Paul Cameron & the Truth About Homos

[Arthur Brain]

You know, you really are an idiot.

It doesn't matter if they have the rights or not. If you think they should have those rights and you openly support them having said rights then you are championing for them.

Of course it matters. They have those rights under law and I simply acknowledge the sense and equality of such laws. It's zealots like you who 'champion' for those rights to be overturned and have them killed or locked up and whatnot.

Unappealing is not the same as repulsive, moron.

Pretty hard to find something appealing repulsive dingbat. If you prefer then I will personally concede that the notion of any sort of romantic/physical intimacy with another man is repulsive. Happy now?

Name calling without cause is against the rules, by the way.

Well go tell that to the mirror then. Spare me how your immaturity is 'justified' on that score as your childish arrogance is tedious enough as it is...

Jefferson's argument has nothing to do with simply not being interested in the movie; it is that the sight of two men engaging in homosexual activity repulses you, at least a little.

And it still wouldn't work as an argument. Even if I were repulsed by even the intimation of intimacy between two men to the point of having to switch channels to avoid it - I still wouldn't be a homophobe. I would be if I started arguing or campaigning that no such thing should be allowed or even implied on screen. If you still don't get it then you're simply not all that bright.

 

[Granite]

Exactly. Jefferson doesn't even have an argument on this and I'll be surprised if he actually comes backs and answers - though it could prove interesting if he did...

He never does. His whole shtick boils down to starting threads and never contributing a thing to TOL. Period.

 

[resurrected]

Exactly. Jefferson doesn't even have an argument on this...

jefferson made his "argument"


why should he waste his time squabbling with retards like you and granite?

 

[Lighthouse]

Of course it matters. They have those rights under law and I simply acknowledge the sense and equality of such laws. It's zealots like you who 'champion' for those rights to be overturned and have them killed or locked up and whatnot.

:doh:

You approve of them having said rights, which means you champion them having those rights. Simple as that.

Pretty hard to find something appealing repulsive dingbat.

No duh, Dick Tracy.

If you prefer then I will personally concede that the notion of any sort of romantic/physical intimacy with another man is repulsive. Happy now?

That was exactly Jefferson's point.

Well go tell that to the mirror then. Spare me how your immaturity is 'justified' on that score as your childish arrogance is tedious enough as it is...

I have cause, because you're an idiot.

And it still wouldn't work as an argument. Even if I were repulsed by even the intimation of intimacy between two men to the point of having to switch channels to avoid it - I still wouldn't be a homophobe. I would be if I started arguing or campaigning that no such thing should be allowed or even implied on screen. If you still don't get it then you're simply not all that bright.

He never said you were a homophobe, moron. He simply pointed out that it repulsed you and you admitted that it did, so end of argument. You lose.

 

[The Barbarian]

It's true. You don't see the really extreme anti-abortion people performing abortions. But is anyone surprised when a publicly outspoken homophobe gets caught with a male prostitute?

There are plenty of homophobes who are not closeted homosexuals, but yes, a lot of homosexuals try to hide by becoming stridently anti-homosexual

As you may have noticed here, it fools no one.

 

[Arthur Brain]

:doh:
You approve of them having said rights, which means you champion them having those rights. Simple as that.

In that case I'm a champion for bigots to have free speech who advocate for gays not having those rights as well then.

No duh, Dick Tracy.

Eh, it was you who wanted to make some significant distinction so I merely pointed out what should have been obvious to you.

That was exactly Jefferson's point.

Which was a ridiculous one to assert in the first place. If you're heterosexual then you're not attracted to the same sex, ergo the notion of intimacy with such is a no go, unappealing, repulsive etc. That doesn't equate to having a phobia or hate of those who are homosexual or having a problem with their doing what is personally off limits to me.

I have cause, because you're an idiot.

Nah, it's cos you're a petulant little child in a grown man's body who has a lot of growing up to do.

He never said you were a homophobe, moron. He simply pointed out that it repulsed you and you admitted that it did, so end of argument. You lose.

Well, yes he did as the following direct bolded quote confirms:

"It's so easy to spot when the defenders of homosexual perversion are lying when they claim not to be homophobic. Just ask them if they usually try to watch highly acclaimed movies. When they answer yes, ask them if they saw Brokeback Mountain.

"Oh, well...uh...no, I didn't see that one."

They didn't see it for the same reason I didn't. They don't enjoy throwing up in public.

What a bunch of lying hypocrites. I thought all the hypocrites were only supposed to exist inside the church."



So much for your reading comprehension skills. You can't even read what Jefferson wrote himself properly, and it's pretty hard to lose to an argument that never had a logical foundation to start with. Admitting to being personally repulsed at homosexuality between my own sex does not a homophobe make - unless I wish to infringe on those having that right - which I don't. So sorry LH, you're the one who's lost but no need to throw the toys out of the pram over it.

 

[Jefferson]

jefferson made his "argument"


why should he waste his time squabbling with retards like you and granite?

You nailed it. I try not to waste my time on tar babies.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You nailed it. I try not to waste my time on tar babies.

Nah, you made a ludicrous argument and you know it, which is why you won't address the blatantly obvious rebuttal. Having zero interest in some film about gay folk - even if it was purely for avoiding the homosexual subject matter - doesn't make someone a homophobe or a hypocrite.

 

[Stripe]

:mock: :granite:

 

[Granite]

There are plenty of homophobes who are not closeted homosexuals, but yes, a lot of homosexuals try to hide by becoming stridently anti-homosexual

As you may have noticed here, it fools no one.

It goes from being unintentionally amusing to outright pathetic pretty quickly.

 

[resurrected]

You nailed it. I try not to waste my time on tar babies.

tarbabies don't like being ignored :chuckle:

for example:

Nah, you made a ludicrous argument and you know it, which is why you won't address the blatantly obvious rebuttal. Having zero interest in some film about gay folk - even if it was purely for avoiding the homosexual subject matter - doesn't make someone a homophobe or a hypocrite.

well, at least he didn't call you a coward :idunno:

 

[Lighthouse]

In that case I'm a champion for bigots to have free speech who advocate for gays not having those rights as well then.

Exactly.

Eh, it was you who wanted to make some significant distinction so I merely pointed out what should have been obvious to you.

I think you misread my post then, as what I said was not a contradiction to the obvious.

Which was a ridiculous one to assert in the first place. If you're heterosexual then you're not attracted to the same sex, ergo the notion of intimacy with such is a no go, unappealing, repulsive etc. That doesn't equate to having a phobia or hate of those who are homosexual or having a problem with their doing what is personally off limits to me.

If it were merely that you had no interest as one who is not homosexual then others committing such acts would not repulse you; you would simply be apathetic about it.

But the truth of the matter is that it grosses you out.

Nah, it's cos you're a petulant little child in a grown man's body who has a lot of growing up to do.

I am not the only person on this site who thinks you're a moron. I am one of many. That is sufficient enough to show there is cause for calling you out on it.

Well, yes he did as the following direct bolded quote confirms:

"It's so easy to spot when the defenders of homosexual perversion are lying when they claim not to be homophobic. Just ask them if they usually try to watch highly acclaimed movies. When they answer yes, ask them if they saw Brokeback Mountain.

"Oh, well...uh...no, I didn't see that one."

They didn't see it for the same reason I didn't. They don't enjoy throwing up in public.

What a bunch of lying hypocrites. I thought all the hypocrites were only supposed to exist inside the church."

I can admit I was wrong. Can you?

And it all really comes down to how one defines the word "homophobic" doesn't it? Since it was a word made up by homosexuals and defenders of them and in no way actually refers to a phobia when being used by such as yourself. Jefferson can use it to mean "one who is grossed out by acts of homosexuality."

Also, you never did answer as to whether or not you give a chance to all the highly acclaimed movies. Do you?

So much for your reading comprehension skills. You can't even read what Jefferson wrote himself properly, and it's pretty hard to lose to an argument that never had a logical foundation to start with. Admitting to being personally repulsed at homosexuality between my own sex does not a homophobe make - unless I wish to infringe on those having that right - which I don't. So sorry LH, you're the one who's lost but no need to throw the toys out of the pram over it.

Forgetting what was written is not the same as not comprehending it. Buy a dictionary.

Your argument here is based on your definition of a word, well you can read what I wrote above.

I threw a toy out of my playpen once [is that what a pram is?]. Hit my uncle right in the head as he was napping.

Nah, you made a ludicrous argument and you know it, which is why you won't address the blatantly obvious rebuttal. Having zero interest in some film about gay folk - even if it was purely for avoiding the homosexual subject matter - doesn't make someone a homophobe or a hypocrite.

:allsmile:I'm not a hypocrite!:allsmile:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Exactly.

Okay then. I'm a champion for gay rights and also a champion for those who wish to air their protestations to current law in relation. I can live with that.

I think you misread my post then, as what I said was not a contradiction to the obvious.

The obvious was already there and you decided to make a big deal out of nothing.

If it were merely that you had no interest as one who is not homosexual then others committing such acts would not repulse you; you would simply be apathetic about it.

But the truth of the matter is that it grosses you out.

If the notion of homosexual sex with my own gender is repulsive to me then it stands to reason that I don't particularly wish to see other men involved in doing it either. That doesn't make me a homophobe by any definition.

I am not the only person on this site who thinks you're a moron. I am one of many. That is sufficient enough to show there is cause for calling you out on it.

So what? I'm one out of plenty who think you're a petulant immature little brat who has a lot of growing up to do, so I'm justified in calling you out when you act like one going by your yardstick for just cause, so suck it up.

I can admit I was wrong. Can you?

Well, you didn't really have any choice although kudos for that much at least, and yes I can.

And it all really comes down to how one defines the word "homophobic" doesn't it? Since it was a word made up by homosexuals and defenders of them and in no way actually refers to a phobia when being used by such as yourself. Jefferson can use it to mean "one who is grossed out by acts of homosexuality."

Well, not really. Essentially, with that argument Jefferson may as well have called heterosexuals homophobics for not being able to be attracted to their own gender for all the sense that would make. Instead he concocted some bizarre analogy whereby one who accepts that gay people should have rights should also watch some film about gays else they're a hypocrite. Completely inane...

Also, you never did answer as to whether or not you give a chance to all the highly acclaimed movies. Do you?

Well that wasn't even the question posed but as a film fan I do keep my finger on the button so to speak although there's plenty of acclaimed films I haven't seen yet. That being said I don't just watch a film because it gets raving reviews either. There's plenty of cinematic gems that don't get in the spotlight and plenty of over hyped ones that disappoint. FTR I will watch Brokeback Mountain when it airs on TV as I don't happen to throw up simply at seeing two blokes kissing or having a relationship on screen.

Forgetting what was written is not the same as not comprehending it. Buy a dictionary.

His whole "point" was centered around being a homophobe if you didn't watch stuff that would or could gross you out, which was and is ridiculous.

Your argument here is based on your definition of a word, well you can read what I wrote above.

No, I'm going with Jefferson's bizarre notion as I have from his initial post on the matter.

I threw a toy out of my playpen once [is that what a pram is?]. Hit my uncle right in the head as he was napping.

Well, these things happen...:chuckle:

:allsmile:I'm not a hypocrite!:allsmile:

Nobody said you were so no need to cry about it. We're all hypocrites to a degree but Jefferson's accusations carry no merit as there's no logic to his 'argument'.

 

[Lighthouse]

Okay then. I'm a champion for gay rights and also a champion for those who wish to air their protestations to current law in relation. I can live with that.

The obvious was already there and you decided to make a big deal out of nothing.

If the notion of homosexual sex with my own gender is repulsive to me then it stands to reason that I don't particularly wish to see other men involved in doing it either. That doesn't make me a homophobe by any definition.

So what? I'm one out of plenty who think you're a petulant immature little brat who has a lot of growing up to do, so I'm justified in calling you out when you act like one going by your yardstick for just cause, so suck it up.

Well, you didn't really have any choice although kudos for that much at least, and yes I can.

Well, not really. Essentially, with that argument Jefferson may as well have called heterosexuals homophobics for not being able to be attracted to their own gender for all the sense that would make. Instead he concocted some bizarre analogy whereby one who accepts that gay people should have rights should also watch some film about gays else they're a hypocrite. Completely inane...

Well that wasn't even the question posed but as a film fan I do keep my finger on the button so to speak although there's plenty of acclaimed films I haven't seen yet. That being said I don't just watch a film because it gets raving reviews either. There's plenty of cinematic gems that don't get in the spotlight and plenty of over hyped ones that disappoint. FTR I will watch Brokeback Mountain when it airs on TV as I don't happen to throw up simply at seeing two blokes kissing or having a relationship on screen.

His whole "point" was centered around being a homophobe if you didn't watch stuff that would or could gross you out, which was and is ridiculous.

No, I'm going with Jefferson's bizarre notion as I have from his initial post on the matter.

:blabla:

Nobody said you were so no need to cry about it. We're all hypocrites to a degree but Jefferson's accusations carry no merit as there's no logic to his 'argument'.

:doh:

 

[Arthur Brain]

:blabla:


:doh:

Ah yes, the usual LH "counter" for when he's got no argument left. A coupla emoticons...

So bloody predictable.

 

[Lighthouse]

Ah yes, the usual LH "counter" for when he's got no argument left. A coupla emoticons...

So bloody predictable.

No, I just realized you're not worth my time.

 

[Arthur Brain]

No, I just realized you're not worth my time.

Yeah, funny how you suddenly do that with any number of people in the middle of a debate when you've got nothing left to counter with...convenient...

Still, as you were.

:e4e:

 

[Lighthouse]

Tell yourself whatever you want.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Tell yourself whatever you want.

Eh, you've done it so many times it's almost funny LH. You run away from an uncomfortable debate more often than Popeye eats cans of spinach...

 

[resurrected]

No, I just realized you're not worth my time.

well, he is a retard :idunno: