Homosexuality is a Mental Disorder

It's dishonest, delusional or both to deny possiblity the gay couldn't do anything else. These cases unpredictable-harassment or assault & battery such as 'crotch grabbing', indecent exposure, etc. may not be the only crime. If the homosexual is high on drugs (many gays drugjunkies) or has violent history (violent propensity) then it's possible the homosexual is trying to commit a more violent crime such as homosexual rape. Many cases where homosexuals committed more violent deeds after the homosexual did indecent exposure, email harassment or assault and battery. I would rather have a case where a jury decides if a man's reaction to bashing or killing a gay after the gay did indecent exposure was justified or excess, vs. the man not doing enough & the gay does something worse. Gays/lesbians are not to be trusted.

 

No. YOU are promoting bigoted, violent and homophobic ideas; very indecent stuff.

Your commentary is (to me) disgusting.

 

<<<Mod Edit: Personal Attack Removed>>>

Also remember- they don't see us as human beings. They think we're all monsters who live in public restrooms waiting to pounce on hopeless straight men.

 

Well that is interesting- rather like the situation in certain backward third world countries where if the woman can't prove she was raped she is convicted of adultery and punished. Great way to encourage rape victims not to report rape.

Prove it.

I have yet to see you support a single one of your homophobic hate filled anti-gay claims.

Prove it <<<Mod Edit: Flamebait Removed>>>

 

<<<Nod Edit: Flamebait Removed>>>

Meanwhile.....gay men continue to get beaten up for the crime of 'looking queer' by people who think that if a man looks at him oddly its enough of an assault to warrent a beating.

Just sick.

 

<<<Mod Edit: Flamebait Removed>>> It's gay/lesbian groups who say 'gays' are bashed for looking 'queer' but that's rubbish by gay/lesbian groups. Alll the violence against transexuals are men defending themselves from crimes the transexual did.

Gay/lesbian sexual behaviors are comparable to drug junkyism. There are gays who commit indecent exposure such as in parks & then complain when the man reacts by bashing them. SFJeff thinks that if a gay exposes himself to others, the man should tolerate this. In Manhattan Beach California, there was a case where 18 gays were arrested for sex in beach restrooms. Predictably, gay/lesbian groups took the side of the 18 queers arrested. It wouldn&#8217;t surprise me if some of the 18 gays arrested have even committed homosexual rape on others in the bathroom which went unreported. So if a gay is going to be antisocial such as o commit indecent exposure, harassment & or assault & battery, then a man should have a right to use any reasonable force to stop the gay including kill the gay if that&#8217;s what has to be done to stop the gay. What reasonable or excess force is has to be judged individually as each case is different & is often a jury topic after hearing both the prosecutor & defense lawyer.

 

There has been a lot of rule breaking in this thread.

It needs to stop.

You have been warned.

Cenydd
Site Moderator

 

But it's true about gays harassing men in bathrooms-many eg. In 2007, gay/lesbian groups condemned then MSNBC host Tucker Carlson after he talked of how when he was a teen, he had bashed a gay who was harassing him in a DC mall restroom. Tucker Carlson bashed the gay who was harassing him in the bathroom, then tied the gay up and called the cops who arrested the gay. It wouldn't surprise me if that gay had even committed homosexual rapes in the past against teenage boys in public restrooms. The bathroom is not the place for sex. That gay was harassing a teenage Tucker Carlson in a mall bathroom and Tucker Carlson defended himself against the gay.

 

There are a lot of hatemongers posting hateful things. That typically draws pretty firm responses.

 

damn, that sucks.... that was your trademark. anyways nope i havent been getting emails from the gay in a while, thank God

- - - Updated - - -

slavery was never moral ever... its like abortion now. its legal but pretty much all people dont view it as a positive they view it as a necessary evil. same thing with slavery back in the day. slavery was never moral

 

Prove it.

There is not one ounce of evidence to support this claim.

Prove it.

The following are the number of hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation bias as reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation under The Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990:

2008: 1,617 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias were reported by law enforcement agencies. Of these offenses:
&#8226;58.6 percent were classified as anti-male homosexual bias.
&#8226;25.7 percent were reported as anti-homosexual bias.
&#8226;12.0 percent were prompted by an anti-female homosexual bias.
&#8226;2.0 percent were the result of an anti-heterosexual bias.
&#8226;1.7 percent were classified as anti-bisexual bias

Prove most of them were 'caused' because gays 'started it'.

Prove it.

 

I don't see how you can make gay crotch grabbing any different than other forms of sexual harrassment. I can't shoot a man who grabs my boobs, I can fight him off, but I can't shoot him. Nor can I project that "all men are potential rapists" and most certainly cannot use that as an excuse to beat up a man who harrasses me online. this isn't any different, so the law by rights should be the same on all sides. If I genulinely feel that the man is going to commit a violent crime, I can make a self defense case to a jury, but it isn't going to fly if it's a case where the man makes a few lewd comments and I shoot him in the face. It has to be a threat, not just harassment.

 

so you want gays to rebel and execute anyone who isnt a gay lover?

 

Are you kidding? This is the problem with 'moral relativism'- by that I mean- 'moral' being whatever you personally decide is moral.

Ministers used to do whole sermons explaining why slavery was 'God's' will. Slave holders would have argued with you about whether slavery is moral.

But since we are going with moral relativism- as far as I am concerned- the laws prohibitting homosexual acts and instituting legal discrimination against homosexuals were never moral- they were law, but not moral.

 

Septimine, 'crotch grabbing' or assault & battery may not be the only crime. Since you mention a man grabbing a woman's boobs against will-if the man is a recently paroled rapist, then there's a high possibility that he is trying to commit rape and not just grab boobs against will. But these cases unpredictable-'crotch grabbing' may not be the only crime. If the homosexual is high on drugs (many gays drugjunkies) or has violent history (violent propensity) then it's possible the homosexual maybe trying to commit a more violent crime such as homosexual rape. Many cases where homosexuals committed more violent deeds after the homosexual did indecent exposure, assault and battery. With gay panic, let's say a man kills a gay in a lot after the gay repeatedly proposed to him after the man said no and or after the gay pinched the man's butt or groin against the man's will (many gay bashings happen after the gay committed this assault/battery) and the man's defense lawyer raises gay panic defense. Defense will say the gay committed crimes such as indecent exposure, assault/battery and so on. Many cases where homosexuals committed more violent deeds after the homosexual did indecent exposure, assault and battery.For the charge to be dismissed or for an acquittal to happen with gay panic, the defense has to make a credible case that the gay was attempting something more violent. If the homosexual has a history of attacking other men in the lot after he harassed them, then a case can be made that the gay was trying to do something more violent as he had done to others before him-jury decides if man used reasonable force.

For gay panic defense to have best chance of success, the defense should try to find out criminal and drug history of the homosexual and the defense should try to subpoena the homosexual's medical records to find out if the homosexual is a junky and more importantly if the homosexual has a history of violently attacking other men after he proposed to them. These things can make the difference between getting the charged dismissed by the prosecutor or if it goes to trial an acquittal and getting convicted.

 

This is your 'evidence' that most assaults are because of gays harassing men?

Do you think Carlson would have been justified in shooting the man?

 

No, I dont think either of these are morally right. That doesnt mean I wouldnt do either of those acts, It's the fact that I know it is wrong yet choose to do it anyways. I have a girlfriend that ive had for over a year now. So ive broken your first scenario yet still believe that it is immoral. I dont go around saying what ive done is necessarily good. The thing about gays is, they try to go around promoting that its a good thing which is far from the truth.

 

1 other thing Septimine, It's my view that sex abuse including statutory rape should get more punishment when it's homosexual because it's worse. Don't misunderstand, if a man commits statutory rape on a teenage girl or if a woman commits statutory rape on a teenage boy, then both the man and the woman should get = punishment. But if a statutory rape is homosexual in nature such as Harvey B. Milk, then yes, the punishment should be more because gay/lesbian behaviors alone are bad and childhood sex abuse is major cause of homosexuality/lesbianism & transexuality.

 

This is a whole lot of rationalizations for men who attack gays.

It reminds me of the whole defense of 'rape' being to attack the woman's virtue and medical history.

 

Umm...no. Read his post again.

- - - Updated - - -

It's neither good nor bad, it just is. I have green eyes- that's neither good nor bad, it just is.

 

I'm 42 years old, and never once has a homosexual man grabbed my crotch. And I hang out in places where there are plenty of homosexual men around. Methinks thou doth protest too much.

 

Possibly yes. A jury would have to decide. But I would rather have the result of Tucker Carlson shooting & killing the gay who was harassing him in the public restroom and then have a jury decide if he used reasonable or excess force vs. Tucker Carlson doesn't do enough and the gay did something worse. Again, It wouldn't surprise me if that gay had even committed homosexual rapes in the past against teenage boys in public restrooms, because harassment may not be the only crime intended. If the gay was high on drugs when he was harassing Tucker Carlson, then it's unpredictable what else he can do. Better to do too much than not enough. Even if nothing else happens, if the gay gets the idea he can get away with harassing other men in bathrooms, then the gay may get the idea he can do worse such as homosexual rapes in bathrooms.

 

What if in addition to you just ignoring your own morals, you were prohibited by law from marrying your GF?

And as far as 'gays promoting it as if its a good thing"- I will point out:
GQ
Cosmopolitan
Playboy
Penthouse
and virtually every magazine promoted to young heterosexual men and women- all of them promote a heterosexual sex life unemcumbered by the constraints of marriage.

Have you seen the ads for Las Vegas? Have you watched 'How I met your Mother'? "Cougertown?"

Gays cannot advocate for a relationship exclusive to marriage because they cannot have that in most states. Straights- who can be married- are choosing to advocate sex outside of marriage.

 

Medical records can sometimes result in finding violent propensity of the gay. If the gay in medical records has admitted to his Dr. or psychologist that in the past he has violently attacked men in parking lots after harassing the man for sex & or grabbing the man's butt or groin against will (assault & battery), then that supports the defense theory the man was self-defending against a more violent crime the gay was trying to do as the gay had violently attacked other men before and now trying to do this to him. So yes, that supports self-defense and to deny this is delusional, dishonest or both. If the gay has a criminal history of violence, then yes, that supports self-defense. Any1 who denies this is dishonest, delusional or both.

 

And I leave it the jury of public opinion.

Is it okay to shoot a man who hits on you in a public restroom because you fear he may possibly decide to try to rape you?

On a related note- is it okay for a woman to shoot a man who hits on her in a parking lot because she fears that he might possibly decide to try to rape her"