DescentBB

Yeah, I thought that was going too far... Krom or Jeff?

Not me.

Toned it down a bit, but not toning it down any further.

So the term "Gay Boys" is now deemed homophobic? Something wrong here or is radical PC the new rule of the day?

I think you need to cut it out altogether Jeff, and deal with it like the rest of us do when we disagree with something. "homophobe" is kind of a bull****, catch-all, negative label for anyone who is anti-homosexuality, at the convenience of the person wielding the term. I wasn't real happy with the phrase, "gay boys", because personally I treat the topic more seriously (which is totally beside the point), but Woody was making a very good point in the same breath--those people didn't have to be so defenseless.

The victims of the Orlando shooting wasn't the right place for Woodchip to engage in yet another instance of pushing the boundaries of how far he could go before he gets moderated.

Jeff, split this current topic into a separate thread please.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:"homophobe" is kind of a bull****, catch-all, negative label for anyone who is anti-homosexuality...

And the term fits because of the irrational preoccupation with another person's sex life. Being anti-homosexuality is the equivalent of being anti-black or anti-short, or anti-blonde, or any other biological trait a person has. As much as you want to believe homosexuality is a choice the reality doesn't match up. Maybe one day you will come to terms with that fact, but probably not, and the rest of us don't owe you any sort of respect because of your willful ignorance.

Thanks for that, Vision. You're wrong and you've missed the point. The truth is sexual desire is not on the level of physical traits. That's as ridiculous as it is convenient. Furthermore it's a small or dishonest mind that tries to put everyone who doesn't agree with homosexuality in a single box for easy disposal.

agreed, Thorne. So long as they get disposed of, I don't care how many boxes we have to fill.

Let's just all appreciate yet again how woody (and now Thorne) are proposing that the victims of a horrific mass shooting share some amount of the blame for not carrying guns themselves. Think on that for a bit.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The truth is sexual desire is not on the level of physical traits. That's as ridiculous as it is convenient.

Science, bitches. Doesn't matter if you believe it or not, reality is reality.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The truth is sexual desire is not on the level of physical traits. That's as ridiculous as it is convenient.

"There's an operation to change someone's sexual desire." said no one EVER.

Top Gun wrote:Let's just all appreciate yet again how woody (and now Thorne) are proposing that the victims of a horrific mass shooting share some amount of the blame for not carrying guns themselves. Think on that for a bit.

It's official, TG. You have a future in politics. Better wait a few rounds, though. You guys are taking a dive this election.

Hardly anyone ever backs me up around here, Ferno. You're all right!

Woody was making a very good point in the same breath--those people didn't have to be so defenseless

If "politics" translates into "calling people out on nonsense" in your dictionary, then I'll happily wear that moniker.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The truth is sexual desire is not on the level of physical traits.

Spoken like someone who has never talked to a gay person. Isn't it weird there are so many confirmed physical differences between gay/lesbian persons and straight people? I guess choosing to be gay made that happen? There is literally a mountain of evidence for sexual orientation as a byproduct of biology. Of course, we've been through this before. You need only ask a gay person when they decided to be gay. Most will ask you when you decided to be straight. But you've never told us when you choose to be straight, Thorne. When was it?

Top Gun wrote:Let's just all appreciate yet again how woody (and now Thorne) are proposing that the victims of a horrific mass shooting share some amount of the blame for not carrying guns themselves. Think on that for a bit.

Don’t confuse offering a possible deterrent with blame.

Spidey wrote:Don’t confuse offering a possible deterrent with blame.

Ah yes, the old "Man if I was there and I had a gun I totally would have gone all Rambo on his ass!" argument. Sorry, but reality isn't quite so puerile.

Lol…putting words in people’s mouths is the only way some of you know how to make an argument…pathetic really.

you said deterrent, spidey. In what plausible way would there have been a deterrent there?