Halifax gay-friendly destination

[GreyEyes]

Your opinion and argument to support it might be a bit more acceptable if it wasn't prefaced by the  malicious remark "Bloody queers".   So it's a specious argument, imo.

The fact of the matter is that in the minds of many - including me, they are bloody queers. Anyone with any kind of self respect or intellect isn't going to have a liberal HR-friendly version of 'newspeak' shoved down their throats to replace a time tested and evolutionary lexicon simply because a few champagne socialists with weak sensibilities, "took offence".

And I should point out again, you're STILL trying to attack the legitimacy of my argument instead of admitting it's a legitimate thread of thought and countering it. You're living the very blueprint I put forth in an earlier post.

this is enough to underline my point, which is that you created this incredibly long post, and STILL haven't defined what you believe is the 'sweeping and aggressive homosexual agenda' (political or otherwise).

Only the political is relevant in this context. I would argue that a current of thought with the goal of manufacturing a paradigm shift in Western values (over time), to make sexuality and sexual experience less dependent on gender would be the greater objective of the agenda. Through massive, constant and continual public exhibition of homosexual behaviour and micro-culture, the public will eventually - "warm up" to the idea of homosexuality as a 'sexual preference'. If you couple this with absolutely ridiculous amounts of intimidation and attempts to attack the legitimacy of credible opposition forces, i.e. individuals who disagree that homosexuality is a constructive force in society, and should be an accepted sexual preference - you have an absolute perfect storm of conditions for successful terra-forming of the entire argument to your favour.

Those quotes were by Fish a.k.a. David T., who seemingly can get away with calling anyone a racist or anything else if he disagrees with them. Don't expect much insight there.

Well that's just the problem. In typical Liberal fashion, they attempt to crush all dissent and debate on critical societal issues that don't suit the well heeled upper middle-class views of their faithful. When a few people actually call them on this, depending entirely on what the issue at hand is: you will get labelled as something extreme (usually 'Nazi' or something of that nature). Keep in mind this is no matter how reasonable or moderate your position is.

It's essentially half assed thought control. Sadly it works on some people.

The 'truth'? They have their agendas, and so do the rest of us. I'm willing to entertain theirs as legitimate, albeit detestible and oppositional. They won't even entertain that anything but their position is acceptable. Fortunately, there are plenty of people who do not accept or bow to this kind of shit.

Consider this - if you hadn't referred to gay people a "bloody queers" at the very beginning of this Thread, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now

You're not afraid of a little argument with the scary old gael are ya girl?

And then when you're called on it you got all high and mighty and started slinging out the accusations left and right using overused terms like "political agenda of homosexuals" and "homosexual agendas" in long-winded tirades that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you would make a perfect politician

Marry me.

Man up and admit that you chose the wrong approach altogether.

No. We're back to square one here unfortunately. I'm comfortable in my opposition to homosexuals, I don't see it as illegitimate or otherwise unacceptable. Those feelings are the colour of your sheets - not mine. I kind of like the swarm anyway.

Think you can do that?

Somewhat of a leading question.

Yeah, I'm gay and of French Canadian ancestry so unrepentantgael has insulted me twice already on these forums.

And yet somehow you're still alive?

Proves my point that there is no need to squash and shut down debate to 'protect homosexuals' - this man is a queer and he takes a position in the proverbial firing line of everyone else. His ideas drifting on the merit of them alone, and not who he is.

think I should make some IRA threads and go on about how everybody of Gaelic or Celtic ancestry is a terrorist

Only the good ones were anyway.

This thread is about the Rosie O'Donnell Cruise

Yeah, admittedly you're right. I went out of my way to politicize it further then it really was on it's own - and to be honest I don't think anyone is any worse for it.

Chiiiiirist! .......................................................

*5 minutes later*

Nope I'm still at a loss for words.

[Gravitas]

Chiiiiirist! .......................................................

*5 minutes later*

Nope I'm still at a loss for words.

LOL

[hfx_chris]

Does that make it genetic then?

What else would it be? Do you think all gay kids were taught to be gay by their parents? What if both parents were heterosexual?

[oogie]

An interesting proposition.

Why do you find it interesting? Humans are not the only species to exhibit homosexual behaviour. It's common to the point of being ubiquitous across all species, so clearly it's not a 'nurture-based' behaviour unique to humans.

Across all species? Or perhaps more to species with a higher degree of herding/social association?

What I am attempting to resolve: the introduction of a sexual trait that if universalized would essentially mean the extinction of that species.

[Gravitas]

Across all species? Or perhaps more to species with a higher degree of herding/social association?

What I am attempting to resolve: the introduction of a sexual trait that if universalized would essentially mean the extinction of that species.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/

"Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them," said Petter Bockman, project coordinator of the exhibition.

The idea, however, is rarely discussed in the scientific community and is often dismissed as unnatural because it doesn't appear to benefit the larger cause of species continuation.

"I think to some extent people don't think it's important because we went through all this time period in sociobiology where everything had to be tied to reproduction and reproductive success," said Linda Wolfe, who heads the Department of Anthropology at East Carolina University. "If it doesn't have [something to do] with reproduction it's not important."

However, species continuation may not always be the ultimate goal, as many animals, including humans, engage in sexual activities more than is necessary for reproduction.

 

[Haligonian]

And yet somehow you're still alive?

I'm alive, but I think of you as an ignorant asshole now, as I'm guessing a lot of the rest of the forum does.  I've posted here for a while and most others have managed to be civil, but you have not.  Maybe you don't care, but one day your attitude will come back to haunt you, if it hasn't already.

As for the actual debate itself, you also seem totally clueless there.  The language you have been using and the way you have been phrasing your statements suggests to me that you simply do not understand the realities of what you are talking about.

People are either gay, straight, or somewhere in between.  The causes of this are very obviously biological.  The different sexual orientations cut across all human cultural and psychological factors.  Because of this, it makes very little sense to talk about "promoting homosexuality" as if it is really going to change what people do or what they think.  Gay rights activism is not about "converting" people, it's about obtaining rights and fairness for the small percentage of the overall population that is, always was, and will continue to be attracted to members of the same sex.  If you're not, nobody's trying to "convert" you.  You're just not part of the debate because you already have the basic rights that some other people still have to fight for.

As for the claim that gay people are somehow harmful or don't contribute to society, that is totally bogus.  Gay people have jobs and contribute like anybody else.  Usually the hangup relates to children but plenty of straight people never have them, and some gay people do.  Furthermore, I'm not sure how it's a necessary contribution to society when 95%+ of the population is devoting a lot of time to it.  Again, I think it's all just bogus.  Not everybody has to be the same.  If they were, we would all be much worse off.

[oogie]

Across all species? Or perhaps more to species with a higher degree of herding/social association?

What I am attempting to resolve: the introduction of a sexual trait that if universalized would essentially mean the extinction of that species.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/

"Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them," said Petter Bockman, project coordinator of the exhibition.

The idea, however, is rarely discussed in the scientific community and is often dismissed as unnatural because it doesn't appear to benefit the larger cause of species continuation.

"I think to some extent people don't think it's important because we went through all this time period in sociobiology where everything had to be tied to reproduction and reproductive success," said Linda Wolfe, who heads the Department of Anthropology at East Carolina University. "If it doesn't have [something to do] with reproduction it's not important."

However, species continuation may not always be the ultimate goal, as many animals, including humans, engage in sexual activities more than is necessary for reproduction.

 

Valid points indeed.

But, not all species - a large number certainly.

Also, the article hints at the social aspect of it, primarily sexual gratification/pleasure.

[GreyEyes]

And yet somehow you're still alive?

I'm alive, but I think of you as an ignorant asshole now, as I'm guessing a lot of the rest of the forum does.  I've posted here for a while and most others have managed to be civil, but you have not.  Maybe you don't care, but one day your attitude will come back to haunt you, if it hasn't already.

As for the actual debate itself, you also seem totally clueless there.  The language you have been using and the way you have been phrasing your statements suggests to me that you simply do not understand the realities of what you are talking about.

People are either gay, straight, or somewhere in between.  The causes of this are very obviously biological.  The different sexual orientations cut across all human cultural and psychological factors.  Because of this, it makes very little sense to talk about "promoting homosexuality" as if it is really going to change what people do or what they think.  Gay rights activism is not about "converting" people, it's about obtaining rights and fairness for the small percentage of the overall population that is, always was, and will continue to be attracted to members of the same sex.  If you're not, nobody's trying to "convert" you.  You're just not part of the debate because you already have the basic rights that some other people still have to fight for.

As for the claim that gay people are somehow harmful or don't contribute to society, that is totally bogus.  Gay people have jobs and contribute like anybody else.  Usually the hangup relates to children but plenty of straight people never have them, and some gay people do.  Furthermore, I'm not sure how it's a necessary contribution to society when 95%+ of the population is devoting a lot of time to it.  Again, I think it's all just bogus.  Not everybody has to be the same.  If they were, we would all be much worse off.

Hal, you're wasting your breath. He has no valid understanding of the issue nor does he wish to be enlightened.

[Gravitas]

Valid points indeed.

But, not all species - a large number certainly.

Also, the article hints at the social aspect of it, primarily sexual gratification/pleasure.

Well, sure. But even if the underlying reason with animals is socially motivated, or simply sexual gratification or pleasure, I wonder if there are heterosexual giraffes that believe that the homosexual giraffes are promoting a political agenda? 

[oogie]

Valid points indeed.

But, not all species - a large number certainly.

Also, the article hints at the social aspect of it, primarily sexual gratification/pleasure.

Well, sure. But even if the underlying reason with animals is socially motivated, or simply sexual gratification or pleasure, I wonder if there are heterosexual giraffes that believe that the homosexual giraffes are promoting a political agenda? 

That's a bit of a stretch... *ahem*

[Gravitas]

That's a bit of a stretch... *ahem*

Groan ... you really stuck your neck out with that one ...

[hfx_chris]

[oogie]

Go ahead Chris - you have our ears.

[Gravitas]

There's a kernel of truth in this argument ...

[Newperson]

Good ol' Nova Scotians'

Am always interested in these opinions especially the ones that spend so much energy promoting their own ignorance.  I am tempted sometimes to suggest that tittelation (sp) is the factor behind it.  However,  in the end,  I just don't care!

Thank God (whatever name you give her/him) we live in a country where you receive no special treatment for being of british or asian ansestory, a protestant or a cathoic or something else, black or white or green and the state has taken the formal position that Government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.   

If we could just download those same qualities to the provincial level here in Nova Scotia we would be so much better off.  I do not understand why some are interested in the bedrooms of others - penis envy perhaps.