The state of homophobia in the west

by Eilzel Mon Jun 29, 2015 3:19 pm

First topic message reminder :

The collective out pouring of support for gay marriage on social media has been both astonishing and heart warming over the past few days. I always knew that most people today had positive views on this subject- but wasn't quite aware just how much the tide really is now massively against those who cling to homophobia.

I used to hear, when I first joined Sky, how 'the militant homosexual agenda' would eventually result in a 'backlash' against the gay community- it doesn't seem to be happened- far from it, the opposite is the case.

I love western society for this for the most part. And look forward to many other places around the world following the precedent we have set on matters of equality Smile

Meanwhile, here is some of the best of Facebook, just letting those against know the extent of just how far their backward views have fallen in the eyes of many...

The rainbow tide
The state of homophobia in the west - Page 3 11665610

The state of homophobia in the west - Page 3 11665610

Homophobes terminated
The state of homophobia in the west - Page 3 11703110

Ooops...

The state of homophobia in the west - Page 3 11700810

by Guest Mon Jun 29, 2015 10:06 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Adoption is not a right and the child's needs are paramount.

And the child needs parents much more than to be a ward of the state.

yes they do proper parents a father and a mother... Smile

The state of homophobia in the west - Page 3 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQRT36agIjwIgo5xFRu7UXK9yqJ2QF0TV6h6PqTsWob7lHhhivz

by Guest Mon Jun 29, 2015 10:09 pm

yeah...like these you mean????

http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/most-shocking/10-horrific-cases-of-parents-who-killed-their-children/

by Guest Mon Jun 29, 2015 10:13 pm

or these... terrible happenings..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1522158/Gay-couple-jailed-for-abusing-their-foster-children.html

The state of homophobia in the west - Page 3 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQRT36agIjwIgo5xFRu7UXK9yqJ2QF0TV6h6PqTsWob7lHhhivz

by Guest Mon Jun 29, 2015 10:48 pm

so what do we prove by both those posts?

mmmmm?

neither is exclusively good or bad.....

which is exactly what you would expect is it not?

by Guest Mon Jun 29, 2015 10:52 pm

mentor wrote:so what do we prove by both those posts?

mmmmm?

neither is exclusively good or bad.....

which is exactly what you would expect is it not?

I think it proves we stay with what is natural and normal and that is a father and a mother... it has worked for quite some time...

by Guest Mon Jun 29, 2015 10:58 pm

why?

you present no evidence for your point....

not all so called normal couples are good parents
not all gay couples make good parents....

so how does any of the above show that gay parenting isnt working? or at least no worse than "staright parenting"?

by Guest Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:06 pm

mentor wrote:why?

you present no evidence for your point....

not all so called normal couples are good parents
not all gay couples make good parents....

so how does any of the above show that gay parenting isnt working? or at least no worse than "staright parenting"?

because the time tested way is one mother and one father, it has worked for so long and it is perfectly normal and natural....

gay parenting is unnatural and abnormal..... and akin to child abuse..

by Guest Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:11 pm

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
mentor wrote:why?

you present no evidence for your point....

not all so called normal couples are good parents
not all gay couples make good parents....

so how does any of the above show that gay parenting isnt working? or at least no worse than "staright parenting"?

because the time tested way is one mother and one father, it has worked for so long and it is perfectly normal and natural....

so is whacking your mammoth on the head for lunch.......ummm...that went out of fashion a bit back ?
So is conducting all your business, private and commercial on paper with a pen????
etc etc etc

gay parenting is unnatural and abnormal..... and akin to child abuse..

that is merely YOUR opinion, and whilst welcome to it, i feel for the sake of your soul,that I have to point out that you are guilty of wrong thinking here.

by Guest Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:15 pm

mentor wrote:
heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

because the time tested way is one mother and one father, it has worked for so long and it is perfectly normal and natural....

so is whacking your mammoth on the head for lunch.......ummm...that went out of fashion a bit back ?
So is conducting all your business, private and commercial on paper with a pen????
etc etc etc

gay parenting is unnatural and abnormal..... and akin to child abuse..

that is merely YOUR opinion, and whilst welcome to it, i feel for the sake of your soul,that I have to point out that you are guilty of wrong thinking here.

I think the tiny minority as you yourself labelled the gay community shows it is in fact abnormal, the fact the way two human beings procreate is one man and one woman shows it is unnatural to be gay, so how would two parents being gay be anything but abnormal and unnatural....

The state of homophobia in the west - Page 3 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQRT36agIjwIgo5xFRu7UXK9yqJ2QF0TV6h6PqTsWob7lHhhivz

by Tommy Monk Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:18 pm

An innocent and vulnerable child is not a pawn in a game of 'equality' top trumps.

A child needs a mother and a father.

And their well being is paramount.

The sensitivities of A couple of homosexuals is irrelevant.

by Guest Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:22 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:An innocent and vulnerable child is not a pawn in a game of 'equality' top trumps.

A child needs a mother and a father.

And their well being is paramount.

The sensitivities of A couple of homosexuals is irrelevant.

well said and quite correct.... Smile

by Guest Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:22 pm

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
mentor wrote:

that is merely YOUR opinion, and whilst welcome to it, i feel for the sake of your soul,that I have to point out that you are guilty of wrong thinking here.

I think the tiny minority as you yourself labelled the gay community shows it is in fact abnormal, the fact the way two human beings procreate is one man and one woman shows it is unnatural to be gay, so how would two parents being gay be anything but abnormal and unnatural....

because you are again making unsustainable inferences about facts....

a tiny minority does not imply abnormal in any negative sense...you are resorting to semantics and word play here...not arguing logically or sensibly

there are a tiny minority of others that dont procreate....those who for one reason or another choose NOT to have ANY partner...are you therefor arguing that THEY are abnormal in any sense other than the simplest meaning of the word, would you consider that they are in some way negatively "bad"

is procreation the ONLY reason to be? if it is and your kids have grown up...you had best self terminate if that is the case...you job is done and you are ergo superfluous

by Guest Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:25 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:An innocent and vulnerable child is not a pawn in a game of 'equality' top trumps.

A child needs a mother and a father.

And their well being is paramount.

The sensitivities of A couple of homosexuals is irrelevant.

tommy, when you can present a logical and consistant argument instead of grinding on like a bent hard drive I will consider your points, untill then leave the argument to more intelligent people....and yes I actually mean HF in that pale

I'm quite enjoying the debat tonite..... Laughing

by Guest Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:29 pm

mentor wrote:
heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

I think the tiny minority as you yourself labelled the gay community shows it is in fact abnormal, the fact the way two human beings procreate is one man and one woman shows it is unnatural to be gay, so how would two parents being gay be anything but abnormal and unnatural....

because you are again making unsustainable inferences about facts....

a tiny minority does not imply abnormal in any negative sense...you are resorting to semantics and word play here...not arguing logically or sensibly

there are a tiny minority of others that dont procreate....those who for one reason or another choose NOT to have ANY partner...are you therefor arguing that THEY are abnormal in any sense other than the simplest meaning of the word, would you consider that they are in some way negatively "bad"

is procreation the ONLY reason to be? if it is and your kids have grown up...you had best self terminate if that is the case...you job is done and you are ergo superfluous

of course it does, it is abnormal it goes against the most basic instinct which is survival of the species....

without procreation the species will die off, we continue our family name through our children it is the most natural thing to do..

The state of homophobia in the west - Page 3 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQRT36agIjwIgo5xFRu7UXK9yqJ2QF0TV6h6PqTsWob7lHhhivz

by Tommy Monk Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:42 pm

mentor wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:An innocent and vulnerable child is not a pawn in a game of 'equality' top trumps.

A child needs a mother and a father.

And their well being is paramount.

The sensitivities of A couple of homosexuals is irrelevant.

tommy, when you can present a logical and consistant argument instead of grinding on like a bent hard drive I will consider your points, untill then leave the argument to more intelligent people....and yes I actually mean HF in that
I'm quite enjoying the debat tonite.....

I'm presenting pure logic and reasoning... I'm sorry that you find this so difficult to process in your own corrupted set of beliefs and values but the points still stand... and are irrefutable by any sane mind.

by Guest Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:46 pm

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
mentor wrote:

because you are again making unsustainable inferences about facts....

a tiny minority does not imply abnormal in any negative sense...you are resorting to semantics and word play here...not arguing logically or sensibly

there are a tiny minority of others that dont procreate....those who for one reason or another choose NOT to have ANY partner...are you therefor arguing that THEY are abnormal in any sense other than the simplest meaning of the word, would you consider that they are in some way negatively "bad"

is procreation the ONLY reason to be? if it is and your kids have grown up...you had best self terminate if that is the case...you job is done and you are ergo superfluous

of course it does, it is abnormal it goes against the most basic instinct which is survival of the species....

without procreation the species will die off, we continue our family name through our children it is the most natural thing to do..

survival of the species is a drive of THE SPECIES...not the individual....
moreover logically of course your argument WAS very relevant when mankind was in small isolated tribes and numbers were desperately small and survival wasnt in anyway a secure notion

NOW is a different matter, no matter HOW you count the numbers, short of some disater of unimaginable proportion, our species is secure....and what a few individuals do in their private lives is of little relevance to that survival...

you do realise dont you...if some flu like disease killed 80% of the worlds population we could recover to a stable and working civilisation within one or two hundred years????

by Guest Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:49 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
mentor wrote:

tommy, when you can present a logical and consistant argument instead of grinding on like a bent hard drive I will consider your points, untill then leave the argument to more intelligent people....and yes I actually mean HF in that
I'm quite enjoying the debat tonite.....

I'm presenting pure logic and reasoning... I'm sorry that you find this so difficult to process in your own corrupted set of beliefs and values but the points still stand... and are irrefutable by any sane mind.

you are not, sice you fail to back your rhetoric (and thats all it is) with ANY credible evidence. All you do is repeat the same old, tired (and incorrect) nonsense....

your points are indeed difficult to refute...becasue there is no substance to refute within them...you are quite frankly a hollow pot.....

by Tommy Monk Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:53 pm

"...what a few individuals do in their private lives is of little relevance to that survival..."

I would tend to agree with this generally... but is a complete understatement of what is actually happening in reality!

by Guest Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:55 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:"...what a few individuals do in their private lives is of little relevance to that survival..."

I would tend to agree with this generally... but is a complete understatement of what is actually happening in reality!

evidence...or more invention?

by Tommy Monk Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:58 pm

mentor wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

I'm presenting pure logic and reasoning... I'm sorry that you find this so difficult to process in your own corrupted set of beliefs and values but the points still stand... and are irrefutable by any sane mind.

you are not, sice you fail to back your rhetoric (and thats all it is) with ANY credible evidence. All you do is repeat the same old, tired (and incorrect) nonsense....

your points are indeed difficult to refute...becasue there is no substance to refute within them...you are quite frankly a hollow pot.....

My points are statements of fact backed up by undiluted common sense.

by Ben Reilly Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:59 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
mentor wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

I'm presenting pure logic and reasoning... I'm sorry that you find this so difficult to process in your own corrupted set of beliefs and values but the points still stand... and are irrefutable by any sane mind.

you are not, sice you fail to back your rhetoric (and thats all it is) with ANY credible evidence. All you do is repeat the same old, tired (and incorrect) nonsense....

your points are indeed difficult to refute...becasue there is no substance to refute within them...you are quite frankly a hollow pot.....

My points are statements of fact backed up by undiluted common sense.

We all know how you feel, Tommy -- you don't have to keep repeating the same dull, stupid talking points over and over. You're not convincing anybody who doesn't already agree with you.

by Tommy Monk Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:03 am

Next you'll be telling me that when debating numbers and arithmetic, the basic fact of 1+1=2 should no longer be spoken...!?

lol!

by veya_victaous Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:05 am

Tommy Monk wrote:An innocent and vulnerable child is not a pawn in a game of 'equality' top trumps. Which is Exactly what you are doing!!!
A child needs a mother and a father.
So You are campaigning against single parents?
And their well being is paramount.
So no divorce? as it creates single parents and a child need a mother and father.
The sensitivities of A couple of homosexuals is irrelevant.
but what about widows and widowers do they have to abandon there kid to a heterosexual couple since they are no longer a mother and father?

Case in point.... You are a dumb ass Wink

you are not using logic or reason at all
anyone with half a brain can easily dissect your argument as bollocks
compete and utter ravings of a lunatic.

Your argument Works BETTER against single parents than any couple Rolling Eyes

by Guest Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:11 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Next you'll be telling me that when debating numbers and arithmetic, the basic fact of 1+1=2 should no longer be spoken...!?

it doesnt

to any educated person nowadays 1+1 = 10 Rolling Eyes

by Guest Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:14 am

more over 5+5 does not = 10

5+5 = A

by Guest Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:14 am

or possibly even 12

by Guest Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:15 am

and those are indisputable and unshakeable FACT......

by Tommy Monk Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:18 am

Unfortunately parents may separate and it is indisputable that children suffer as a result, but the child still has the direct contact with mother and father in overwhelming vast majority of cases.

And you are missing the fact that in the other unfortunate and even more rare scenario where one parent may have tragically lost their life, the child will undoubtedly still suffer as a result, but will still be in the custody of the remaining natural parent and will have had all the time with the other parent up until the untimely loss.

None of your examples or arguments justify the intentional placing of any innocent and vulnerable young child into any environment other than which serves the child's best interests and needs... and that is only being placed into as much a normal and natural and stable home environment with a mother and a father.

by veya_victaous Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:22 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Next you'll be telling me that when debating numbers and arithmetic, the basic fact of 1+1=2 should no longer be spoken...!?

Let x=y.
Then

x - y + y = y

x - y + y y
--------- = ---
x-y x-y

x-y y y
--- + --- = ---
x-y x-y x-y

y y
1 + --- = ---
x-y x-y

1 = 0

Or like victor said

1 + 1 = 10

1+1+1 = 11

1+1+1+1 = 100

Razz

by Guest Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:23 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Unfortunately parents may separate and it is indisputable that children suffer as a result, but the child still has the direct contact with mother and father in overwhelming vast majority of cases.

And you are missing the fact that in the other unfortunate and even more rare scenario where one parent may have tragically lost their life, the child will undoubtedly still suffer as a result, but will still be in the custody of the remaining natural parent and will have had all the time with the other parent up until the untimely loss.

None of your examples or arguments justify the intentional placing of any innocent and vulnerable young child into any environment other than which serves the child's best interests and needs... and that is only being placed into as much a normal and natural and stable home environment with a mother and a father.

and yet you provide no evidence merely rhetoric....

so basically you are talking bunkum and nonsense

from a biased and spiteful POV......

by veya_victaous Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:28 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Unfortunately parents may separate and it is indisputable that children suffer as a result, but the child still has the direct contact with mother and father in overwhelming vast majority of cases.

And you are missing the fact that in the other unfortunate and even more rare scenario where one parent may have tragically lost their life, the child will undoubtedly still suffer as a result, but will still be in the custody of the remaining natural parent and will have had all the time with the other parent up until the untimely loss.

None of your examples or arguments justify the intentional placing of any innocent and vulnerable young child into any environment other than which serves the child's best interests and needs... and that is only being placed into as much a normal and natural and stable home environment with a mother and a father.

TM
pretty sure a lot of gay couples could have raised a child better than a lot of straight couples

a rich gay couple can provide and infinitely better life than a poor de factos on the dole in public housing with 6 other kids (to as many different fathers)

Fact is the gay parents that are not just getting kids the natural way (they are still biologically able to) are generally wealthy educated with greater stability than the majority of people as they need to be so much better than a heterosexual coupe to be considered because of homophobs.

by Guest Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:31 am

jeepers veya.....

dont start using algebra at tommy....especially THAT particular enigma (paradox?) you will blow a fuse.......

by Tommy Monk Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:40 am

Looking out for the best interests of innocent and vulnerable young children is not about spite...

And veya... all was equal until you added the extra '1' at The end and only on one side... in the name of equality you would have added 1 to The other side too... result then being 1=1... or if you hadn't meddled then the result would have been 0=0...

But you lefties don't really understand economics, maths, logic or reality that well do you...!?

As you constantly prove whenever you get control over the economy and instantly start fucking it up...

lol!

by Guest Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:45 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Looking out for the best interests of innocent and vulnerable young children is not about spite...

no? i'd call using disingenious argument, specious and untrue statements and a failure to back ANY of it in any way except repeating like a stuck record spiteful...
whats up...your knob fall off, so you cant have any kids or something??

And veya... all was equal until you added the extra '1' at The end and only on one side... in the name of equality you would have added 1 to The other side too... result then being 1=1... or if you hadn't meddled then the result would have been 0=0...

But you lefties don't really understand economics, maths, logic or reality that well do you...!?

As you constantly prove whenever you get control over the economy and instantly start fucking it up...

No tommy the laugh is on you......

becasue ...you are wrong.....see veya i TOLD you he would blow a fuse.......although to be fair you DID miss out one minor explanatory step, which requires one to make a small mental leap...

by veya_victaous Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:51 am

OK Slowly
x= y

-y+y =0
so this is still the same
x - y + y = y

Divide both by x-y
x - y + y y
--------- = ---
x-y x-y

Separate the Fraction (i added the step to make it easier to follow and you still cant Rolling Eyes

)
x-y y y
--- + --- = ---
x-y x-y x-y

now when top and bottom of a fraction are the same it equals 1 Wink

x-y
--- = 1
x-y

so replace the faction with 1 since they are equal Wink

y y
1 + --- = ---
x-y x-y

subtract
y
---
x-y
from both sides of the equation and your left with

1 = 0

Cool

by Tommy Monk Tue Jun 30, 2015 1:08 am

Not at all Elmer...

I understand algebra very well, thank you...

It was only the unexplained interaction of putting '1+' into the equation at The bottom that changed the end result into '1=0' and invalidated the whole...

As well as being completely irrelevant to The topic at hand...

Although the lefties have shown us how they are willing to promote corrupt arguments to try to validate their corrupt agenda...

lol!

by veya_victaous Tue Jun 30, 2015 1:14 am

completely irrelevant to The topic at hand...

Tommy so are all your 'facts' to use the term loosely Rolling Eyes

by Tommy Monk Tue Jun 30, 2015 1:16 am

“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” — Isaac Newton

by veya_victaous Tue Jun 30, 2015 1:28 am

Tommy Monk wrote:

“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” — Isaac Newton

the great irony is that Although Newtons laws are accurate for use on earth they are too Simplistic for application to the greater universe

the most notable is the additional of variable gravity (earth's gravity is 9.80665 m/s² Mars is only 3.711 m/s², Jupiter is a massive 24.79 m/s²)
but in addition to that if you want to take the effects on a free floating object in space then you need to include the movement of the planet and sun in relation to the center of the galaxy BUT We know we will need to make it even MORE complex when we work out how a galaxy moves in relation to other galaxies.

the problem with being a parrot is that you don't actually understand the things you repeat The state of homophobia in the west - Page 3 Animated-parrot-image-0025

The state of homophobia in the west - Page 3 Animated-parrot-image-0025

by Tommy Monk Tue Jun 30, 2015 3:47 am

Your problem is that you cannot argue against the fundamental principles of truth that I post, so you embark on a journey of waffle and hyperbole in a desperate attempt to divert away from it.

by Eilzel Tue Jun 30, 2015 3:57 am

He shows far more knowledge than you with your cheery picked quotes- you'd make a good Biblical fundamentalist tommy.

by Guest Tue Jun 30, 2015 4:36 am

something i never expected to see on fox news

by Guest Tue Jun 30, 2015 4:38 am

Eilzel wrote:He shows far more knowledge than you with your cheery picked quotes- you'd make a good Biblical fundamentalist tommy.

something else with far more knowledge than Tommy

click me:

by veya_victaous Tue Jun 30, 2015 5:19 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Your problem is that you cannot argue against the fundamental principles of truth that I post, so you embark on a journey of waffle and hyperbole in a desperate attempt to divert away from it.

First you have to post something that is TRUE you have not done that
I have shown that ALL your statements are indeed Bollocks.

simple notions of primates like 1+1 =2 did not get us to the moon nor get the machines that we are using to communicate now. I know you want to live in a nation of dummies but some Brits would like to live in a modern world. the truth is NOT simple.

I have explained MULTIPLE times in various threads HOW THE Male homosexual gene exists and Why evolution keeps in in existence. it is not a mystery.
And it is not rare in nature, dozens of species have homosexuals.

So HOW is it unnatural? do you think gay's were made in a laboratory out of synthetics?

almost as crazy as some of the stuff Newton believed
http://www.neatorama.com/2007/08/08/ten-strange-facts-about-newton/

by Guest Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:48 am

and he still cant work out that simple piece of algebra...

he still thinks the +1 is a flaw Rolling Eyes

wonder what his school report was....

by Tommy Monk Tue Jun 30, 2015 2:08 pm

More irrelevant bullshit I see... nothing at all to do with what I said about a child's needs being paramount and how an adopted child should not be placed in any home environment that denies them of a mother and a father.

by Tommy Monk Tue Jun 30, 2015 2:16 pm

Plus The algebra is total Bollocks.

by Eilzel Tue Jun 30, 2015 2:17 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:More irrelevant bullshit I see... nothing at all to do with what I said about a child's needs being paramount and how an adopted child should not be placed in any home environment that denies them of a mother and a father.

Actually the argument for gay adoption DOES make the needs of children paramount. Obviously not in your opinion, but you haven't actually backed that opinion with anything but your own repetitive mantras.

by Guest Tue Jun 30, 2015 2:19 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:The equation is Bollocks.

prove it....

if you can

by Tommy Monk Tue Jun 30, 2015 2:25 pm

It proves itself to be bollocks...

by Sponsored content