This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

No offense in intended! Not being homphobic, but being realistic!

Scroll to see replies

Originally posted by The Dude
Like I said, I wasn't the person who came out with the statistic that says '40% of homosexuals eat poo' in the first place. Someone else did on the other thread.

OK then, how on Earth do you know that the other person did not just make the statistic up?! Your 'statistic' seems also to have miraculously changed from 90% to 40%. That really adds credibility to your 'argument'.

Originally posted by The Dude
But after doing a search on google for a respectable paper to prove you all wrong and to show you that I'm not quoting from 'a guy next door' I found this:

"Besides sodomy, activities include `rimming' where gays lick or insert tongues into the anus, thus ingesting faeces. According to ten studies carried out in Canada, Australia, the UK and US from 1940 - 1991, about 80% of gays engage in this. Others (49%) eat and/or wallow in faeces. Homosexuals engage in oral-penile sexual activity with almost all of their sexual contacts (and ingest semen from about half of these). ‘Fisting' is when fingers, hand, fist or the entire forearm is inserted in the anus and rectum. The forearm may be shoved through the rectum into the colon (50%). Other objects, such as bottles, carrots and small animals may also be inserted (51%). In the largest survey of gays ever conducted 23% admitted to sexual activity with urine, which involves drinking or being splashed with urine."

SOURCE: http://www.stormfront.org/threads/topic/27677.html (check it for yourselves if you want)

The above mentions other depraved acts gays engage in too.

Wow, you are just as stupid as you seem. Taking your sources from a Neo-Nazi hate group, what do you expect? Have you never heard of the word 'bias'?! If you are willing to except what one of those abhorent web sites says, then by logical deduction you must trust these people to produce reliable evidence, and must thus be in agreement with most of what they preach (or you would not see what they write as reliable). That makes you a Nazi and completely contradicts your so called 'tolerance'. No one with the slightest inkling of tolerance would ever have the nerve to quote from such a foul-mouthed and utterly despicable website, such as 'StormFront.org'.

I could very easily visit a website dedicated to tolerance for homosexuality and I'm sure I could gather many statistics which would easily contradict your Nazi ones, but I would be being biased too. For a reliable source, it needs to be from a largely independent body, not one which would advocate the execution of homosexuals, neither one which places them above every other human being; you need a source which looks at both sides of the argument objectively.

As for their so called 'statistics', whatever about where they claim to have taken them from, I wouldn't touch them with a barge pole, simply because the article begins with the sole intention of attacking homosexuality and not once attempts to consider the other side of the argument. It's sole purpose is to demean and degrade the lifestyle of others, and for that it should never be trusted.

Originally posted by The Dude
Now, I am tolerant of gays, I don't bash a gay if I see one in the street or shout verbal insults etc. So I am tolerant, but still I don't have to agree with what they do and I can say what I feel about it and that I find it disgusting. I'm not going to be all P.C about it.

The Dude: "Oh yes, of course I'm tolerant of homosexuals, let me just give you this link to this Nazi site, and you can really see the extent of my tolerance."

Every post you've ever made is one big contradiction, no in fact, you are one big contradiction. Please, go and find another forum to fill with you hateful drivel, can't you see you're not going to win any Nazi-followers here?

Regards,

Reply 21

It'sPhil...

Originally posted by The Dude
Now, I am tolerant of gays, I don't bash a gay if I see one in the street or shout verbal insults etc.

You are tolerent of gays are you?? Then how come you said this in your opening message

"If gay people deviate away from acceptable behaviour, they should be transported somewhere else (they are not being punished, just being sent somewhere else to live so they no longer 'contaminate' the culture of main society)."

You may have slightly different definitions of tolerance to me. Personally I wouldn't make a point out of the fact that I don't physically or mentally abuse another human for something as utterly trivial as their preffered sex, I see it as the bare minimum anyone can do to be a decent human being.

I really am amazed that people like you even exist in this world - you have rediculous views, completely narrow minded.

Finally on inspection of that link you still made up three of those percentages. Either you are hoping that people don't check the link or are so stupid you didn't realise the numbers (49, 50, 51) are there to mark the start of each new point and order the points one to 57. In this case I would have to assume that you are just plain stupid, as you have revealed yourself to be in your previous posts...

Reply 22

It'sPhil...

Originally posted by rahaydenuk
Every post you've ever made is one big contradiction, no in fact, you are one big contradiction. Please, go and find another forum to fill with you hateful drivel, can't you see you're not going to win any Nazi-followers here.

LOL Go Richard!!!!

Reply 23

The Dude

Who said I was a Nazi because I didn't (and i'm not)? That aside, you have just shown that you are hateful towards a group for their ideology. So you are contradicting yourself here, not me. You might not agree with their beliefs but you can respect them (as someone said about me, when I said I didn't agree with homosexual acts). Why aren't their figures valid? How do you know they aren't valid? How do you know that ANY figure is valid? Just because of the nature of their organisation you dismiss the figures as anomolous and biased. They must have got them figures from somewhere and I doubt they just made them up! You have contradicted yourself by being prejudiced towards this particular group.

Originally posted by It'sPhil...
You may have slightly different definitions of tolerance to me. Personally I wouldn't make a point out of the fact that I don't physically or mentally abuse another human for something as utterly trivial as their preffered sex, I see it as the bare minimum anyone can do to be a decent human being.

And I AM tolerant of homosexuals like I said I would talk to a gay and get on with a gay even though I don't agree with what they do. I am just being honest (which would be nicer to see instead of the constant pretentious political correctness in society; people think this is what I SHOULD say instead of what I REALLY think). I consider myself to be a pacifist and I believe in peace and harmony and all that, and I let gays live their lives so I DO tolerate them. If, say, someone come up to me and punched me in the head I would defend myself. I wouldn't go out of my way to bash gays or anyone, but I was just making a point that I DO tolerate them even though I disagree with what they do.

Also, for the record I didn't know it was a White Supremacy site I didn't go through the site I merely copyed and pasted the page I found on Google. But that is irrelevant, the paper was written by a respected sociologist.

Reply 24

It'sPhil...

Originally posted by The Dude
I consider myself to be a pacifist and I believe in peace and harmony and all that

It puzzles me to think how you would acheive peace and more importantly harmony, which you have said you are 'all for', by segregating them from us:

"If they don't want to conform and behave properly in terms of the main norms and values, then they can go and live in their own society (on the island). What is wrong with that?

If gay people deviate away from acceptable behaviour, they should be transported somewhere else (they are not being punished, just being sent somewhere else to live so they no longer 'contaminate' the culture of main society).

Thats a real nice picture of peace and harmony you've created, your posts are a joke, just one stupid contradiction after another. Rediculous.

Reply 25

The Dude

Originally posted by It'sPhil...
Finally on inspection of that link you still made up three of those percentages. Either you are hoping that people don't check the link or are so stupid you didn't realise the numbers (49, 50, 51) are there to mark the start of each new point and order the points one to 57. In this case I would have to assume that you are just plain stupid, as you have revealed yourself to be in your previous posts...

QUOTE]Originally posted by rahaydenuk
OK then, how on Earth do you know that the other person did not just make the statistic up?! Your 'statistic' seems also to have miraculously changed from 90% to 40%. That really adds credibility to your 'argument'.

Listen. The precise figures are irrelevant really when it boils down to it, aren't they?

I mean, roughly 10% of the population in Britain are thought to be gay [fact]

The population of Britain is something like 55 000 000 [fact]

This means that there are roughly 5 500 000 gays roaming around in Britain alone [fact]

Okay.

So lets say 1% of gay people eat poo for example. Even at 1% there is still 55 000 poo-eaters on the loose in Britain alone!!! (in reality it is probably much higher!)

[FACT depending on actual percentage value]

See what I mean?

If we asume that the 40% figure is accurate, then that means a whopping 2 200 000 POO-EATERS ON THE LOOSE!!!

2 200 000

Think about it! They could be working anywhere!
In restaurants, hospitals, baby-food factories or any type of food factory for that matter, on farms, in supermarkets etc etc...

I dread to think! :eek:

Reply 26

It'sPhil...

Youve said that the precise figures are irrelevant but your still using made up statistics to support the bulk of your arguement. And what exactly do you mean by "on the loose" as if these people are coming to get us and force us to, as you pu it "eat poo".

Do you really think that 2 million people, of which every single one is gay, regularly "eat poo" in this country. That seems utterly rediculous. But lets assume it is true. lets say one in 25 ppl "eat poo". At lewast one of teachers does, you meet people everyday who do, propbably one of your freinds does ( oh wait scrap that - it would require you to actually have some freinds). Every day you encouter people that "eat poo" -as long as you are ignorant to this you dont mind them, but somehow the knowledge that they "eat poo" changes them to a person that should be "sent to an island because they have deviated from what is acceptable"

Reply 27

Egan1

Originally posted by The Dude
Original source of the statistic:

Couldn't really give a shit! Excuse the pun! Put it this way, in Britain we have to check all meat products for disease before they are sold for health and safety reasons. What if a person that eats shit is a person that handles meat produce, the person is a chef and works in a restaurant. Now, it is okay for this person to consume faeces in their spare time and handle food, even though by law diseased meat cannot be sold. Why is it okay for a person like this to handle food? Where is the logic in that? The act itself is abbhorent (obviously not to people on this forum, but it is to me) and also when you look into the wider picture it can affect society physically. So yes, it is an important discussion and I am concerned. There are numerous diseases that can be transmitted through faeces. This is one objective example of why this behaviour is wrong.

Just think about this next time you tuck into your Big Mac or whatever...

Enjoy!

I have thus far refrained from commenting on this/the old thread, however upon reading this I felt compelled to post!
You may be unaware of this, but people working with any food items that will be distributed to the public do infact have to abide by certain health and safety rules! You will not find any respected company allowing its employees to simply walk in and start work, they have to put on special clothes and wash their hands etc etc before they handle the food.

Also, why do you pressume that gay people who do come into contact with faeces during sex would not wash before going into work etc? And why is that any different to any person, gay or straight, going to the toilet and not washing their hands or handling animals and not washing themselves etc...

I could go on but I think I have made my point

Reply 28

The Dude

Originally posted by Egan1
I have thus far refrained from commenting on this/the old thread, however upon reading this I felt compelled to post!
You may be unaware of this, but people working with any food items that will be distributed to the public do infact have to abide by certain health and safety rules! You will not find any respected company allowing its employees to simply walk in and start work, they have to put on special clothes and wash their hands etc etc before they handle the food.

And why is that any different to any person, gay or straight, going to the toilet and not washing their hands or handling animals and not washing themselves etc...

I could go on but I think I have made my point

Fair enough you may have got a point there.

But, do you really think that everyone whom handles food abides by health and safety regulations?

I remember reading an article in the Daily Mail that said the majority (I can't remember the actual figure) of people working in the catering business do NOT wash their hands after going to the toilet whilst they are handling food.

And they work in catering!

Anyway, how did this discussion start? I can't remember (and can't be bothered to trail through the threads).

Reply 29

The Dude

Originally posted by It'sPhil...
Youve said that the precise figures are irrelevant but your still using made up statistics to support the bulk of your arguement.

The precise figures ARE irrelevant. 1% or 100% of gays; doesn't matter! (the official statistic is that 10% of Britain IS gay, and if 1% eat poo it is still alot!)

Originally posted by It'sPhil...
And what exactly do you mean by "on the loose" as if these people are coming to get us and force us to, as you pu it "eat poo".

LOL

Originally posted by It'sPhil...
That seems utterly rediculous. But lets assume it is true. lets say one in 25 ppl "eat poo". At lewast one of teachers does, you meet people everyday who do, propbably one of your freinds does ( oh wait scrap that - it would require you to actually have some freinds). Every day you encouter people that "eat poo" -as long as you are ignorant to this you dont mind them, but somehow the knowledge that they "eat poo" changes them to a person that should be "sent to an island because they have deviated from what is acceptable"

Yes I agree, I don't know who eats poo and who doesn't. But if I did know someone who ate poo (including friends), I would be a little concerned about them to say the least! And if they do eat poo then they have well and truly deviated from the norm (and should be placed on the homosexual island to be with like minded poo eaters).

Reply 30

The Dude

Even the BIBLE say GAYS ARE BAD! This is what is going on between the Anglican Church and gays, and is about the controversy surrounding that vicar who is a bender:

GAY rights campaigner Peter Tatchell hijacked the general assembly of the Church of England.

The archbishops of Canterbury and York left the meeting after Mr Tatchell spent 30 minutes haranguing the gathering over the case of gay canon Dr Jeffrey John.

He challenged the synod's members to put him to death according to what he said was the word of the bible.

Mr Tatchell walked on to the stage with six young supporters as the synod opened at York University.

He unfurled a poster saying "Church of hate stop crucifying queers".

As he addressed the meeting, slow hand-clapping broke out and about half the synod walked out.

The two archbishops remained in their seats watching what was happening without comment as some synod members stood up and challenged Mr Tatchell's views.

The campaigner told the synod that according to the book of Leviticus it was their duty to put him to death and he challenged them to do so.

He was protesting against the situation surrounding the appointment of the openly gay canon Dr John as the Bishop of Reading and his subsequent withdrawal from the post.

The synod has ruled out any emergency debate on Dr John

Reply 31

PHIL

You seem to have issues, why is it you hate gay people so much? whilst I can see why you might find it slightly wierd, I believe people should be able to choose their sexual orientation, just as they should be able to choose their political, and religios views. Can I just say that though I have no problem with you having your opinion, I don't see why you feel you have the need to share this with the rest of us?
It seems to me like you're just an attention seeker, either that or your like a new Hitler, so what's next, do you hate Jews also??

Phil