You've read everyone of my posts? How flattering.

Originally posted by Sean Murphy:
The righties love to try and use that dodge:

"The Ku Klux Klan is a hate group, and you hate the Klan, so that means you're as bad as them!"

Originally posted by Eel O'Brian:

Is that dodge anything like the one where you guys waggle the Nazi finger at anyone to the right of Che?
Hey, I'm not the one making hate speeches and trivializing the miserable death of fellow citizens. They put hundreds of thousands of Homosexuals, Mystics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Liberals and Intellectuals in Belsen and Auschwitz, who weren't Jewish--for many of the same arguments your masters use continuously. If the 'Goebbels-sized' jackboot fits...

Originally posted by Eel O'Brian:
What a bunch of self-important pricks you all are.

What you mistake for self-importance used to be called The Enlightenment, or common human decency, and you have no fucking clue what it means to be an American if you think anyone to the left of Buckley or Porta is a Communist. You've got the wrong guy, with me--I LOVE MONEY. I just don't think it's more important than human life.
EVERYBODY is to the left of Buckley, and he represents EXACTLY the same contingent that put Hitler into power--Totalitarian Corporatism, arranged by the Aristocracy in secret. In other words, Nationalized Industrial Socialism

As for Buckley's pseudonymous/hypothetical/bullshit Tony. I'd say he's at least qualified for a press pass to the White House.

As Eel's so levelheaded in messboard debates, I can't imagine anyone calling him a Nazi. I'm sorry to hear that. And the idea that anyone would think of the Nazis when a right-winger of a fairly extremist bent starts talking about state-enforced tattoos on AIDS patients by way of an idiotic, concocted story that suggests stereotypes not only about homosexuals, but the inner city, as well, is just paranoia! It's not like the Nazis used tattoos and fear-inducing propaganda and bigotted stereotyping to help control its citizens, or define who was a citizen and who wasn't. Well, maybe they did, but Buckley is using a thought experiment, which he just happens to treat like it's real example, but in no way would he let anyone persecute or demonize minorities in this country (even if he's willing to do it in a thought experiment -- that's a purely intellectual exercise, after all).

perhaps so. But is it your contention that this is an isolated incident and that your belief is that there aren't others out there exactly like him?

Ya know, i've had conversations with gay men (2 to be precise, Lonny (drag queen, went by the name of Ashley, a good friend of mine's older brother) and Charles (went by Charlene, was an unapologetic homosexual recruiter and his exat words to me were he "liked turning young virgin boys out".. shit ya not, he literally frightened me: he worked at the same factory i did)and they seemed perfectly at peace with thier promiscuity. They gave me the impression that it was pretty much a given in the homosexual community that multiple sex partners were the norm. My question here is why do liberal rights activists go ape shit when anyone mentions that homosexuals are promiscious, by nature? No doubt there are exceptions, i have the utmost faith that there are happily monogamous gay couples all over the world, but i'm curious as to whether that's the norm, or the exception. I know common perception has always leaned to the latter. Even so, without that larger question even needing to be answered i think we all (accept Porta) could (or atleast should) be willing to agree that even if it is just this one aides wielding polygamist homosexual, something needs to be done to keep him/her from spreading the disease, which i totally concur with Buckley on that that offense should rightly be considered murder. I'm just not of the opinion that it helps anyone, especially the gay community, by saying...."nah, it's not that bad".

Steve

Wow. It's almost like they didn't need your approval to enjoy their sex lives.

Because of the last two words. It's like saying "black people are poor by nature. Look at all the poor black people, after all."

There are thousands of promiscuous gay people. There are many, many more promiscuous straight people.

It's called being young. By and large, people go through multiple partners in their teens and early-to-mid twenties, then start to slow down and eventually settle on one partner.

Gay or straight has nothing to do with it. If you think it does, come by Chicago sometime. I'll be happy to take you around some Lincoln Park bars, where you can see promiscuity on a level that puts Boystown to shame.

Exactly! Maybe using a bar code on the forearm, instead of a serial number would prove how different the people who think like this are from the Nazis.

Or visit a frat. [that goes to Dan's post.]

I agree, and to add, I've found in my many different dealings with a variety of people, that the one screaming 'Faygit' the loudest is the most likely to be a repressed Homosexual himself. Straight people comfortable with their own sexuality are a bit more 'live and let live'.

Eh. I've never found that to be an across-the-board truth. There are unquestionably guys out there who are just a little too focused on what gay guys are doing in bed to not cock an eyebrow at them, but there are genuinely people who are repulsed by homosexuality, for one reason or another.

Sexuality's a frikkin' minefield, when you get right down to it. There are any number of things, of which boy or girl is only one, that will worm into people's heads and cause arousal or revulsion. And more often than not, that arousal or revulsion is genuine.

Yeah, it grosses me out too, Dan, but neither of us are Ideologically a stone's throw away from exterminating all gays because we think their sexual practices are icky--those are the repressed I'm talking about.

Okay, then. But since nobody on this board is a stone's throw away from exterminating all gays, I'm not sure what your point is.