Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Lesbians

Homosexuality is nothing more than a misdirection of the human sexual impulse same as pedophilia, necrophilia, etc. The differences are only of degrees, they are all deviant behaviors.

Lesbians and foreskins...

Y'all need to get out and kill some schit or something!

There are two lesbians that live across the street from us. They are the butch kind. Not attractive at all and obvious in their preferences.

I have been calling them thespians since the kids were small. It really messed them up when they started taking high school english.

I didn't think that far ahead.

Just another sexual deviant trying to justify the sexual deviance of others to make him/herself feel better about their own actions.

Tolerance? Alessio, you are a seriously confused woman in addition to perhaps the least tolerant person in this discussion. Re-read some of your posts, including your gratuitous, absolutely over the top, hit-and-run attack on some of our spouses. And you have the gall to speak of tolerance?

Your confusion is boundless. The idea of tolerance as a virtue presupposes a non-subjective, non-relative basis for distinguishing the tolerable from the intolerable. We don't praise someone as being "tolerant" for "allowing" others to enjoy their preference for vanilla ice cream over, say, chocolate ice cream. And why is that? Because the preference for vanilla over chocolate is entirely subjective. You don't get credit for "tolerating" something that no one could possibly ever say is wrong. Therefore, the very definition of tolerance presupposes some objective standard for distinguishing the tolerable from the intolerable and for thus determining that it is virtuous to "tolerate" some things, precisely because they are wrong. Tolerance can't be a virtue unless the thing to be tolerated is wrong, but something which tolerance nevertheless demands be permitted to exist to some degree.

Now what, exactly is that standard of right and wrong?? You say it is the fact of the homosexual's humanity. But to speak of one's humanity as the non-relative basis for determining some things to be wrong (such as slavery---which treats a human being as if he were a dog or horse or ox) is to presuppose that something or someone intended for the distinction between the human and non-human to have moral force. Modern philosophy (of which you are clearly an adherent) tells us that facts cannot possibly possess values (the fact-value distinction). Values do not inhere in facts, we are told by the elites (such as yourself). Therefore it is senseless (we are told by the likes of you) to speak of nature telling us that something is or is not wrong. On your own premises, the humanity of the homosexual is no basis to accord him any rights whatsoever, anymore than the humanity of a black man or a Jew tells us they ought to be treated as human beings and not beasts of burden or some plaque bearing bacilli. How quaint and ill-informed that Nature, or Nature's God could or would tell us something is or is not wrong! Since you appear to be a devoted evolutionist, perhaps you ought to try and make sense of your moral indignation and its utter and complete inconsistency with your most fundamental premises.


Although you deny it, nature and the law that is in nature tells us that homosexuality is wrong as surely as they tell us slavery and genocide are wrong. The generative distinction between male and female is the ground and basis of all of human friendship and of human existence. The human family comes to sight as a giant river, flowing through the generations of time which is constituted and reconstituted in and by the distinction between male and female. Whereas heterosexuality leads to regeneration and friendship and life, homosexuality, quite simply, leads to disease and death. If the entire human family made the choice to engage in exclusively homosexual conduct, the human race would go extinct in one generation. And you call that a moral good?

It us utterly hypocritical for you to try to invoke someone's humanity as somehow according him unalienable rights while simultaneously denying any moral authority whatsoever in the distinctions in nature---the moral authority inherent in the difference between the human and non-human. In fact, the difference between male and female is actually more fundamental than the distinction between the human and non-human because nature itself is constituted in and by the distinction between the sexes.

Nature and reason tell us that a man is not an ox or a horse or a dog and ought not be treated as such, just as surely as they tell us a man is not a woman and that the right ordering of the sexual relationships is between members of the opposite sex, not the same sex.

The truth of what I have written is not affected one iota by your intolerance, rank hypocrisy and complete intellectual and moral confusion.

Jordan

Are they also kind of nasty, with a bad attitude? Our street was all owner-occupied homes and then a lesbian pair rented a house. They caused trouble and the long-timers hated them, but not because they were lesbians. They didn't stay long. Then I learned that there were others with similar attitudes. I'm going to paint this one with a broad brush. I give them a wide berth.

Wow, and I thought this thread was going to go down the humorous route. I wish I could remember more lesbian jokes. However, we've gotten into moralizing. Who cares what they do? When we were kids in grade school, we made jokes about all kinds of people, including "What did the Lord say when he created the first negro?" "Oops, I burned one." That's only funny up until about age 14. I seriously think some people who like their own gender were wired that way, by the Man Upstairs. He is not always kind. Take a look at some of the big, tough lesbians. Are they going to get asked out to the prom? No. Guys probably never liked these girls. Take a look at some of the effeminate, slim gay guys. Are girls going to be interested in them, or were they ever? No. Same kind of reciprocal situation. God made Rosie O'Donnells ... and God made beauty pageant contestants.

But the MAIN issue is their personalities. Lesbians, more so than gay guys, can't seem to check their issues at the door when they come to work. That's what affects coworkers. Not what they do in bed. Also, their nastiness is rooted in a lot of psychological baggage. I've also seen a few get fired for being troublemakers and it couldn't have come soon enough.

But there we go again - the packaged mentality that Republican = conservative = Bible thumper = homophobe. I'll go Democrat/conservative/a la carte Catholic/don't care. What I do care about is the same-sex marriage thing. It costs MONEY. This means they extend benefits to partners. In fact, I don't like the registered partnership issue either, for the same reason. It costs MONEY. They should have left it at roommate status, essentially allowing them to live like single people who are sharing living quarters. If you think Obamacare is bad or will be the thorn, it isn't. We'll adjust. The REAL problem is how same-sex marriage, the benefits, the perks, and the adoptions will toast the basic stable social structures of this country. Go ahead and enjoy your porn of lipstick lesbians or LUGs (lesbians until graduation) doing the deed, and then play the religious card. Instead, be practical about it, forget the religious aspects, and kick them to the curb, making sure that there are no pu$$y-whipped suckers paying these biotches alimony or child support when they swing the other way. Have you seen some of these girl next door actresses who have gone lesbian? Kelly McGillis and Meredith Baxter? WTF? They have hit the wall in a big way. If you sniff early on that they like the smell of poon, run. Some guys think with their small brains instead of their large brains, and the religious thinking is also small brained on this topic.

Q: What do you get when you cross an Eskimo and a lesbian?
A: A Klondyke.

They are not friendly at all. They look miserable, act miserable, and live miserably. Maybe it's their neighbors.

As can be expected, they almost never are.

At the risk of generalization, it appears to me that the most obvious of homosexuals...the butchie dyke and the flaming [bleep] are exactly opposite in demeanor.

The dykes seem miserable and a beating to attempt a conversation and the flaming [bleep] are generally a blast to talk to at parties and such.

I feel the same way. The flaming homos are usually very kind people who are outgoing and fun to talk to but the bull dykes are just the opposite.

"We're here, We're queer, We're in your face!!!" - 1970s

Yeah, flamers can be cool ... especially when they give you the wrong type of hamburger at a fast food place, then throw in the correct one when you catch the mistake, neglect to charge you for it, and flip their wrist at you smiling and saying "That's ok, don't worry about it." Bingo.

I mean...come on..our own Ingwe is the consumate ambassador for that type of behavior. A "soooper" likable feller.