Pentagon Confirms It Sought To Build A 'Gay Bomb'

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by identity-X, Jun 12, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    really?

    i assume you understand that an increasing population of people declaring themselves gay (assuming this is the case...I've been given no reason to think it is), this doesn't necessarily mean that there is an increasing population of homosexuals.









    it's really weird to me that you recognize the way social structure influences human agency in regard to the "plague" of homosexuality, but don't recognize it when it comes to the economic and social status of the poor, minorities, and women.
    test
  2. Equally as entertaining is how you are so quick to wish homosexuality was genetic, and yet, you can't find a single link between race, aggression, crime, and genetics.
    test
  3. BlackSoultan Ad Infinitum

    BlackSoultan Ad Infinitum aka Billy Shoreview

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 1999
    Messages:
    33,123
    Uh, what did that have to do at all with his post?
    test
  4. BlackSoultan Ad Infinitum

    BlackSoultan Ad Infinitum aka Billy Shoreview

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 1999
    Messages:
    33,123
    And please, enumerate for me on email what the hell it is you coppin' so that I can go look it up, 'cause you KNOW I never have a clue what you're talking about when you talk about that studio shit. Any of it gonna be HD?
    test
  5. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    that ain't me son. try again [funny]



    this is from the "bisexuals" thread, posted by moi...

    "I'd say sexual attraction is influenced by society and biology"

    lookie...not a word about genetics.
    test
  6. That's mighty non-Leftist of you.

    Are you breaking your shell!? :O
    test
  7. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    What's funny to me about this whole conversation is it went from dropping a gay bomb on our enemies (which is laughable and quite phsycially improbable) to dropping a gaybomb is genocide to is gayness media-propaganda.

    How is gay directed at children specifically? I was under the notion gays were people with different sexual orientations who have the same rights as heterosexuals to express their life styles. You sound quite homophobic.

    You act like being gay is something social-structure promotes. Wake up,
    Historically there were no-media outlets to advocate homosexuality yet people still did it.


    If your going to put regulations on violent images you might as well put regulations on the natrual mind of human beings. Where do you think these violent images come form? Who thinks them up? Thus, You are putting a censor on freedom of expression. There are lesbians who artificially inseminate themselves with male sperm, who then birth a child, who then nurture this child, Infact, this child is in a gay enviroment 24-7, Yet the child grows up to be STRAIGHT. It's possible that you could be homophobic.

    Fun fact: Anal sex isn't strictly a gay act there is plenty of "AP" (asshole pentration) between a male and female. Oral sex is bared in most states as well, even if you do bar these sexual-acts, behind close doors adults not children are still going to do them. You can't censor sexual-acts between gay or straight adults. So whether the Hero is Gay or Straight doesn't influence the childs sexual behavior. How could it? Espeically when children back in the 1950's were watching nothing but heterosexual Tv shows like Superman, yet still had homosexual tendancies. Which brings me back to my point about homosexuality existing before your so-called homosexuality brainwashing existed.

    Do you not believe in parenting? Perhaps the parent has a responsiblity to tell their child what they can and can't watch. You might just be homophobic, in this case gay heros aren't acceptable in your house hold.




    You're postulating homosexuals can't have kids therefore is not equivalent to heterosexuality. That is a far-right misconception.

    Number 1.) Homosexuals can artificially inseminate.
    Number 2.) Homosexuals can adopt.

    Now your probably thinking homosexuality is still like brith control, However the children gays receive or produce either by way of adoption or artificial insemination does not make that child automatically Homosexual just because the parents are, Thus Soceity doesn't die because some people are homosexual. There are ways around it... Such as a major one known as artificially inseminating. Therefore, Homsexuality is no more promiscuous than heterosexuality is.

    sexual promiscuity is not something one promotes it is humane nature.
    You blame Mtv, but the true source is humans themselves. Prehistorically, Promiscuity has always been a natural human behavior. Thus, is why human beings do it. The social-structure would rather we follow the christian ideals to counter-act our biological-nature keeping sex between two married people.
    test
  8. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Regulate what? There is nothing to regulate. I wouldn't expect the government or anyone else telling people what they should or shouldn't watch. I would not take action against you for making your child watch KKK-video's because it's not my job nor the governments job to tell people what they can and can not watch. If you are so against HOMO's turn the channel or move to venezuela were Tv is censored.

    Why are you not parenting? Why are you telling people what is exceptable and what is not exceptable? Stop intervening in others lives. You know what, You are government but so am I, Therefore I am limiting you of your powers.

    Noone has ever convinced me I was gay, because I knew I wasn't gay.
    Had nothing to do with choice it had to do with biological factors.

    The word assumption is the key word here. You don't know how it would effect a child, yet you continued to biasly postulate it would, when your not even gay. How would you know how those sessions would go? or even if such sessions take place like you tried to swindle the public into believing?

    Noone has to tell these kids they are gay, They know they are gay by a certain age just like you know you were straight by a certain age. Why would you hold sociology and psychology responsible when it is biology which is responsible? How do you file class action on biology?



    promoting Drug use, is illegal and destories lives, therefore is destructive to individuals.

    Sexual promiscuity, As long as it is SAFE SEX, is not destructive to individuals. It also depends on how young we are talking. Which differs state to state.

    Schizophrenia and pot have been around a lot longer than snoop dogg.

    Homosexuality meaning a same gender relationship, is not illegal nor destructive to Individuals because adoption and artificial insemination make sure society never dies out. The child homosexuals adopt or artificial inseminate will be heterosexual, therefore able to carry on
    the breeding process, If they trun out homosexual they will do as their
    parents did before them until Heterosexual becomes a biological factor.

    As long as you have the sperm of men and the eggs of women, it doesn't matter whether a person is biological gay or straight, The breeding process will carry on.


    And you shouldn't be against it, because whether heterosexual or homosexual it's not effecting them their biology is.
    test
  9. Menaz

    You are falling for dialectics, but not as conciously as Yahu.

    You are stating human sexuality, no matter how bizzare or wanton it can get, is never bizzare or wanton but is simply human nature. This comparison is made as an unconcious dialectic opposite of our many thousands of years spent as a agrarian/feudal history, in which sexuality was 1.) controlled locally based on tradition and oddly enough 2.) a prime source of increasing your income since having additional hands that are loyal to you are helpful for farm labor. Can you recognize the difference?

    This entire concept that the more libertine one's sexuality is, the more natural you are is obtuse and laden with political propaganda.
    test
  10. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    Menaz: Congratulations you've managed to refute a chopped-up straw-man version of my argument as well as a whole slew of points you heard on TV or wherever which I never made. I even agree with and applaud many of your arguments! Bravo!!

    here i'll do it to you once and you can see how awesome, powerful, and useful of an argument tactic it is:

    what are you talking about? there are many things to regulate that exist in the world. Look at the stock market for instance, its regulated. Also the air industry is regulated. Nuclear weapons in Iran are also regulated, are you arguing that Iran's nuclear weapons shouldn't be regulated? What about lynchings and murders, their are regulations against those? are you actually arguing that Iran should get nuclear weapons and we should have lynchings again? What are you some sort of pro-terrorist, racist, anarchist?!
    test
  11. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    word, I caught that episode of Dora the Explorer where she meets up with another little girl and asks to lick her pussy. i can't believe what this world is coming to!
    test
  12. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    whoa whoa whoa...

    merely a pleasure component?

    just to stir up conversation.....what about the "for some" where this isn't the case?

    there's the love component for some. there's the caring about another human being for their positive qualities component for some. there's the promotion of lifelong monogamous relationship component for some, one that can hardly be equivocated with promiscuity.

    thoughts from y'all or, at least, McGirth?
    test
  13. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    you misread the word "relation" in that paragraph. It refers to "sexual relation" not relation in terms of "relationship", which as you rightly pointed out can be monogomous obviously. so basically you misread the paragraph. (or maybe i should have wrote homosexual sexual relations and heterosexual sexual relations, but it seems kind of redundant no?)

    so yes, as stated, in terms of the wider use of the term "relation" the "sexual relations" can be part of wider relations that involve love, monogamy, etc among gay couples. But thats not really a refutation of the argument, and is an unrelated side point i agree with.

    like Menaz your ignoring context. I encourage you to re-read the post in its entirety and summarize before refuting rather than picking a choosing bits if you think you disagree with the conclusions.

    IDX- i'm curious, do you agree with Menaz that being gay and gender and sexual identities are entirely biological, or do you take the standard feminist position that they are a social construct (at least in part)? And if so, do you think groups should be held liable for deconstructing gender if it leads to negative consequences for those effected, or their children, down the line? (which will not necessarily be the case, it could turn out well)

    EDIT:nevermind the first part of the question, i read your post above. feel free to answer the part about liability though.
    test
  14. Leila Night

    Leila Night efrain,you're my one&only

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    7,830
    Unnecessary!


    And my niece is not watching Dora ever again.
    test
  15. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    I argued against every nonsenseical thing you could come up with. Like I do to everyone else. You're not talking to azues or Identity x. Or having a argument with yourself here.I don't cherry pick shit. You're the dumb ass, congradulations.

    Points I heard on TV? I didn't hear any of my points on tv. Try again!


    First of all, I don't need any tips from you on anything.
    But you could take one from me, so here we go.

    Nextime try to argue all my points.

    You've managed to fallaciously compare human constatuional rights with stock market regulation and Nuclear weapons regulation. In other words, You want to regulate human rights. You're a dumb ass, congradulations. Do you see where your slippery slope is going? probabally not, because your mentally retarded. Remember goldberg's wcw tag-line, Who's Next? Yeah you've opened the flood gates to censoring other human constatuional rights your senstive stupid ass can't handle.

    How the fuck do you regulate lynchings & murder? Thats something you just don't do because it's against the law. Last time I checked you can't get arrested for being gay. *Shrugs*

    What are you some homophobic conservative far-rightest who ignores the constatuion of the united states of america like bush. Anyone can brow beat? Only I did it better than you could.
    test
  16. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    I actually suggested this, You seem to understand it.
    That is the most sensible thing one should say.

    Parental control over Government control.
    test
  17. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Truth is X and I don't argue the same, we also don't agree alot.
    I didn't ignore any of your nonsensical context, But you can fraudulently postulate that all day long.

    No he will never agree with me. which is why I consider our argument ad nauseum. There is no conclusive evidence if sexuality is Continuum or Biologically determained at this point in time. X is a feminist, he sees everything through feminist rose colored glasses. I already answered why they shouldn't be held liable. Your just switching the conversation over to a feminist who you know is going to partly agree with both. Therefore, you think X is supporting your dumb ass arguments. When it is as simple as blocking the channel if you believe sexuality is Continuum.


    X can only assume like I can assume, he can not give you a conclusive scientifical answer. Until all scientist agree it can't be so. Also homosexuality existed long before social-influences like sex ed, doctors, media, and TV. I think You're a moron.
    test
  18. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    i think gender is socially constructed and sexuality is a product of both biology and socialization

    on the surface, yes I think groups should be held liable for deconstructing gender if it leads to negative consequences...

    but not if these negative consequences are the result of how gender is being constructed (not deconstructed) in the first place. hmmm...I can't think of an example of what I mean...could you give an example of a "negative consequence"?



    in addition (and i guess this is what I'm trying to say), few people are holding groups who construct gender liable for the negative effects it has on society. school boys pop off a few hundred rounds into their classmates because they've had their masculinity challenged for years and because being hyper-masculine (guns is manly yo) is the only way they feel justice will be served and everybody points a finger at their "psychological problems" or simply the fact that we live in a "violent" world...and not the fact that we live in a society that supports violent masculinity among youth males.
    test
  19. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    Menaz: my reply was in jest, obviously, to show how completely idiotic it is to break up someones post and reply to a bunch of points they aren't making.

    i can't believe you took it seriously.
    you'll probably try to backtrack now and say you knew all along to save face. sad.

    You proved my point hilariously! good job!

    FYI, if your interested in a real discourse on the actual topics, then feel free to take up my advice on how to read what I wrote and reply thoughtfully.
    test
  20. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Yeah right like you saying I ignore content is in jest.
    As if anything you wrote was funny or satirtical.
    yet you made stupid arguements toward me?
    If it was in jest, why would I back track?
    You got handled again either way I look at.

    That shit was not in jest by the way.
    But I am done with you. Since you can't
    have any sort of a real stance.

    You learned something, Don't play games with me.
    That's not being cocky, I'm very serious about somethings.

    I replyed to your nonsense once very thoughtfully.
    maybe you shouldn't post here.

    I would say you just ignored everything I said.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)