Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users

Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
How do you feel about the homosexual lifestyle?
It is very immoral and needs to be stopped. 20%
There's nothing wrong with homosexuality. 40%
I am a homosexual. 20%
I'd enjoy seeing two women grind each other. 20%

Votes: 5

 Accepting Homosexuals

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Jan 12, 2002

For years, I have fought against homosexual organizations such as GLAD, the Rainbow Coalition, and NAMBLA for morality and decency. Some might call me a homophobe or a bigot, but I am merely a man of ethics. I am not closed minded, for I would be happy to accept the homosexual lifestyle if homosexuals would simply clear up their act. Below, I list what traits homosexuals contain that must be be destroyed before I will accept the homosexuality as a part of society.


More diaries by MessiahWWKD
Ask Adequacy: What's with two masks?
Microsoft Windows XP Is Truly the Superior OS
Atheism, Crime, and the Connection
A Love Sonnet
Even OSS Prefers Windows XP
My Hard Life
Free Escorts
Miss Adequacy 2002
Declaration of War Against Adequacy
Wicca FAQ
Native or Lying?
Capital Punishment
Literature and the Law
I hate the Open Source Community
I Miss Jin :(
Ask Adequacy: Am I a Pedophile?
Seatbelts - Bad Influence
The Perfect Career
End of Open Source

Kissing on Television

I'm happy that you all have found your life partners, but nobody wants to see you making out on television. How would you feel if you saw two women grinding crotches together? I'm sure the thought sickens you as much as it sickens me.

Stop Hurting Women

As everybody knows, homosexuals run the fashion industry. In an attempt to spread homosexuality, they are trying to ruin women by turning them into bolemic crack whores. If you continue this, I will have no choice but to declare war upon your kind.

Apologize for AIDS

I know liberals love to pretend that homosexuals were the ones mostly responsible for the spreading of AIDS, but that will not change the past. Simply apologize for killing all the victims of AIDS.

Stop Trolling

As one who loves to read intelligent forums, I am deeply bothered by the excessive amount of trolling done on such wonderful message boards. After studying the trolls, I have realized that they tend to be sleazy homosexuals. Stop ruining great forums!

Stop Molesting Children

Why not work on having society accept normal relationships before you go for our children? Please disband NAMBLA.

Denounce Barbara Streisand

Only anti-Semites enjoy the work of Barbara Streisand, known by many as the Jewish Hitler. Denounce her, or accept your fate.


Right.. (none / 0) (#1)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 13th, 2002 at 11:21:10 AM PST
Hmm let me see I do believe the correct description of you would be a facist, blind, psychotic SOB. But please allow me to show you why you are a jacka**.

1.Straight people kiss on tv, and you don't hear homosexuals complaining, so live and let live, they don't care if you kiss on tv why should you care if they do. Also if you don't like something DON'T WATCH IT.

2. RIGHT, yes it is really homosexuals who are making women get sick not the fact that all the models are skinny and more importantly not that straight men WANT them to look like that.

3. Hmm so then will you please appologize to the guy you caughed near and gave the flu to when you were 5. Seriously, it is not the fault of homosexuals, right now more straight people have it than not, and moreover there is no one to be blamed for the actions of a virus.

4. Why don't you stop posting your nazi homophobic crap and ruining forums.

5. You linked to a SouthPark Episode. If you are talking about homosexuals adopting kids, got news for you they have a lower incidence of beating and abusing their children then straight people.

6. Can't disagree with her being the devil

No (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Right Hand Man on Mon Jan 14th, 2002 at 07:48:09 AM PST
1. Straight people kissing on TV is a natural act. Homosexuals kissing, on TV or elsewhere, is a preversion of nature and God's word that will no doubt be severely punished in the afterlife.

2. Straight men, at least those who haven't been overly influenced by the female hating liberal feminists and homos, want women of sufficient heft to bear a normal sized brood without undue suffering. These emaciated models with their narrow hips could maybe give birth to two, possibly three, children before completely wrecking their bodies and rendering themselves unable to do the work required to rear the kids.

3. The fact is that homosexuals were originally innocluated with the AIDS virus. It would have been contained within their population had it not been for a few deviant-beyond-belief sexual predators who 'went both ways'. Of course your statement that more heterosexuals have the virus than homosexuals is blatantly false, as the statistics you use were likely propagated by the homosexual community.

5. Homosexuals do not have a lower instance of abusing their children than heterosexuals. A child is being abused every single second he spends with a homosexual as the child is being exposed to a lifestyle that will leave him morally bankrupt and rejected from the Kingdom of God.

"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

Ignorance (none / 0) (#17)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 16th, 2002 at 03:02:51 AM PST
Not meaning to be discriminatory myself, I wonder what is the average level of education in the USA... Public forums are exploding with it.

Homossexuality has always existed, all around the worlds, and more or less in the same percentage.

It's a transhistorical, transcultural and transgeographical phenomena, therefore, it's not a desiase, sin, or crime. The fact that a woman feels sexually and/or emotionally attracted towards another woman (and the same goes for men) doesn't make her invade anyone's space, nor will she kill for that, or hurt, or rob, or develop a virus.

It all ends up in the society you live in, everybody knows that amongst the greeks, 3000 years BC it was widely accepted, it was a cultural behaviour (within certain parameters and rules), nowdays the level of acceptance goes from 0, where homossexuals are killed, like in Egypt, to complete, where they can marry, have granted exactely the same rights as heterossexuals, even child adoption, as where I live, in the Netherlands (for the ignorants who have no clue where it is, it's what you call Holland, between France, Belgium and Germany, in Europe).

Here has been more than proved that homossexuals are not less healthy, less productive, less respectfull... the police even makes campaigns to recruit homossexual policemen (women) because they tend to be more friendly (that doesn't mean that they're trying to harrass).

That is yet another point, homossexual harrassement at work has been nearly undocumented, as heterossexual harrassement is daily.

Being a christian myself, I wouldn't say that God would condemn anyone who showed respect to their neighbourt kill, steal, or hurt, just because one loves the same gender. That only shows hipocritical moral and ignorance.

The person who wrote the previous comment should consult psichological guidance.

I am sorry if my english is not perfect, if someone is bothered about it... then I would defy him to have a nice dialog with me in Dutch, Spanish, French, Italian, German and Portuguese.

Be tolerant, start worrying about drug abuse, violence and crime, and let alone what is just diferent from you.

Holy Christ, Lord in Heaven (none / 0) (#5)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 14th, 2002 at 04:15:03 PM PST
If you still believe that book written by humans, you probably read tabloid news papers and masturbate in your closet in your own feces.
It's pitiful to see the right wing God lovers writing the scripts of the people that are light years more 'moral'. Take off your moral jeans some time, bible thumper, and try on some Principles. You'll see, as I have, that being yourself, taking care of your own business, excercising your right to change the channel without asking, and letting everyone do the same will get you Heaven on earth. After all, when Satan was cast out of Heaven, where did he fall to?? And where are you now!?

Better think twice (or more times) (none / 0) (#7)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 15th, 2002 at 05:19:01 AM PST
open your eyes and have a look at the nature.
there are also several homosexual animals out there. i don't think that god is against homosexuality.

i wanted to write a much longer letter to you, but i think it's wasted time. I hope you will realize which opinion is the right one before you die. Otherwise speak with God about it.

Sorry for my bad english.
With (always) friendly greetings
Harri L.

Animals (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by MessiahWWKD on Tue Jan 15th, 2002 at 06:58:35 PM PST
there are also several homosexual animals out there.

There are also several animals who eat their own feces, make sweet love with their children, make sweet love to other animals, and rape members of the female gender of their species. I guess nothing is unnatural to the likes of you.
i don't think that god is against homosexuality.

It's a good thing that God isn't how you think it is. Otherwise, pedophiles and serial rapists would be roaming the streets since to you, those acts are natural. After all, animals do it.
I hope you will realize which opinion is the right one before you die.

I have. The question is, have you?
Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

Open your eyes and look at the Word! (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Autobots vs Panopticon on Tue Jan 15th, 2002 at 07:50:12 PM PST
I take offence at your suggestion that G*d is not against homose*uality! Any religion worth its salt has clearly denounced homose*uality and all of the pagan vices that surrounds it (child molestation, drug use, rape, polyester clothes, animal sacrifice). The Christian faith and archaic Jewish belief support that "For a man to lay with a man as if a woman is an abomination before G*d." (Leviticus 20:13) Even the savage Mohammedans prohibit such joinings.

What you think is your own concern, but do not suggest you speak for G*d lest you turn TRUE BELIEVERS from their course.

With regards..

More than meets the eye!

Thanks... (none / 0) (#14)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 15th, 2002 at 07:55:30 PM PST
for being a fool.

Paganism has nothing to do with homosexuality or anything else like it. In fact, if you were to actually RESEARCH any form of paganism, you'll find no reference to any sexual preference of any kind. Matter of fact, you won't find any references to any 10 commandments, thousands of psalms and other meaningless dribble that pour out of the mouths of such pathetic attempts at religion.

If religion were something more than foolish pride and a way of explaining away your faults, I would probably consider paganism at it's best. But at the moment, religion ( in all of it's forms, paganism is none the better ) is just a form of mind control.

As loath as I am to do this: (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Autobots vs Panopticon on Tue Jan 15th, 2002 at 09:42:47 PM PST
Your disjointed message is clearly a sign of a disjointed mind. Perhaps this explains Anonymous Reader's schizophrenic postings?

First a lesson in logic: All men are humans, but not all humans are men!
What you have attempted to pass off as a reasoned argument is nothing greater than a logical fallacy (I believe of Composition, though I do not have the education of many esteemed readers). I posted "Any religion worth its salt has clearly denounced homose*uality and all of the pagan vices that surrounds it." I DID NOT post "all pagans are homose*uals." Please spend a moment or two actually reading the posts you choose to respond to and a few more moments actually trying to comprehend them.

(you wrote) "Matter of fact, you won't find any references to any 10 commandments, thousands of psalms..."

Of course I wont find references to the 10 commandments or psalms in Pagan propaganda for the Truth burns like hot sand in Satan's mouth.

As for researching Paganism: I don't need to pollute my mind with lies. Neither will I entertain researching "The moon shots were faked," "The HAARP Project," "Area 51," "Seat Belts Save Lives," or other liberal lies designed to separate me from G*d.

I suggest you take a few moments and meet with your local minister. If you are concerned with mind control, I'm sure he will permit you to wear your tin foil hat while he counsels you.

More than meets the eye!

Dear Sir, (none / 0) (#18)
by Martino Cortez PhD on Wed Jan 16th, 2002 at 07:21:53 AM PST
Your disjointed message is clearly a sign of a disjointed mind. Perhaps this explains Anonymous Reader's schizophrenic postings?

Yes, I am indeed worried about our Anonymous Reader. This person clearly has a) no life and b) a very schizophrenic condition. The evidence is obvious for both. Look at the sheer volume of postings by one poster. Then contrast the wide variety of quality, spelling and logic this very single person conveys. Indeed. I think "Anonymous Reder" should seek help.

Dr Martino Cortez, PhD
CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation
Copyright 2002, Martino Cortez.

LoL (none / 0) (#33)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 16th, 2002 at 03:46:44 PM PST
Dude, anonymous reader is a nickname for anyone who doesn't register :-)

If you don't believe me, try putting up a post with no nickname or password and you'll get the name 'anonymous reader.' I'm in no way a schitzophrenic, and besides, schitzo's are unable to HAVE lives. You couldn't possibly hold a steady job with more than 2 personalities (It's a somewhat fact that people have two personalities. It's the whole 'putting on a mask depending on the situation' deal. Not like it's a bad thing though.).

But anyways, that's just to inform you of that fact.

ignorance (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by nathan on Wed Jan 16th, 2002 at 05:30:22 PM PST
Of course, MPD is nothing to do with schizophrenia. Even the symptoms are totally dissimilar. The popular conflation of the two comes from the old name for MPD, which described multiple personalities as "schizoid," or split.

Volunteer freelance social-work since 1979,
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Well.... (none / 0) (#34)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 16th, 2002 at 03:59:33 PM PST
I didn't say you did either. The phrase "Any religion worth its salt has clearly denounced homose*uality and all of the pagan vices that surround it." seems to imply to me that you've created some correlation between paganism and homosexuality. I was simply informing you that there simply is not. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding.

Also, because you clearly refuse to research paganism you choose one form of pointless, and uninformed propaganda over the source itself. That's proof of ignorance right there, so refrain from making references to any kind ( without a proper source ) to paganism because you know nothing.

You won't find references to psalms and what-not because psalms are just pointless quotes that mean very little ( if not nothing ), and because the 10 commandments are younger than Paganism.

You already pollute your mind with lies anyways, why stop now?

Sick (none / 0) (#21)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 16th, 2002 at 08:25:28 AM PST
As soon as anyone brings up any so called "God" or "book" they immediately lose the argument.

Keep religion out of this, its not wanted and holds little meaning. I've seen little to no trouble in the religious topics on this website (as much as I'd like to jump in I refrain from doing so, because the thread is obviously geared towards it and its not my place), but every religious nut out there feels s/he has the right to jump in on every topic around. Let's sort this rubbish out once and for all:

Let's, for arguments sake, say God is against gays. 10% of nature is homosexual. But God created nature. Therefore God is fallible. But God can't be fallible. Therefore God ceases to exist. Simple.

You sicken me, and if there is a God out there he's definately not as twisted as you.

Anonymous Reader please stop Trolling (none / 0) (#32)
by Autobots vs Panopticon on Wed Jan 16th, 2002 at 02:21:49 PM PST
"As soon as anyone brings up any so called "God" or "book" they immediately lose the argument."

Typical Atheist garbage. The vanity of man often leads to his downfall. I will never understand why Atheists are so vain that they cannot imagine anything larger and more powerful than themselves.

As for religion holding little meaning to this argument, surely you are kidding. BILLIONS of people live within the codified ethics of some religious apparatus (I am keen on saying significantly more people live with religion than without, but I don't have that statistic available). As I have said before, every viable religion has a prohibition against homose*uality. Just because it doesn't fit within your narrow SoHo coffee house view, we cannot discard the MOST HISTORICALLY INFLUENCIAL FORCE.

While I appreciate your syllogism, it is fatally flawed and I wonder if it was accidental. First: G*d is "against " (prohibits, condemns) homose*uality in Man. Man (and most women) has a soul and that significantly separates him from animals. G*d's law governs the behaviors of people and not of animals. Second, I highly doubt 10% of nature is homose*ual as on a number by number basis ase*ual reproduction staggers se*ual reproduction. Some "scientists" have documented a few erratic incidences of homose*ual contact in lower animals, and while they are few (very few) and far between I cannot deny them. Similarly, there are documented incidences of cannibalism, incest, and self-abuse in the animal world. While I cannot claim to understand them, I understand G*d's plan is greater than my limited mental faculties. That is to say, your syllogism needs a caveat of "And G*d (and G*d's works) are not fully comprehensible to mortal man.

"You sicken me..."
Although I am not a doctor I recommend you drink more water, avoid more radiation, go outside into the sunlight, and praise G*d for the gifts He has given you.

More than meets the eye!

Umm, hello... (none / 0) (#35)
by Winter on Wed Jan 16th, 2002 at 05:07:45 PM PST
It was such a fragile argument...
Yet you completely ignored it and went off on something else entirely. Try again.

Hiya! (none / 0) (#37)
by Autobots vs Panopticon on Wed Jan 16th, 2002 at 06:45:44 PM PST
Would you like to contribute something more than a "one liner?"
More than meets the eye!

ROFL (none / 0) (#8)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 15th, 2002 at 01:53:54 PM PST
I loved this article. Great work.

Please rethink (none / 0) (#9)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 15th, 2002 at 02:27:42 PM PST
>>>Kissing on Television<<<

Women grinding crotches together? Bring it on! :)

Let's start at the basics: social construction. Have you ever thought how much heterosexuality is bombarding our worlds? Whether you go in the west you will see it, from the images of Britney Spears to the way a house is designed. Sexuality and gender infilitrate our ever day. However, because you (and I) are heterosexual, we are unable to fully appreciate this. We take everything around us as the norm. Have you thought what its like for homosexuals to walk down a street, knowing that society does not permit them to hold hands like regular couples?

>>>Stop Hurting Women<<<

Is this a joke? I'm not a fashion expert, but I'd like to see you produce some stats on fashion designers and homosexuality before you make such a statement. Furthermore, the high level designers have little impact on our everyday. Most of our clothing is designed by major corporations.

>>>Apologize for AIDS<<<

AIDS came from a polio vaccine. Its not homosexuals who spread the virus, but careless people. There's a difference.

>>>Stop Trolling<<<

Can't say I've experienced it. Perhaps you are visiting forums intended for homosexuals to gather and speak. On top of which, if we can discuss heterosexual activities (this includes those such as sport, particularly ones such as football - yes it is very much a heterosexual activity, reinforcing hetero "norms") then why can't they discuss their's?

>>>Stop Molesting Children<<<

Homosexuals don't molest children, disturbed people do. There's a difference.

Curious (none / 0) (#11)
by hauntedattics on Tue Jan 15th, 2002 at 06:22:02 PM PST
How does the way a house is designed favor heterosexuals? Please enlighten me on this one.

Male Heterosexual Dominance (none / 0) (#20)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 16th, 2002 at 08:11:32 AM PST
I was hoping you'd ask. :) Here's a very simple breakdown:

Take your simple two/three bedroom house. Let's look at the rooms. Three bedrooms tends to imply a family, something that homosexuals are unlikely to have (not impossible, but highly unlikely). Look at the layout of the rooms. The kitchen is placed to the back, reinforcing heterosexual male dominating powers, pushing female and homosexual powers to the back, the unseen part of the house. The idea of the bathroom was developed again through such relations. It is designed to be unseen, tucked away from the outside world. Concepts of bathing have been linked with the female gender, and are not seen to be very male and heterosexual. The point is such planning has been designed to reinforce the male domination of the household This was particularly important as work and home became seperated in the industrial revolution. With men competing in the workplace, they required a secondary area, the home, where they would remain dominant and unchallenged. What's really specific is that the idea is to push male heterosexual powers, and this in turn conflicts with female and homosexual issues. Everything is a social construction and everything has cultural politics attached to it. There is nothing that "just is".

Before anyone goes ape on me (and starts calling me a lesbian feminist), I am a heterosexual male, I have just come across these studies during my degree and find them quite interesting. There is also work regarding this from everything from urban planning to the layout of bars.

OK... (none / 0) (#26)
by hauntedattics on Wed Jan 16th, 2002 at 12:06:17 PM PST
Very interesting. I'm not sure I buy it, but I'll give it some thought.

There are actually several architects out there now who claim that the traditionally designed house often doesn't work for anyone anymore. They advocate building and designing 'not-so-big' houses, in which the space is planned toward the lifestyles of the residents and on a human scale. The house is customized and made more luxurious (if so desired) through the use of detail instead of wasted space. For example, a custom, beautifully designed kitchen can become the focal point of an open first floor plan, since people tend to congregate there anyway. It's kind of a cool idea.

The one obvious drawback is that if a house is so customized to one owner's tastes, it'll be harder to sell later on. But what the hell - I don't own a house anyway, so what do I know???

Nope. Sorry, try again (none / 0) (#27)
by zikzak on Wed Jan 16th, 2002 at 12:52:12 PM PST
Architectural determinism was completely discredited decades ago, and your knowledge of typical suburban home design is equally out of date as well. Whatever you're reading is crap, and the authors invented a conclusion first, then tried to manipulate their data to support it afterwards.

Your school should encourage a bit more critical thought amongst its degree candidates.

Ohh really. (none / 0) (#28)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 16th, 2002 at 01:20:05 PM PST
Ohh really, and how do you know this? Perhaps instead of throwing out words like "crap" you should offer a reasoning and sources for it? I can bring up plenty of articles if you want. Sounds to me you don't even know what I'm talking about. This has nothing to do with architectural determinism (I suggest you figure out the topic before trying to barge in on a subject). Its about gendered and sexualised spaces.

In addition (none / 0) (#29)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 16th, 2002 at 01:24:16 PM PST
Almost forgot, why do you refer to it as having been "discredited decades ago"? The concepts I'm refering to have only been developed in the last five years or so.

The house I discribed was not supposed to represent any major trends, I was merely trying to explain how the ideas, in a very simplistic level, work. You also seem to assume that surburban house design is a constant throughout the world. It is not. I can assure you, even the limited description I made does exist in numerous places.

Last 5 years? (none / 0) (#31)
by zikzak on Wed Jan 16th, 2002 at 02:11:16 PM PST
Let's start with Dolores Hayden's What Would a Non-Sexist City Be Like? Speculations on Housing, Urban Design, and Human Work, published in 1980. I can cite plenty of stuff published as far back as the 1960's as well, not to mention the attempts at Architectural Determinism that date from Victorian England, but I'm in a bit of a rush right now.

And yes, you are talking about Architectural Determinism, you just don't realize it. You are making the usual mistake of sociology by confusing correlation with causation.

Architecture is a reactionary field. It responds to external events and human desires. It does not create them. Further, architecture can not encourage any activity unless there is a prexisting desire for it. And in the case of home design I can absolutely assure you that the desires of women play a far greater role than those of the men, in the past as well as today.

You are creating the usual feminist demon of Heterosexual Male Conspiracy to explain something that is far too complex to be deliberately orchestrated. As for the kitchen and other areas typically reserved for women being isolated, this is where the women wanted those things, and they are generally seen as things that empowered housewives by giving them a zone of control that was not to be challenged by men.

You are blaming the design of inanimate objects for contributing to social development when it is social development that dictates the design of inanimate objects. You are asserting premeditation where the responsible parties are mearly reacting, and you are attributing a negative connotation to something that you have no direct experience with. And that, my friend, is crap.

As a side note, by your own admission these are issues you have just recently come into contact with. I've been studying them for years.

Sigh. (none / 0) (#42)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 17th, 2002 at 04:22:15 AM PST
You're focusing too much on architecture, which is not what this about. May I suggest starting at the basics for you (since its obvious you need it). Try Carl Sauer's "Morphology of the Landscape". Humans impact and are impacted by the cultural landscape. Everything around us is created by, and helps to reinforce, ideas, architecture included. You are creating the usual feminist demon of Heterosexual Male Conspiracy to explain something that is far too complex to be deliberately orchestrated. As for the kitchen and other areas typically reserved for women being isolated, this is where the women wanted those things, and they are generally seen as things that empowered housewives by giving them a zone of control that was not to be challenged by men. Hahaha. Yeah, I know your kind and seen your limited contributions in the literature. I won't deny these are feminist thoughts, but to no surprise, you, like most people, have no idea what feminism is about. Its not about the "demon of Heterosexual Male Conspiracy". Perhaps you should read up on it more.

I stopped reading (none / 0) (#44)
by nathan on Thu Jan 17th, 2002 at 08:18:43 AM PST soon as you used "impact" as a verb.

Why can't deconstructionists use English properly? (Excepting em, of course. He rules.)

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Wrong. (none / 0) (#45)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 17th, 2002 at 08:29:12 AM PST
That was a really useful comment, especially as its wrong. Might I suggest checking in a dictionary?

I am beginning to see the real side of this place. Muppets with sticks wedged right up their arses, claiming to know everything. What is even worse is they feel they have to be so rude.

whatever they taught you at cow college, (none / 0) (#47)
by nathan on Thu Jan 17th, 2002 at 09:00:55 AM PST
"To impact" is a very specialized verb. What you mean is "to affect." Impact is correctly used as a noun, not a verb, in the sense that you clearly intended. One can speak of impacted teeth, but not impacted ideas, principles or people. To use "impact" to mean "affect" is a pesudo-snobbism of the half-miseducated.

After you complained, I did check a dictionary, because I have seen your debased usage in other places too, and I wanted to see whether it had received official toleration. As this easy link demonstrates, the American Heritage 4th flags your usage as objectionable, and Webster's Revised Unabridge (1996) doesn't list your usage at all.

I may be a muppet, with a gigantic splintery stick up my ass, but at least I don't come across as an illiterate pompous idiot. I come across as a semi-literate pompous idiot, a distinction I guard extremely jealously.

If you hate the adequacy so much, why not just FOAD? It's not as though you'd be missed.

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Whoo hoo! (none / 0) (#48)
by hauntedattics on Thu Jan 17th, 2002 at 07:52:40 PM PST
I love "to impact." It's almost as great as "to incentivize."

Who's your favorite Muppet? I think I like Rolf best. Of course they all have something up their asses, but oh well...

I'm disappointed.. (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by Autobots vs Panopticon on Tue Jan 15th, 2002 at 04:18:03 PM PST
I come to for up-right and clear minded individuals and I find this.

What is truly interesting is how far you have slipped from being a "man of ethics" without even realizing. It saddens me to see that the liberal media has wormed its way into your mind and created the possibility (with or without conditions) of accepting homose*uals into society. This is a slippery slope, my friend, one that will only result in accepting any degenerate fad lifestyle into our fold. First we accept homose*uals with some restraints, then slowly we up-right individuals will be inched out by unrepentant, child molesting, women abusing nancy boys until society is over run with deviants. It happened to Rome, it can happen to us.

The only true course of action is to draw a firm line and say "NO!" to the homose*ual agenda. Not an inch, not a mile. For today they want acceptance, tomorrow equality, and next week your children. You, sir, are teetering on the brink of that first fate filled step.

With regards..

More than meets the eye!

You're a fool. (1.00 / 1) (#15)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 15th, 2002 at 09:37:55 PM PST
I think your inability to write an "x" in the word Homosexuals show's your inability to cope with things that break through your tiny little walls that you've created to protect yourself from that harsh thing we call: REALITY.

Grow up.

First the discrimination of homosexuals, then black people ( AGAIN ), then women then who knows where.

It was prevelant in Rome too.

Unnatural (none / 0) (#19)
by MessiahWWKD on Wed Jan 16th, 2002 at 08:00:36 AM PST
First the discrimination of homosexuals, then black people ( AGAIN ), then women then who knows where.

You cannot compare the three. Unlike homosexuals, females and African Americans are born that way. Homosexuals choose to be homosexual.
Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

Really? (1.00 / 1) (#22)
by Winter on Wed Jan 16th, 2002 at 08:37:16 AM PST
Is there a source for that information?
It would be interesting to see the debate about genetics vs. choice in the matter of homosexuality finalized and i, despite attempting to remain informed, seem to have missed this.

Thank you for your time.

Evidence (none / 0) (#25)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 16th, 2002 at 08:51:45 AM PST
There is strong evidence for this:

[i]Homosexuality could be accepted as a biological fact, but still be rejected socially, on the grounds that it lies outside of a culture's traditional, or preconceived, values and norms. In this way, homosexuality would parallel current societal views of other forms of unacceptable, though often genetically-based, behaviors, such as alcoholism and obesity. [/i]

Its irrelevant to people such as the author of this thread. They will continue to believe what they want even if it stares them blind in the face. Even better is that they have no understanding of the issues at stake, take no time to actually do some research and still believe they are entitled to voice their opinions.

I ask that any bi/homosexuals who must witness such a bunch of horrific posts, please ignore them. Most of the population in the west is unlike the right-winger, bible bashers here.

Amazing (none / 0) (#24)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 16th, 2002 at 08:44:23 AM PST
Wow this is news to the science community. Incredible, you've destroyed all work up until this date.

The urge to have sex with a member of the same sex is genetic. It also exists in the animal world (I guess next you'll be telling us that animals are sentient and "choose" a homosexual lifestyle).

You clearly... (none / 0) (#23)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 16th, 2002 at 08:40:08 AM PST
You clearly have little to no knowledge on this subject. Are you aware that homsexuality is only a recent conept? The idea of dividing sexuality into hetero, homo and bi groups is purely a social formation and has not been around since the beginning of time. In Rome, as you refer to it, sexuality was based on class. Individuals were never considered homo or heterosexual. Your class position entitled you to have sex with certain elements of society. Many great men, who helped build Roman and Greek power, for example, were known to take part in homosexual activities (it has no correaltion with the decline of societies). This was a common practice and was not socially hidden or oppressed (as we do today).

Child molesting was not rife in Rome, as you suggest. Neither is it directly linked to homosexuals (numerous abusers are heterosexual).

Please, will you do your research before throwing stupid comments about.

>>>Stop Trolling<<<

This comment is a complete joke. How about the religious people out there stop trolling too?

Many mouths, many stories... (none / 0) (#30)
by Autobots vs Panopticon on Wed Jan 16th, 2002 at 01:36:53 PM PST
Interesting to see that my post had developed two vastly different threads of response. One claiming homose*uality is genetic and therefore "natural" and another claiming "(homose*uality) is only a recent concept." Although I am not here to debate Genetic vs Behavioral homose*uality, I have kept my eye on the topic for a number of years and would like to share some of my observations:

First on genetic homose*uality:
The end goal of any healthy natural sexual act is procreation, and without procreation eventually all men and women would cease to exist. Homose*ual unions by definition do not produce progeny and therefore the genetic traits of the "partners" are not continued to the next generation; as the Darwinists would say "The trait is selected out." Given enough generations, a trait that cannot product viable offspring will be purged from the gene pool.

Otherwise, genetic homose*uality must arise from genetic mutation. This genetic mutation then jeopardizes the blood line of the individual, but thanks to modern medical science a genetic disease such as this can be successfully treated through gene thrapy.

"But if homose*uality is genetic, why cant we just let them be?" Well, sociopaths or other malicious psychic disorders (such as the criminal intellect) are often caused by genetic chemical imbalances in the brain or general malformities in the gross anatomy of the brain. While these conditions may be genetic, or the poor hapless victim is "just born that way," they express behaviors in the individuals that are detrimental to cohesive society. No, we cannot accept homose*uals' behavior if they are "simply born that way" any more than we can accept someone born with a murderous bloodrage who attacks his neighbors with a kitchen knife.

On behavioral homose*uality:
Behavior homose*uality is fairly simple. If someone "chooses" to be homose*ual then they are deliberately acting out against G*d and society. These people are then intentionally acting in a subversive manner and society has an obligation to criminalize the behavior. Once the State has guardianship of these malcontents, the root cause of their behavior can be treated with therapy, pharmaceuticals, and prayer.

In the final summation of genetic vs behavioral it doesn't matter as these behaviors are an affront to G*d and moral people.

(For my friend Anonymous Reader: Emperor Nero, often noted as the lynchpin in the fall of Rome, underwent a public homose*ual marriage ceremony c. 60 AD. The metaphor "Nero fiddled while Rome burned" is clearly a lesson that moral decadence will destroy a healthy and productive society.)

As a side note: I choose not to put the "x" in homose*uals because I am mature enough to understand that irresponsible parents allow small children to view the internet without adequate supervision. I attempt to keep these discussions as clean as possible. Additionally, I understand that some se*ual deviants use a "meta-google search" for "keywords," and I would hate to imagine that someone would use our innocent discussion for self-flagellation.

More than meets the eye!

Where do I start? (none / 0) (#43)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 17th, 2002 at 04:45:52 AM PST
For starters... genetics and "concepts" are perfectly able of standing side by side (did you not read the links someone posted in the "Evidence" thread? One of them refers to this).

Darwin - his theories are not be followed strictly. They no longer apply in our societies today. If we were to follow "evolution" then the first job would be to disband our health service and let those who catch illnesses or suffer accidents, live through it or die. We don't. Socially, sex is also becoming less and less to do with reproduction and more to do with leisure (this idea has been around since the first day a condom was used). And if "God" did mean for sex to be for nothing more than child bearing, then why are we not guaranteed conception every time we have sex?

Why are you comparing criminals to homosexuals? There is no logic behind this at all.

You reference to Nero means jackshit. Just because there is a certain phrase attributed to him does not mean it is because he was a homosexual. Produce evidence indicating the source of this phrase and I might consider it (also bare in mind when it was formed). What about other great leaders, such as Alexander the Great (known to have his male lover follow him around on his conquests)?

As for your last comment regarding the word "sex", I think you have some serious social problems that need addressing if you can't bring yourself to even type it out. You've got a poor excuse there. How do you know that a search engine would even pick up this discussion board? Have you tried it out? Stop repressing yourself and get out of the closet.

Disgusted myself: (none / 0) (#38)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 16th, 2002 at 08:10:20 PM PST
It's people like you who who give christians a bad name. I myself am Christian, and have gone to and am attending bible classes and church. I don't believe God has anything to do with this conversation. There is no sound evidence for or against homosexuals in the bible, and even IF (note the IF IF IF) God isn't too pleased with them, he wouldn't want us persecuting him. Duh, he sent jesus to die for all sins, and he still wants us to love one another.
So stop giving us a bad name, grow up, and meet an actual homosexual. A good sum of my friends are, and they're actually the nicest of my friends because of all they have to endure, the emotional and mental hardache they go through in our current society, and the resulting strength and courage in the face of pagans such as yourselves.
By the way, I am gay. Just though I might add that tidbit to this stupid conversation. And yes, this thread is completely disgusting me. You don't see me bashing people like you or heterosexuals, do you? Most of my friends are heterosexual and know I'm gay.
9.9 (rolls eyes)
Maybe we can grow up and move on now. Thank you.

*nods* (none / 0) (#40)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 16th, 2002 at 08:19:51 PM PST
I've noticed many people like to use the bible as a crutch rather than a learning tool. Sad really.

...Uh...huh.. (none / 0) (#39)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 16th, 2002 at 08:10:46 PM PST
Okay let's start at the top:

"I'm happy that you all have found your life partners, but nobody wants to see you making out"

Im fine with it. You see heterosexuals making out all over the place. Especially on TV. If you dun want to see homosexuals making out on TV then take of the heterosexual making out as well.

"As everybody knows, homosexuals run the fashion industry."

LOL! ahh..stereotypes. Research THEN speak.

"they are trying to ruin women by turning them into bolemic crack whores."

Those women do it to themselves. Simple as that. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. It may turn off some men but if it turns off men by the same token it would also turn off some lesbian women. Hence it's a stalemate and homosexuality remains balanced in that regard.

"Simply apologize for killing all the victims of AIDS."'re kidding right? Anyone that has AIDS (save for the few born with it or some other fluke) agreed to have sex with the other person that was carrying it. It was their choice to make and they knew that getting an STD was a consequence of their actions.

"Stop Molesting Children"

If you actually took some time to research what you're preaching you would know that most criminals (including child molestors, rapists, etc.) are HETEROsexual.

All this post looks like to me is a perfect example of the typical human response to fear and slash out at what they dont understand. Take some time to learn what you're talking about and learn to be more tolerant of new things and ideas.
Who knows you may learn something.


Great post (none / 0) (#46)
by innominate on Thu Jan 17th, 2002 at 08:49:57 AM PST
I think you are almost on top of something that I may be able to say. If the religious right weren't so Noble, and Righteous, then they would practice what they preach. Tolerance. Isn't it odd that people who claim tolerance only use it when the situation is in their favor? I am tolerant of ANY new idea; for me there is no other way to be. I have gay friends, and guess what? They are productive, contributing citizens. The only flaw in a homosexual relationship that I see is that the two people aren't reproducing themselves. Tolerate, Educate, or Disconnect as an old friend once said.

New SN (none / 0) (#41)
by gokunion on Wed Jan 16th, 2002 at 08:58:22 PM PST
Hey, if one good thing comes out of this shitty argument headed by mindless bible-wacks, it's that lil' ol me took up my own ID!
So expect more "problems" from me. My "Sister" Vanetia joined up too from anonomys<sp> too, so watch out. Especially homophobes. lol.


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 The name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to