• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Debate Forum website promotes the Homosexual Agenda?

L

Libertarian

Banned
Joined
Jun 14, 2005
Messages
220
Reaction score
0
Hey readers, I realized that this forum has sold advertising space to those that would promote the Homosexual Agenda. One of the ads in the upper right was this bit: http://civilfoundation.org/?GLG-003

The other one was worse, but is has rotated out...when I see it again, I will let you know.
 

You don't have a valid pint to mke, so why not just go away and spare us.
 

Actually I visited that website. I don't see how they are promoting homosexuals over heterosexuals at all. If you read their mission statement, they make NO distinction between homosexual couples or heterosexual couples. There services are for ANY couple who either cannot get legally married or who CHOOSE to not become legally married, but still want some form of legal protections.

 
OK, sorry, thought I should actually correct my last post here. The actual mission statement of the site listed by Lib reads as follows;


But, just as my previous post explains, the site does NOT make any distinctions between homosexual or heterosexual couples whatsoever. As a matter of fact neither the mission statement nor the opening paragraph makes any mention of sexuality or sexual orientation.
 
I have seen the term homophile posted here...it is appropo...


You homophiles once again are liars.....I looked at the website and the photos of the "couples" and they all looked like sterotypical homosexuals to me....after all, all the photos I saw were of people of the same sex..and the last time I checked, two people of the same sex is the very definition of homosexual...but then again, considering homosexuals admittedly follow Nazi and Communist Manifesto propaganda tactics, it wouldn't surprise me that homophiles would try to suggest the website has nothing to do with homosexuals and their extremist political goals.
 
Lib: so nice of you to give the moderators proof you are intentionally violating their five day suspension of you. Your post here only proves as much by your writting style and the form of insults used.

BTW: how exactly can I be lying when I quoted the site directly PLUS gave links to the materials I quoted?
 
I am not Lib or Libertarian1..or whatever, stop trying to censor me....oh, and how do you know he or she was banned for only 5 days rather than permanently unless you're in cahoots with the censors?

Here's how you lied:

But, just as my previous post explains, the site does NOT make any distinctions between homosexual or heterosexual couples whatsoever......
Click to expand...

And you call having all the website photos I saw of homosexual couples "no distinction"?

Anti-heterosexual liar......
 


HELLOOOOO it was posted publicly!

:tomato:

Libertarian banned
 
Moderator Gavel

:smash:

I have banned HeteroDefenseLegal permanently as it was a sockpuppet for currently suspended member Libertarian. If that is incorrect, he/she may email us to plead his/her case.

/Moderator Gavel
 

I watched the loop of pictures a few times, and here were the results I found, assuming that two people in the same photo comprised a couple:

Heterosexual Couples: 2
Homosexual Couples: 6
Indeterminate: 1 (Two males and two females were shown)

While it is true that there were more homosexual couples shown, the site did represent that it does support heterosexual couples as well. I wouldn't see you complaining (as much) if there were more heterosexual couples than homosexual couples as well. The point is, the site's legally binding mission statement shows no distinction between heterosexual and homosexual relationships for their purpose of their website, and their loop of photos has both heterosexual and homosexual couples represented.

The truth is: homosexual couples do exist, and a site is allowed to have a slight majority of homosexual couples without being considered evil and extremist. The site is far from propagandistic and by my eyes, doesn't represent either sexual preference more than the other. After all, many singles sites might show heterosexual couples more than homosexual couples, and it wouldn't bother me in the least, even though I'm not homosexual. I think you have serious issues if you'd let something as little as this bother you. Seriously... quit your whining already.


Are you kidding me? You just generalized a large portion of the population and accused them of using Nazi and Communist Manifesto propaganda tactics. Your inflammatory statements make me want to tear my eyes out. Stop acting like homosexuals are trying to force you to convert. I find it incredibly funny how you not only act like hate crimes towards homosexuals don't exist, you accuse homosexuals of committing the hate crimes toward heterosexuals. GET OVER YOURSELF.

HeteroDefenseLeague said:
I am not Lib or Libertarian1..or whatever, stop trying to censor me....oh, and how do you know he or she was banned for only 5 days rather than permanently unless you're in cahoots with the censors?
Click to expand...

Lame. Give it up already. Oh wait... you were already banned as well.
 

Oh, come now. We all know he willingly visits sites which are directed toward homosexuals. He isn't forced in any way, shape or form. He does so of his own free will. Either he's a closet gay (which I don't put a whole lot of stock in) or he's teriminally obcessed with gay culture all because of his ex-wife.
What bothers me, is that his current wife actually married him!
It's quite obvious that he's never gotten over the first wife, he still carries a tourch for her, yet this new wife is too blind to see this. What's HER malfunction? Not only does she not see it, she encourages his behavior!
Is she so lacking of self-esteam that she will cling to a man who's obviously still in love with someone else?




jpwright said:
Lame. Give it up already. Oh wait... you were already banned as well.
Click to expand...


What I find really funny is that before he was banned, he actually accused me of "being in cahoots with the moderators." LOL I'm still rolling on the floor laughing at that one!
 
PhinneusTWhoopi said:
1-2% is a "large portion"? lol......Homosexuals statistically are rather rare....
Click to expand...

Well, according to 2004 exit polls, it's 4%, so unless homosexuals turn out to vote at 2-4 times the rate of straights, I'd say 4% sounds pretty good. And rather rare? 4% works out to around 12 million. That's not rare.
 
Well, according to 2004 exit polls, it's 4%, so unless homosexuals turn out to vote at 2-4 times the rate of straights, I'd say 4% sounds pretty good. And rather rare? 4% works out to around 12 million. That's not rare.
Click to expand...


por·tion (pôrshn, pr-)
n.
1. A section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole.
2. A part separated from a whole.
3. A part that is allotted to a person or group, as:


A full portion would be 100%. 1-2% is not a "large portion", it is less then half, which makes it by definition a small portion.

Exit polls? You mean there were people at voting stations asking people if they are homosexuals? lol.....and these were of voters only?

Stupid, ignorant, unsubstantiated, self serving, laughable claims.....again......
 
Wait a minute, I went to that website, and instead of what the other poster claimed, here is what I found:

a total of 9 images listed in sequence:

1st: A heteroseuxal couple-a black woman and a Japanese looking guy

2nd: a homosexual couple, two white guys

3rd: a homosexual couple, a black guy and a mixed race guy with glasses

4th: 2 heterosexual senior couples, 1 black 1 white playing a board game

5th: Chef guy with a baby, probably a former heteroguy now homosexual

6th: a homosexual couple, two whites guys in suits

7th: a female homosexual couple, a white woman playing with the dreadlocks of a black woman

8th: a homosexual male couple and their dog

9th: a female homosexual couple, 1 a butch looking mexican woman, the other butch woman possibly black.

Out of curiosity, what browser are you using? As either you deliberately omitted quite a few homosexual couples as a deceptive debate tactic, or more probably your browser doesn't render all of them.

Either way should be provable, hence asking what brower you are using.

Thanks!
 
RightatNYU said:
Well, according to 2004 exit polls, it's 4%, so unless homosexuals turn out to vote at 2-4 times the rate of straights, I'd say 4% sounds pretty good. And rather rare? 4% works out to around 12 million. That's not rare.
Click to expand...

Well, let's not forget that there is still such a social stigma about being homosexual that many are still very much in the closet. Those numbers aren't reflected in exit polls at all.

Here are some interesting numbers, but remember these numbers are already out of date by five years.

The Advocate - By the numbers: Census 2000
 

And the interesting thing is that is says 1% of americans are "living in same sex households"

That's like trying to measure the number of straight americans by looking at how many married couples are living together.
 
RightatNYU said:
And the interesting thing is that is says 1% of americans are "living in same sex households"

That's like trying to measure the number of straight americans by looking at how many married couples are living together.
Click to expand...


Again, those were refuted as inaccurate because that number didn't take into account the many more gays and lesbians who are single. Those numbers only reflected OPENLY gay households in which there is a partnered couple. "Household" falls under the same definition as with the IRS. Someone who claims their tax status to be "head of household" means they have dependents. Gays and lesbians who are single are not considered to be in a "household."
Truly off the wall and blatantly inaccurate.

Also what this article didn't mention were those gays and lesbians who did not identify themselves as gay or lesbian one the census form. There is now way to accurately count these.
 
RightatNYU said:
Well, according to 2004 exit polls, it's 4%, so unless homosexuals turn out to vote at 2-4 times the rate of straights, I'd say 4% sounds pretty good. And rather rare? 4% works out to around 12 million. That's not rare.
Click to expand...

When people seek to deny you civil rights, you will be far more likely to show up to vote than someone whose civil rights are not under attack. It is my guess that the number is closer to 3%; though I still wouldn't consider that rare.
 
Well, we exaggerate our numbers to grab political clout to fight for our rights, the bigoted fundies and hate filled republican homophobes do it. That is why we created the slogan; "We're here, We're Queer, We're Everywhere!"-Credit for that bit goes to Queer Nation-a great organization along with OUTPROUD! a gay organization for gay kids.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…