As I say, if you do try and follow that logic, and force admittence of heteroseuxals in this circumstance, the practical output is simply this- you end up with plenty of places for heterosexuals to go out clubbing unmolested, but none for homosexuals.

It is extreme discrimination.

The fact is, the problem is one way. It is gays being bothered in general, NOT straights. Trying to treat the situation with abosulute equal legislative equality is to forgget that things are not being applied equally here, and is an opinion in ignorance iof the way minorities work in culture.

If you genuinely support the cause for equality, then this is the way to go. Anything else denies homosexuals opportunities they are entitled to. That is wrong.

Incidentally, your final line simply indicates you haven't actually looked at the situation. One of the problems is that such people ARE going in- specifically to harrass and make fun of the homosexuals.

--

The situation is very simply this. Do homosexuals deserve a place where they can go socialise, meet and flirt with other homosexuals, unmolested and without being made to feel liek a zoo for others to watch for their amusement?

The obvious answer is yes- if it is no, you are so clearly biased against homosexuals that there is no need to take further part in the discussion.

The case being yes, then if this is the kind of decision needed to make sure it is possible, then this decision is in the cause of equality, and to oppose it is to be prejudiced against gays via the medium of ignorance of the realities of the problem.

Now, do heterosexuals deserve such a right to such association as well? Yes. But they have it. There is absolutely no problem there. So trying to turn the situation around is a. a complete waste of time and b. assuming that everyone treats everyone else equally, which is idiotic. it would not work. it would end in simple discrimination.

As I say above, equality is a complex issue. This is one of the bumps. But they do deserve that opportunity to asscioate in ntheir culture, and if the owner of a private club decides that the only way to get that opportunity is to expel all those from outside the club;s specific culture if need be (NOT automatically), then that is entirely fair.

The reverse is not entirely fair because that simply does not happen, that there is an issue homosexual voyerus and troublemakers making portions of heterosexual social areas into uncomfortable ones- impossible because as the monority they don't hgave the motivation or the numbers to so gawp and disrupt. It would be a false justification.

To use a crude analogy, why introduce laws against hunting whales and not, say, salmon? Answer- because it's the damn whales that need the protection, not the other fish. It's not biased in favour fo whales because they had the huge bias against them in the first place. It's trying to remedy the bias.

We'd all like to live in a hippy happy land where everyone is nice to each other and treats everyone equally and, for example, where large groups of heteros go to crash homosexual night clubs not to take part in the atmosphere but simply to laugh at and get entertainment out of the gays.

If we lived in such a brilliant and equal world, then we could have such equal laws as well.

But we don't. Instead, we have a rather nasty situation where huge problems arise. And the only solution to such a problem is sspecific laws like this.

But you do not ever create more laws than you need- that's a basic principle. We need this law allowing that place to throw out straights from gay clubs, we don't need one about throwing out gays from (non-existent) straight clubs. It would serve no purpose other than to be abused.

Originally posted by Bardock42

Actually heteros not being allowed straight only clubs is not equal.

Not saying it is wrong to not let them have it....but it certainly is not equal....English language-y ... we can at least agree on that, right?

No, I disagree. 'Laws being identical' does not equate to 'Laws being equal'. It is very easy to have a situation where the laws are tbhe same for everyone but those laws cause large inequalities.

English Language-y, 'Equal' does not really mean what you are making it out to mean, in this context.

Originally posted by Ushgarak


As I say above, equality is a complex issue. This is one of the bumps. But they do deserve that opportunity to asscioate in ntheir culture, and if the owner of a private club decides that the only way to get that opportunity is to expel all those from outside the club;s specific culture if need be (NOT automatically), then that is entirely fair.



I agree with your post for the most part but I just have no clue how these guys can tell who is gay and who is not. It's not like race where you normally have a good idea of what you are looking for. Not every gay person is the stereotype. Any ideas on what to do regarding that?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, I disagree. 'Laws being identical' does not equate to 'Laws being equal'. It is very easy to have a situation where the laws are tbhe same for everyone but those laws cause large inequalities.

English Language-y, 'Equal' does not really mean what you are making it out to mean, in this context.

Dude....if I can neither go to straight only nor gay only clubs I am just not equal to someone that can go to gay only clubs.

That's...what should we call it....a fact.

You propose a sort of separate but unequal system...

If straights do not have the same or similar rights, but less, they don't have equal rights.

You might think that the less rights they have make up for injustices that homosexuals have to face, but that doesn't really make it equal.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

As I say, if you do try and follow that logic, and force admittence of heteroseuxals in this circumstance, the practical output is simply this- you end up with plenty of places for heterosexuals to go out clubbing unmolested, but none for homosexuals.


My bad, I misread what you said...

I thought you commented on the other way around. Allowing straights as well as gays to have separate clubs.

I will leave what I said as an argument for that though.

Since there apparently is demand for homo only clubs there will be at least some. Then there will be clubs where homos and straights are equally welcome...the scenario you try to portray here is ridiculous.

It's not about their rights to go clubbing...people don't have a right to go clubbing. It's about the rights of private owners to accept the people they want in their private clubs.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Call a spade a spade. Denial of the problems faced by homosexuals is akin to homophobia. You attempt to try and discredit an argument by taking it to a ludicrous extreme- a sophisticated tactic for a thirteen year old, worthy of no respect in the adult world.
zomg homophobia

You'll notice that I never said anything about the social status of homosexuals but rather straight-only/gay-only bars.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Call a spade a spade.

Why would any straight person WANT to go into to such a discusting place.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Those racists . . .

Even though it's defamatory I don't think it's racism. Since when did homos and heteros become seperate nationalities all together? Balefully enough, how can you blame them? I'm sure all heterosexuals can't be gun toting, homo-hating, puritans, but there have been enough hate crimes against gays for all of them to seem that way...

:edit: ...and where do the bisexuals fit in to all this?

Originally posted by Ashestoashesjc
I'm sure all heterosexuals can't be gun toting, homo-hating, puritans, but there have been enough hate crimes against gays for all of them to seem that way...

I don't think any homosexual "hates" heterosexuals. It's not their fault they were born different.

Originally posted by Devil King
I don't think any homosexual "hates" heterosexuals. It's not their fault they were born different.

I think you missed my point. I was getting at the fact that Homosexuals have every right to be upset with the Straight community, not because they blame them for them being different, but because they've been shunned many a time by heterosexuals.

Originally posted by Ashestoashesjc
I think you missed my point.

Feceman, i notice that you are the only other person besides myself and Whob, who has made so many Gay-Related threads on the forums.

Why ? What do you care ?



You always try to insist that there is some kind of Heterophobia that exists, trying to demean the actual homophobia and heterosexism that exists.

Like Ushgarak says, what you are doing is pointless.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Feceman, i notice that you are the only other person besides myself and Whob, who has made so many Gay-Related threads on the forums.

Why ? What do you care ?



You always try to insist that there is some kind of Heterophobia that exists, trying to demean the actual homophobia and heterosexism that exists.

Like Ushgarak says, what you are doing is pointless.

I know, I know... he secretly wants his shit pushed in.

Originally posted by Robtard
I know, I know... he secretly wants his shit pushed in.


You know that some Straight men actually like things up thier butt ?

No Joke...remember, anal sex pleases the prostate gland which gives a very intense and different kind of orgasm. Having a dildo/penis, woman's hand, man's hand, or whatever other object available (as long as its gentle), massaging the prostate gland while masturbating gives an extremely intense orgasm that many gay and some straight men alike love.

Its the equivalent to hitting a woman's g-spot. Sure, you tickle the clitoris and its feels good, but when you reach further back and stimulate the g-spot, her orgasm is far better.

Same goes for men...pleasing the penis isn't always enough...


Just thought I'd enlighten you

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
You know that some Straight men actually like things up thier butt ?

No Joke...remember, anal sex pleases the prostate gland which gives a very intense and different kind of orgasm. Having a dildo/penis, woman's hand, man's hand, or whatever other object available (as long as its gentle), massaging the prostate gland while masturbating gives an extremely intense orgasm that many gay and some straight men alike love.

Its the equivalent to hitting a woman's g-spot. Sure, you tickle the clitoris and its feels good, but when you reach further back and stimulate the g-spot, her orgasm is far better.

Same goes for men...pleasing the penis isn't always enough...


Just thought I'd enlighten you

Yes, I am aware that "anal play" isn't strictly a gay male activity; I also know a thing or two about anatomy, thanks though.

I was cracking a joke in regards to your veiled implication is all.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, I am aware that "anal play" isn't strictly a gay male activity... I also know a thing or two about anatomy.

I was cracking a joke in regards to your veiled implication is all.


I am just trying to help Feceman...I offered to teach him the ways of the Orgasmism for free..he declined my offer.

He is a Virgin, just remember...his perceptions are far less upgraded than our own.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I am just trying to help Feceman...I offered to teach him the ways of the Orgasmism for free..he declined my offer.

He is a Virgin, just remember...his perceptions are far less upgraded than our own.

I did not know that... Now, is he a virgin all around, or just anally?

Originally posted by Robtard
I did not know that... Now, is he a virgin all around, or just anally?


He is a total VIRGIN like the Virgin Mary

Why do you think he is always so frustrated ? Why do you think when it comes to sex, he knows so little ?

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
He is a total VIRGIN like the Virgin Mary

Why do you think he is always so frustrated ? Why do you think when it comes to sex, he knows so little ?

Did not know this, as I never talked 'sex' with Feceman before.

Originally posted by Robtard
Did not know this, as I never talked 'sex' with Feceman before.

Well he told me he was a Virgin. I don't remember why, but it is his decision to wait until Marriage before he has sex. That is his right, but he will be rather frustrated for a while.


I offered to share my knowledge of the Orgasmism with him, but he refused it. I will not aid those who do not want my aid.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Feceman, i notice that you are the only other person besides myself and Whob, who has made so many Gay-Related threads on the forums.

Why ? What do you care ?
Don't forget Adam.

My motivation for making these threads? For the same reason that Adam makes threads that have anti-conservative/Christian/both undertones.

Actually, I don't.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Again, justifiably.

I disagree. I believe anything should be able to go both ways. If it is legal and acceptable to open a gay only club, then it should be legal and acceptable to open a straight only club.

Not that there's much cause to open a straight only club, but nonetheless, there shouldn't be a problem.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Don't forget Adam.

My motivation for making these threads? For the same reason that Adam makes threads that have anti-conservative/Christian/both undertones


I do not understand. I haven't made an Anti-Christian thread in weeks, in fact, I made threads which display a genuine curiosity about the Christian mythos.

Are you attacking Homosexuality in general just to spite me ?

That's pathetic then bro. Have sex .

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I do not understand. I haven't made an Anti-Christian thread in weeks, in fact, I made threads which display a genuine curiosity about the Christian mythos.

Are you attacking Homosexuality in general just to spite me ?

That's pathetic then bro. Have sex .
*Sighs.*

Contrary to popular belief, my posting habits do not revolve around your existence.