Quote:

---

that's saying if homosexuality was genentic, only gays could pass on the trait.

---

like most genetics it jumps like a horse on a chess board...not uniform....like a pawn

The "they" is the politcal propagandists who control Wikipiedia. I tried to change the post, but for some reason, CJ Currie has decided I must be exposed for having been "accused" of homophobia.

How about scat? Is that moral? After all where is the victim of this immorality?

What is and is not "moral?" Do you mind if I hit on your wife? There is no victim in that if ahe is willing.

There is lots of human actions I would judge immoral that do not need a victim.

Moral and immoral as well as amoral are up to the individual.

Take masturabation for instance....once the immoral cause of insanity, now prescribed psychaitric therapy.

Depends on time and place all this morality stuff eh.

My libertarian views come into what the law ought do or not do. Once more, I do not want to persecute anybody.


Not wanting to associate with people because they engage in activites that you disapprove of is all part of being a moral human being.

How about the trait to engage in S and M?

Is that biological?


How about the trait to have sex with animals? Is that passed on through the genes?


My argument was that homosexuality has nothing to do with genes at all. And you support that argument by quipping in that most homosexuals come from straight parents and gay people often have straight children.

Now others have argued that homosexuality is passed on by genes and I disagree with that assertion and the junk science behaind it.

Homosexuality is a chosen behavior just like scat and s and m as well as hetrosexuality. Genes have nothing to do with it....Just like no one was born to be an alcoholic or a drug addict either. Genes determine hair color, eyes color body shape height and even how old you are likely to live.

Who you have sex with has nothing to do with genes.

Well, looks like you served your purpose then.


But I don't think there is anything Wikipiedia can do to help because Wikipiedia already has a reputation for being untrustworthy.

Thanks for dropping by.

Well deserve that reputation is.

Wikipiedia is very slanderous. its the new age national enquier of encyclopedias...as far as i know that currie dude is a retired cop. you will see him editing people he hates.

Have a look at the Chris Buors entry.


Wikipiedia tries to paint me as a "homophobe" by mentioning that I have an opinion some sock puppets disagreed with.

Currie thought that was important enough to include in Wikipiedia. There is no "neutral" to that. The word itself is pejoritive and implies hatered or malice. None of that goes on in my posts. I have "different" morals than those who accept homosexuality as "normal" or a biological trait.

I have some great arguments to make in support of those assertions and I point out that the junk science other use neither stands the test of time nor culture.

Slanderous is the proper term when malice is evident like it is on the history page on Chris Buors at Wikipiedia.

Like I said, Wikipiedia has the standards of the National Inquirer and deserves the same disdain as any publisher of sock puppet accusations would deserve.


You don't see any of my critics with the nerve to use their own names...now do you?

Curry is an agent provactuer, that makes him political in a media that claims neutrality and no propaganda. That is obvious bullshit to anybody who cares to go to the post and see the polical slant for themselves. I would love to debate him on any issue he chooses and we would soon see who was and was not the sharpest knife in the drawer eh!

Many have tried to win and none have suceeded yet!

And because Curry included the Chomsky quote, I will go out of my way to proving that I not only understand what the man says, I understand it to be nonesense without an economic clue. There are no shortage of economic professors who laugh at Chomsky and point out the strengths of his use of words that goes along with the paucity of economic sense that Chomsky makes.

Anybody can go to lewrockwell.com and read dozens of professionally written critiques of Chomsky.

So if you know that Currie fellow you can let him know that all he has accomplished is to raise my ire and like I said prove himself to be a biased editor not even clever enough to cover his tracks.

Like I said, I would love to see people drawn to this site to read my opinions on "homophobia" and how it is a made up word and how controling language controls ideas.

Send that Currie down any time he gathers up the nerve to face those he would disparage!

Oh, "they" is wikepedia...after reading your opinions about homosexuality, i think a lot more than wikepedia won't leave you alone on the issue...you got a hate-on for homos...you should keep it to yourself


it is invalid to draw a moral analogy between adultery and homosexuality...adultery is a moral (and legal) issue but that is not related to homosexuality...homosexuals can be as moral as the most upstanding christian or ethical atheist...homosexuals can be immoral and commit adultery too...you make it sound as if homosexuality is criminal

according to your narrow defintion, homosexuality isn't normal...ok...homosexuality *IS* natural because sexual desire isn't something we acquire by choice...by the same logic, colour blindness is not normal but it is perfectly natural

i think it is also natural for a heterosexual man to completely reject the idea of rolling around naked with another man with poo on your dongs...personally, i find even the mental image unsettling...i feel uncomfortable when i'm in a gay bar...at 18, i found out my best friend of ten years was gay and i nearly passed out from embarrassment when he described the joy of his first sexual experience...i think my head would have exploded if i saw him french kissing his boyfriend...but i'm happy for him even if i don't appreciate the pleasure of his sexual inclination...my friend did not choose to be immoral because there was no choice for him

homosexuals are people



know what i hate? those goddamn extreme sports people...they have all those neat toys and cool fashion accessories...they hang around slapping eachother on the bum...they're have too much fun...BASTARDS!!

Chris, you seem to be quite bemused by the mention of homophobia in your entry. Consider the first line in your entry:

"Chris Buors is a Manitoba politician and activist."

You are known as a politician, specifically in Canada. What is a very topical and hot-button issue in Canadian politics these days? How about gay marriage? Or gay civil rights? Or adoption by gay couples? Whether you like it or not, how politicians view homosexuals and/or their lifestyle is germane to any politician's biography.

You should also acknowledge that your Wiki entry reads, "Buors has been accused of homophobia". It does not accuse you directly. Following the quote about your homosexual comments the entry reads, "These comments notwithstanding, he has also..." This indicates that the person(s) writing/editing your entry is presenting a balanced report of your views and is mitigating the homophobia accusations somewhat.

You seem to be overlooking these obvious aspects of your entry; aspects that don't paint you as a raving homophobe in spite of your efforts to portray yourself as a victim of slander. There is nothing slanderous about your Wiki entry and every time I read one of your defenses of your views I can't help but think of that line from Hamlet: "The [guy] doth protest too much, methinks."

Lots of people see red as soon as politcally incorrect ideas are touched on.

If there were any ioata of "hatred" displayed the moderator would have shut the debate down a long time ago.


I have drawn moral analogy to S and M practices and scatology too. Why do you gloss over those as examples of chosen sexual behavior, just like homosexuality is?

Am I not entitled to exercize moral judgements of my own on what kind of people I want to hang out with?

Do you hang with wife swappers? Why not? They are not criminals or nothing. They love their children, but wife swapping is not the norm, in fact, just a small percentage of couples engage in that sport.

I don't hang with wife swappers. Because the idea of banging some other guys wife while he is cheering me on well not for me. Little do I care if you want to get in on that.

But I won't be accpeting any dinner invites nor extending any. None of that means I hate wife swappers or those who prefer multiple sexual partners all at the same time. Just don't want to hang with them. The birds of a feather is pretty well a universal truth.


I read Alan Young's book and I understand S and M goes on with upstanding people in the community, hell you would have to be a professional to be able to afford that kind of entertainment. I'm sure people who engage in scatology are fine upstanding respectable people, when their clothes are on, too.

Once more the strong objection to the word "homophobe."

I'm pro heterosexual, that does not mean I am anti-gay.

I am pro ceremonial and ritual drug use, that does not mean I am anti-clean living persons.

And I long ago weeded people who do not use cannabis out of my social circle.

Everybody discriminates and we all should. It's called exercizing our freedom of association.

Skellington....and others, how many non-cannabis users in your social circle of personal friends? None? How discriminatory. We'll have to work on inclusion. And my worse short coming, no police officers in my social circle of personal friends. Weeded them all out in High School.

What a horrible person I am for discriminating against our finest citizens, those who protect us from evil: the police.

Imagine that! Actually holding what a pesron does for a living against them. That's worse than sexual discrimination eh!

Is it discrimantory to avoid the company of exibitionists? You know, hang out with someone who might just take her top off and flash every guy who passes by. I mean how can she help, being born with those genes and all? I had that experiance once. But only once.

I could care less if you want to be seen with women of loose moral virtues, but i prefer to be seen with women who can act lady like in the company of others. Is that a bad moral judgement too?