Operation Gay Watch: From The Beginning

Post by **_Droopy** » Tue May 20, 2008 1:08 am

White flag accepted.

Thanks for the usual substantive discussion.

Post by **_Droopy** » Tue May 20, 2008 1:11 am

You've decided whenever you're arguing on the LDS threads that anyone disagreeing with you is woefully ignorant of LDS history and theology.

That's your interpretation. I've decided no such thing. I know perfectly well, after a life time in the Church, long acquaintance with its culture, and deep study of its teachings, who is ignorant and who isn't. All I have to do is read their posts and look at what they think they know or understand. lts really quite simple.

Snip sanctimonious prating for the sake of brevity...

Post by **_Brackite** » Tue May 20, 2008 1:12 am

The Dude wrote:
silentkid wrote:Topics about gay people are gay.

Furthermore, anti-gay threads are counterproductive because the second post is always a banner ad for a gay "connections" website.

(Maybe not "always" but enough of the time....)

Man, then Someone else or I should start a 'Girls Gone Wild' Thread here. wink:)

Post by **_solomarineris** » Tue May 20, 2008 1:21 am

Sethbag wrote:So what? Everything I read in that long list of "smoking guns" you think you've got looks like something designed to get anti-homo azzholes like you off their back.

Smoking guns? Comeon now...
This Droopyguy didn't even draw his heavy guns.
Wait until you see his "Mormon Dfoctrine" (by Bruce McConkei) diatribe.
Oh, don't ya forget "Miracle of Forgiveness", by the intellectual midget S.Kimball.

In his utopian world the idiot Con Homo's (Sapiens, not fags necessarily) are dime a dozen.

Post by **_dartagnan** » Tue May 20, 2008 1:21 am

Furthermore, anti-gay threads are counterproductive because the second post is always a banner ad for a gay "connections" website.

ROFL!

Post by **_Mercury** » Tue May 20, 2008 1:30 am

dartagnan wrote:
Furthermore, anti-gay threads are counterproductive because the second post is always a banner ad for a gay "connections" website.

ROFL!

coggy is teh Ghey

Post by **_beastie** » Tue May 20, 2008 2:23 am

That's your interpretation. I've decided no such thing. I know perfectly well, after a life time in the Church, long acquaintance with its culture, and deep study of its teachings, who is ignorant and who isn't. All I have to do is read their posts and look at what they think they know or understand. lts really quite simple.

So says the man who doesn't understand the LDS process of repentance, NOR does he understand Jesus' pre-existing godhood. LOL.

Poseur.

Post by **_skippy the dead** » Tue May 20, 2008 2:27 am

skippy the dead wrote:
Droopy wrote:
You pulled something from 35+ years ago. Can you substantiate that this this is currently subscribed to by any group? If not, you can roll it up and smoke it.

As far as I know, all of it is, in one form or another.

Why don't you back that up with some authority, then. Things change over time, and I would imagine that the evil gay agenda has been modified over the years, as well.

I mean, c'mon: "As far as I know" - do you get the newsletter or something? Show some concrete references, or abandon the argument.

Still waiting. . .

Post by **_asbestosman** » Tue May 20, 2008 2:27 am

Droopy wrote:
254 'boy words'

By Judith A. Reisman & Eunice Van Winkle Ray

Those debating whether homosexuals should be scout leaders should take a look at the dictionary to help decide whether or not homosexuals have an inordinate interest in young boys. Or is it really as gay rights leaders say -- they just labor in young boys' best interests. Let's look it up and see if pederasts (men who sexually assault boys) comprise just a small cadre within the much larger male homosexual population.

Aha, I knew it! Homosexuals are child molesters but laws against child molestation aren't sufficient. We need to nip 'em in the bud (but in a way that they won't enjoy it . . . )
*roll eyes*

So uh, since we know that lots of males abuse women and children, we'll try taking away rights too from all males?

By the way, I didn't see anything about lesbians. Why is that?

Post by **_Droopy** » Tue May 20, 2008 3:14 am

So uh, since we know that lots of males abuse women and children, we'll try taking away rights too from all males?

Interesting multiple logical crash and burn. Nice work.

1. Lot's of heterosexual males abuse woman and children, relative to the homosexual community, because homosexuality is a vanishingly small subset of the population.

2. Reisman's research shows that a fetish for young boys exists within male homosexuality that is substantially disproportionate to male homosexual's presence in the general population.

3. What "rights" is she saying we should take away from "all' homosexuals?

By the way, I didn't see anything about lesbians. Why is that?

Perhaps because the same preoccupation doesn't exist among lesbians, or perhaps because most homosexuals are, in fact, males homosexuals. Lesbianism is the minority phenomena here.