Fagits

[Saint DH]

New paper released from the CDC containing various demographic information lists self-identified homosexuals as a whopping 1.6% of the United States population.

Wow, deviants, it looks like you ARE freaks after all. Who'd a thought?

Apparently the media's efforts to turn everyone into a flaming faggot have not worked. On the other hand, the media's efforts have been completely successful in convincing Americans, especially young Americans, that homosexuals make up a vastly larger amount of the population, even as much as 30% of the population.

Shit-eating degenerates getting ed

And BLOWN THE FUCK OUT

[Mr. Blonde]

Over-under on Dirty Harry being a latent homosexual?

DH, how deeply have you examined your own subconscious/unconscious mind, fears, desires, etc?


(SCotD: I don't completely understand what "over-under" means.)

[Orgazmo]

1.) Over/under is normally meant to judge a line that would be a good guess for something quantitative. Like "over/under on number of minutes in the next youtube video Dent posts." Someone would say something like "114" and then you (or anyone else) would guess that the real answer will either be over or under that mark.

We could use it on something like "Is DH a latent homosexual" if we use percentage, though. For example, I could set the over/under at 90% and you could either take over or under. You won't necessarily be right or wrong here (because the answer is either 0% or 100%--you guessing one side of a percentage is more of an opinion thing), but it will show how strongly you feel about it.

2.) I've had drunken, heart-to-heart conversations with DH about his feelings about homosexuality before. Unfortunately, although he is obviously kicking it up a notch for shock value here, the underlying thoughts he's building on are quite genuine.

[Mr. Blonde]

Hey, thanks for the explanation man.

Originally Posted by Orgazmo

We could use it on something like "Is DH a latent homosexual" if we use percentage, though. For example, I could set the over/under at 90% and you could either take over or under. You won't necessarily be right or wrong here (because the answer is either 0% or 100%--you guessing one side of a percentage is more of an opinion thing), but it will show how strongly you feel about it.

What if we accounted for bisexuality? Wouldn't that give more options for percentages?

I've had drunken, heart-to-heart conversations with DH about his feelings about homosexuality before. Unfortunately, although he is obviously kicking it up a notch for shock value here, the underlying thoughts he's building on are quite genuine.

I find this very interesting. Even if I didn't have a gay younger brother, lesbian cousin, gay uncle, and quite a few fantastic gay/lesbian friends (a few of them who could beat DH senseless with one arm -- but wouldn't, because they are great people), I still can't quite understand how he could be so opposed to it, especially in 2014, when it is clearly on its way to becoming a new socially accepted norm.


All jokes aside, surely there must be some kind of deep psychological kink (heh) that is causing those underlying thoughts. DH, what is it about men inserting their penises into others men's mouths and anuses for pleasure and love that really grinds your gears?

[Dent]

Under, over, Pepsi Cola!

Q: Is this just an English thing?

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

The NHIS included sexual orientation-based questions, such as, "Which of the following best represents how you think of yourself?" Male respondents could choose from the following responses: "gay;" "straight, that is, not gay;" "bisexual;" "something else;" and "I don't know the answer." Female respondents could choose from: "lesbian or gay;" "straight, that is, not lesbian or gay;" "bisexual;" "something else;" and "I don't know the answer."

This is the first time the NHIS has "included a measure of sexual orientation, thereby enabling researchers and data users to examine how the prevalence of a wide variety of health-related behaviors" in its 57-year history.

According to the results, 96.6 percent of respondents identified as straight, 1.6 percent identified as gay or lesbian and 0.7 percent identified as bisexual.

If you answered anything besides straight between those choices u are definitely a flamer. So its closer to 3.4%. Still a lot lower than the 10 percent I was lead to believe.

It will be interesting what the talking heads will be saying about this and who will be in denial. Regardless, of how much a cocksucker DH is, he is right that there have been a lot of non scientific garbage shoved down our throats about homosexuality and "gender studies."

While searching for a source to this news I saw about 10 articles over the last year titled like "great news! as much as 30% prcent of population may actually be gay!"

[Orgazmo]

+1 to always hearing it was around 10%. I don't know exactly where I heard that, though.

[Saint DH]

Probably from ur dad when u were sucking his dick.

But in all seriousness you heard it on the television.

That's because the chosen people who control everything you watch want it that way.

[Mr. Blonde]

you need a new gimmick

[Saint DH]

Blonde, quit shitting up my threads with your faggotry.

We all know what a good g...boy you are. Heh heh

[Repugnant Abomination]

I really wish we could get rid of DH and bring Kremlin back.

[Saint DH]

Fwiw I wish you had a father that loved you.

...but I'm not surprised he didn't.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

I really wish we could get rid of DH and bring Kremlin back.

Seconded. DJFC, can you make this happen?

[Repugnant Abomination]

[f3lix]

The field I'm in is WAY above the ~1% range.

[Saint DH]

Great, so if a kid wants to be in band he's gotta get a faggot for a teacher.

Deviancy is deviancy. Homosexuality is a disease of the mind like pedophilia. The main difference is that homos get a pride parade and tons of cultural support, but pedos get put on a list so they can be harassed, beaten and raped for their entire lives.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending pedos. I actually think those that act on their urges should be killed. I also believe that jumping from one deviancy to another is much easier than jumping from normal to deviant. I'd also wager that a much larger percentage of fags are pedos than the normal population.

Pic related:



In keeping with the theory of homosexuality as a mental disorder, it greatly angers me to see Hollywood pushing it on our society so hard, because society should be promoting mental health, not mental illness and degeneracy.

[Mr. Blonde]

>DH talking about mental health

[Saint DH]

How much time do you spend on tumblr?

Bc you argue just like one of the genderqueer, omnisexual, feminazi otherkin that inhabit that cesspit.

[Orgazmo]

DH is to 4chan what Blonde used to be to Reddit ~2 years ago.

Instead of atheism and christians are the worst, it's pushing the master race card, people not like me are the worst, and the jews are the blame.

[Saint DH]

That's not entirely true Gaz.

I'm simply against the perversion of my culture and the degradation of my society.

[Orgazmo]

You're sounding an awful lot like Adolf Hitler Jr. right now.

[Saint DH]

Is that a compliment?

[Dent]

1 .The Fuhrer was right to call IQ tests "a Jewish invention”
I think that’s about as far as I can go in DH’s defence.

2. I cannot “blame” any sentient for doing what they do, we should focus on the victims instead of causing more suffering. Taking children away from paedophiles is a cause of suffering.
One harmless solution to predation is in-vitro meat, why not robots or in-vitro brainless children?
Homosexuality involves less harm than heterosexuals that choose to have children.
If the only thing that gives someone kicks is harming sentient beings, maybe a painless execution is the best option, I’m not convinced that this type exists.
Is the response going to be something like “robot children are a gateway drug”?J
Child robots could be used to treat pedophiles and other sexual predators* - NY Daily News

What % of the population would want me to suffer for the bolded part?

[Saint DH]

Robot child sex toys wouldn't work bc a pedo derives its pleasure from the act of doing something so wrong and corrupting innocence.

Pedos cause suffering. They should be removed.

[Repugnant Abomination]

DH,

While your rhetoric does seem (I hope) to be way over the top, your conviction appears genuine. If you're willing to talk about this seriously then I'm actually quite interested in how you came to the conclusions you have, and why. Not because I entertain any of the feelings you espouse, but because I find it interesting. Engagement always works better than isolation.

Let me restate your position as I understand it and the proceed from there. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

1. The media inflates the percentage of the population that is homosexual.

2. They do this to warp our perception about how common it is so we're more accepting of it.

3. In truth, homosexuals represent a very small portion of the population.

4. Homosexuals are deviants and degenerates who you feel pervert and degrade your culture.

5. Based on the insults you toss around you have other strong feelings about race, gender and sex.

First of all, I think you're right about the percentage of the homosexual population. It does seem to be a lot lower than we're told. I myself always heard about 10%. I, however, see no great conspiracy in this. While there are undoubtedly people and organizations out there distorting the numbers for political gains and agendas, I think the larger reason behind making people more accepting to homosexuals is because minority groups have a history of having a rough time. Whether it was the Natives, African Americans, or women (not a population minority, but they certainly a "power" minority). So my question here is, why do you correlate homosexual's low percentage of the population with anything other than there are less of them? What significance do you attach to the number?

Number 4 seems to be the crux of the matter for you. Obviously you are making moral judgments on the homosexual "alternative" lifestyle, which other than being attracted to a member of the same sex I'm not sure what else is alternative about it. Now, by definition they are deviant, which simply means they deviate from societal norms, which are represented by what the majority of the population does. If homosexuals represented 49.9% of the population you could still call them deviant. So I'm not sure why that matters.

You call them degenerates. The dictionary defines that is:

to fall below a normal or desirable level in physical, mental, or moral qualities.

What authority are you appealing to when making this value judgement? Is this based on a religious text, or some socio-political ideology? If so, please share. By being against one thing I can assume you're for another, which would be traditional male/female relationships (which is kind of amusing considering your hostile attitude towards women -- based on your persona on this board, at least). I myself am straight and married. I don't identify on a personal level with homosexuals. But on a broader level I understand the need for love and intimacy. Do you not think homosexuals should have that? Do you think they should go into therapy, or pray the gay away? If you can flesh your position out more I'd appreciate it. Though I have to ask, at which point did you decide to be a heterosexual?

So maybe you accept that homosexuals didn't decide. But you still think it's a mental illness problem. For arguments sake let's say it is. Is it hurting anyone? You compare them to pedophiles, but that doesn't really work because the latter is between an adult and a minor, whereas the former is between two consenting adults. Why are you so concerned with that? Exactly who should be making the laws about sexual activity between two adults? The government? The church? Again, whose authority are you appealing to?

On a personal note, I've always found the controversy around homosexuals being allowed to marry missing the point. It doesn't make sense to have separation of church and state, but then have marriage (church) impact the federal (state) status of two people. We need to untangle the two for their to be separation. In my opinion being married in the eyes of the church and the eyes of the state should be different. There should be one, across the board "married" on a federal level, and then for those with strong religious convictions a "married" on a church level. Civil unions should be what we call it on the federal level, and anyone wanting one should have it. Marriage with the church should be based on whether or not those couples meet the requirements of that particular faith.

Anyway, I'll stop here. I eagerly await your response.