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

Why is Gay treated like a race?

Because we as a people suck.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Because we as a people suck. Truth.

Ideally we should receive the same treatment regardless of race, creed, color, or sexual orientation.

Originally posted by Dramatic name
Why is Gay treated like a race?

It isn't. It's treated like a minority, which it is.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It isn't. It's treated like a minority, which it is. Even in San Fran?

There will always be someone who doesn't agree with homosexuality, race, religion, or whatever someone can cook up

Originally posted by Dramatic name
Why is Gay treated like a race? Who is this "Gay" fellow?

because the majority wants to persecute them?

Fixed.

Originally posted by Mindship
Fixed.

Hmmm. No, we should hunt them down like the animals they are.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Even in San Fran?

yeah actually.

theres enough black people in san francisco to counter-balance the level of faggotry in the city.

dont see why its seen as a race or as anything though. theres nothing inherently wrong with gays that i can see (cept they hate jesus).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Hmmm. No, we should hunt them down like the animals they are.

I see what you did there.

Also: Did I miss a grammar naziing spree here?

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
yeah actually.

theres enough black people in san francisco to counter-balance the level of faggotry in the city.

dont see why its seen as a race or as anything though. theres nothing inherently wrong with gays that i can see (cept they hate jesus).

This post is full of absurd hilarity.

How is gay a race? It's a group of people who look at things the wrong way (the VERY wrong way). Homosexuality is just plain sickening and disturbing. I think most of the guys get gay because no chick would ever date them and so they turn to the dark side by hitting on dudes. Look gays, true it's sad you're gonna be lonely in your straight lives but for the love of all that's holy learn to appreciate it.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
How is gay a race? It's a group of people who look at things the wrong way (the VERY wrong way). Homosexuality is just plain sickening and disturbing. I think most of the guys get gay because no chick would ever date them and so they turn to the dark side by hitting on dudes. Look gays, true it's sad you're gonna be lonely in your straight lives but for the love of all that's holy learn to appreciate it.
Originally posted by dadudemon


This post is full of absurd hilarity.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
How is gay a race? It's a group of people who look at things the wrong way (the VERY wrong way). Homosexuality is just plain sickening and disturbing. I think most of the guys get gay because no chick would ever date them and so they turn to the dark side by hitting on dudes. Look gays, true it's sad you're gonna be lonely in your straight lives but for the love of all that's holy learn to appreciate it.


Dude, do you ever talk to girls? If you did, you'd realize that there's a shit load of gay guys they find attractive.


The type of homosexual male you describe is extremely rare...and it doesn't quite happen that way, either.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos




Well played.

Indeed^

The amount of times I've seen a very good looking man and they have turned out to be gay!

If they were straight, they wouldn't have a problem with women at all.


Nem - If that post was serious, what do you think of Lesbians?

Originally posted by MildPossession
Indeed^

The amount of times I've seen a very good looking man and they have turned out to be gay!

If they were straight, they wouldn't have a problem with women at all.


SEE!

Vindication feels good. stoned


Originally posted by MildPossession
Nem - If that post was serious, what do you think of Lesbians?

Since the bible doesn't talk about it, it's okay. (I assume that's what he's going to say.)

Originally posted by MildPossession
Nem - If that post was serious, what do you think of Lesbians?

Doesn't matter. Wimminz are only good for raping anyhow.

Originally posted by dadudemon
SEE!

Vindication feels good. stoned




Since the bible doesn't talk about it, it's okay. (I assume that's what he's going to say.)

But Qu'ran speaks of it! shock

Probably. I just find it amusing when I hear some men going on hardcore about how gay men are wrong and sick, yet when Lesbians are mentioned, they have noooooooooooo problem with that...

Originally posted by dadudemon


This post is full of absurd hilarity.

i wasnt being serious by the by. whistle

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
But Qu'ran speaks of it! shock

Then that book is EVIL, I say. EVIIIIIIIIILLLLL!

Originally posted by MildPossession
Probably. I just find it amusing when I hear some men going on hardcore about how gay men are wrong and sick, yet when Lesbians are mentioned, they have noooooooooooo problem with that...

I don't have a secular problem with either. And I know exactly what you're talking about. It's always hate on the males.


Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
i wasnt being serious by the by. whistle

Oh, I know. That's why it's funny.

Everyone deserves equal protection and opportunity. gays were more accepted by society and seen as something less than a clownish novelty on retarded tv shows like will and grace (then again, this holds true for all races, orientations, and cultures), no one would give a shit about these differences anyway.

Plus, if gay men were more accepted, maybe anal wouldn't be so feared and stigmatized which would make a hell of a lot of straight men (and maybe their girlfriends) very happy.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Dude, do you ever talk to girls? If you did, you'd realize that there's a shit load of gay guys they find attractive.


The type of homosexual male you describe is extremely rare...and it doesn't quite happen that way, either.





Well played. that says more about women then it does about gays

also, gays should be treated lower than japs but just above jews

i think all people deserve the same rights. gender, creed, culture...it doesn't matter. if you live in that country, you should have the same rights.

and this islam bashing needs to stop. especally in threads where it doesn't belong.

~Sado

If gays are unhappy about oppression they should just go somewhere else. Since they don't do that they must be happy with the way things are.

I am in favor of arbitrary cultural laws that indirectly, and without specific intent, oppress the homosexual community.

i have a problem with this kind of thinking. just picking up your stuff and moving away is not dealing with the situation and isn't the kind of stance people should take either. NOTHING is solved this way. this kind of stance as a solution is, no offense, put forward by people refusing to change.

~Sado

He's being sarcastic!!

either way, my point remains that i have a problem with that kind of thinking.

Originally posted by Sado22
i have a problem with this kind of thinking. just picking up your stuff and moving away is not dealing with the situation and isn't the kind of stance people should take either. NOTHING is solved this way. this kind of stance as a solution is, no offense, put forward by people refusing to change.

~Sado


No, it does solve something.


If the person or people up and move to a place that gives them the freedom they want, be it social or lawful, then why shouldn't moving be considered a viable choice? It's a very easy choice. They can still fight for change, be it changing the minds of stupid close minded people who use God to oppress at every opportunity (lots of those people live in Oklahoma. ), or getting the laws changed, they can still do it abroad. The internet knows no bounds.


Isn't the information age wonderful?

blame the victim then?

Originally posted by inimalist
blame the victim then?


Are you talking to me?


Because that's not what I said or implied.



I am debunking the idea that "escape isn't an option." It is. It's a great one, at that.

but implies that it is the responsibility of the victim to avoid being oppressed and not the responsibility of the state not to oppress people

it is basically dismissing the oppressive actions and putting the onus on the victim. Fleeing is an option, but it certainly doesn't change anything, and expecting people to flee, is, blaming the victim.

Originally posted by inimalist
but implies that it is the responsibility of the victim to avoid being oppressed and not the responsibility of the state not to oppress people

You're missing the part about trying to create a social or lawful change in my post.

You're preaching to the choir.



And, if I were gay, you better damn well believe I'd move out of Oklahoma. How is that wrong? Why are you looking down on that decision?



It's far easier to leave into a better environment than it is to create a change.

Originally posted by inimalist
it is basically dismissing the oppressive actions and putting the onus on the victim. Fleeing is an option, but it certainly doesn't change anything, and expecting people to flee, is, blaming the victim.

I feel like you're responding to the wrong person.



Fleeing is a great option and one that has been used by humans since...we've existed.







Is it really bad to "flee" and fight for change from afar? What's wrong with wanting freedom and change at the same time? It's as if you think fleeing is too cowardly and a poor choice. Why would you scorn one who flees oppression? If the option to go to a much better place exits, why wouldn't one take it?



If that person wants to change how things were in their oppressed location, what's wrong with doing it from afar? Not everyone likes to get beat up and/or killed, you know.









And, still, where does it state or imply in my post that the oppressive actions can be dismissed? It doesn't. In fact, it says the opposite.

Don't paint me with a tag that I don't have.







Let's do a reversal:



You would rather the oppressed stay where they are and fight, instead of them taking the option of a better life somewhere else? Isn't that unreasonable? Why should they have to fight for it? Not everyone is a fighter. On top of that, why can't the person "fight" from a safer location? Don't you think what you're implying is slightly unreasonable? Not everyone thinks as inimalist does. This is why fleeing reamins a viable option for some. If everyone thought as inimalist did, then there wouldn't be oppression in the first place. Agreed?

no one's lookng down on "escaping" but my issue is with it not changing things. look at the damn religion forum. i can always turn around and not come back but am i changing/informing peole of where they are wrong? no.

Originally posted by Sado22
i can always turn around and not come back but am i changing/informing peole of where they are wrong? no.


Why does that HAVE to be important for YOU specifically? It doesn't. Not everyone is the same. Everyone cannot be expected to act the same, either.

you're right, and that's why i think we shouldn't look down on those who don't do as i do. the problem is that when people expect everyone to do what they do, be it running away or fighitng.

Originally posted by Sado22
you're right, and that's why i think we shouldn't look down on those who don't do as i do. the problem is that when people expect everyone to do what they do, be it running away or fighitng.


I can agree that if every single person, in a specifically oppressive situation to their demographic, stood up for themselves and tried to get others to help them, positive change would be MUCH easier for that person.




But not everyone is a fighter or is passionate enough to do that.





And way to go for getting yourself banned!

WTH did you do? (I expect an answer from you, immediately. )

Originally posted by dadudemon
You would rather the oppressed stay where they are and fight, instead of them taking the option of a better life somewhere else? Isn't that unreasonable? Why should they have to fight for it? Not everyone is a fighter. On top of that, why can't the person "fight" from a safer location? Don't you think what you're implying is slightly unreasonable? Not everyone thinks as inimalist does. This is why fleeing reamins a viable option for some. If everyone thought as inimalist did, then there wouldn't be oppression in the first place. Agreed?

I think we just had another series of saying essentially the same thing just different enough to miss eachother

Originally posted by inimalist
I think we just had another series of saying essentially the same thing just different enough to miss eachother


Indeed. We do that a lot...and it starts on both ends.



Is there anything else you'd like to argue the same result, about?

I had an argument with a gay friend about the whole campaign to stop using the term gay in the expletive. I said that even though I already do it rarely and only for comic effect, I would agree, but only if she stopped using the terms gyped, jewed, f@gged, paddy wagon, picnic, hooligan, vandal, hysteria, hysterical, jew fish, jew harp, gypsy moth, roman shower, irish condom, catholic roulette, russian roulette, cu nt, bltch, missionary position, indian giver, indian burn, and glasgow smile. I think I proved my point and won the arguement.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I had an argument with a gay friend about the whole campaign to stop using the term gay in the expletive. I said that even though I already do it rarely and only for comic effect, I would agree, but only if she stopped using the terms gyped, jewed, f@gged, paddy wagon, picnic, hooligan, vandal, hysteria, hysterical, jew fish, jew harp, gypsy moth, roman shower, irish condom, catholic roulette, russian roulette, cu nt, bltch, missionary position, indian giver, indian burn, and glasgow smile. I think I proved my point and won the arguement. Who uses half those terms....


And I get most, I guess, but what's wrong with missionary?

missionary position, i edited it.

What's wrong with missionary position and cvnt?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What's wrong with missionary position and cvnt?

it's harder to hit all the right spots

I meant why do you object to the word cvnt (Latin pronunciation b!tches). Vagina is actually the word with a sordid and insulting history, it would fit better in that list.