This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - HK
Pages: 1  3 4 5 6 7 ... 27
« on: May 17, 2006, 12:02:18 PM »
This is outre, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.
We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of you shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all-male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us. Women, you cry for freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them; we will embrace them when they weep.
Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of with men. Then go and be with each other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known because we are foremost men too and only man knows how to truly please another man; only one man can understand with depth and feeling the mind and body of another man.
All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men.
All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically, and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.
If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies.
We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap, superficial, sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema screens.
We shall sculpt statues of beautiful young men, of bold athletes which will be placed in your parks, your squares, your plazas. The museums of the world will be filled only with paintings of graceful, naked lads.
Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigueur, and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles. We will eliminate heterosexual liaisons through the devices of wit and ridicule, devices which we are skilled in employing.
We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators, your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among you; we may be sleeping in the same bed with you.
There will be no compromises. We are not middle-class weaklings. Highly intelligent, we are the natural aristocrats of the human race, and steely-minded aristocrats never settle for less. Those who oppose us will be exiled. We shall raise vast, private armies, as Mishima did, to defeat you.
We shall conquer the world because warriors inspired by and banded together by homosexual love and honor are as invincible as were the ancient Greek soldiers. The family unit spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy, and violence will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in a communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.
All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and aesthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough.
The exquisite society to emerge will be governed by an elite comprised of gay poets. One of the major requirements for a position of power in the new society of homoeroticism will be indulgence in the Greek passion. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from a position of influence. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men. We shall rewrite history, history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions.
We shall portray the homosexuality of the great leaders and thinkers who have shaped the world. We will demonstrate that homosexuality and intelligence and imagination are inextricably linked, and that homosexuality is a requirement for true nobility, true beauty in a man.
We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages. We too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution. Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks!
« on: May 17, 2006, 11:22:04 AM »
I can't believe I'm defending her, but I don't know if we should blame the child for the sins (hahaha) of the parent.
I'm not blaming her for D!ck Cheney's sins, I'm blaming her for her own sins. Working as Cheney's campaign manager and trying to get BushCo elected, even while Bush was supporting an anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment.
Mary Cheney has no defense for her actions. She can spend as many chapters on it as she wants.
I'm not a one-issue voter. She isn't either. She and I do not agree on other issues (Iraq war, possibly fiscal policy) but I can see how some issues can trump other issues when deciding which party to support. Gay rights are not the single most important issue for me. Do all these people who attack her also attack Kerry for not supporting gay marriage? No, because you are able to make rational decisions about relative values.
BTW, Al Gore supports gay marriage. Go Al!
And can we PLEASE write out male private part Cheney?
I think this is a good post. Basically it is clear that gay marriage/rights is not a priority issue for her.
I agree about Kerry, but Kerry was a flake. However, I do think that"not supporting" and "opposing" are two different things. I think with Kerry in the White House we wouldn't have to worry as much about the President encouraging a federal marriage amendment.
I think the democratic party should stand in favor of gay marriage, even if it hurts them a bit. I would like to see them actually take a stand on some issues rather than simply trying to oppose Bush.
« on: May 17, 2006, 11:15:12 AM »
I've got a couple of questions for you, too:
Do gay men/women have a hard time going to the public bathrooms in front of people they are interested in or significant others?
This is an interesting question. I think I used to feel uncomfortable with it, but not anymore.
What % of gay men do anal? I've heard it's lower than most think, and does that... work for the recipient?
I have no statistics to answer your question. I would guess most gay guys have had anal sex. As for the recipient, if they didn't enjoy it they wouldn't do it. It's not just gay people that have anal intercourse...
Certain words that also mean homosexual are used as insults towards straight men and even objects. Are you or others offended when you hear others use "gay" or "fag" as an insult towards straight men? Like:
"You failed the test?"
"Yeah, I did."
"Aww, that's gay."
I don't like hearing the word fag....and I have to admit I don't like it when people use the word "gay" like you did in that example. I don't find it very offensive, just because I am not easily offended, but I would hope that people would stop using it that way.
« on: May 17, 2006, 11:09:41 AM »
I think Eli brings up a valid point, and yes, sometimes the gays at Pride (particularly the ones the media choose to put on the air, which tend to be the most outrageous) are embarrassing. But I have long ago come to terms with the fact that you can't control everyone in your particular minority group, nor are they going to all be positive examples. That's just life. If conservatives want to hold it against all gays that a few are dancing naked in public, there are just choosing to use a single example to validate their prejudices and they probably do that every day anyway.
This kind of attitude has always upset me. There was a time when the gay rights movement fought against the idea of anyone controlling anyone else's sexuality, fought the idea that there was a normal way to express sexuality. As the members of the movement aged, the cause became more about getting rights than about changing the public's view of sexuality. As a tactical move, I can support it, but there is no reason to sacrifice one on the alter of the other. It's time to stop being embarassed and start embracing anyone who has the courage to express him/herself. You still see this everywhere as activists fight being coopted by the mainstream gay rights movement, but there should be enough room under the umbrella for everyone.
There should be, but unfortunately it's sometimes easier to get some laws changed than to change everyone's attitudes.
« on: May 17, 2006, 10:46:28 AM »
Trogdor, if you want to read it but don't want to pay for it, just wait until it ends up in the library...
I think it's laughable for the Bush administration to claim they aren't using gay rights as a wedge issue. It's no coincidence that the federal marriage amendment keeps coming up during election years...
« on: May 17, 2006, 10:42:46 AM »
I do think they dropped the ball this year but I guess I don't hold any grudges. It will be reflected in the 1L class that they recruit.
I agree. The OP's letter was unnecessary. If USC is delaying responses to good candidates and failing to communicate with applicants, they are only going to hurt themselves. It's a self-correcting problem.
If you are a borderline candidate and they are taking a long time to hash out a decision on your candidacy, that is actually to your credit.
I don't have any issue with what he did. While I wouldn't say it's "necessary", as an applicant he has the right to voice his dissatisfaction with the process. He withdrew his application, and requested a refund. It is then USC's decision whether or not to grant to a refund, but I don't think it is out of line to make such a request, or for him to make his grievance known to the admissions office.
I think that his letter could have been written more politely though.
« on: May 17, 2006, 12:18:30 AM »
and a few folks out of control at gay pride are not representative of all of us.
« on: May 17, 2006, 12:15:07 AM »
cause they dont have to.
and a few folks out of control at gay pride are not representative of all of us. i have gone and managed to not f*&% anyone in public. just as the few folks at mardi gras who engage in flashing, public sex, and sex with animals aren't representative of all straight folks
Exactly....I have never been to a pride parade...but they haven't revoked my gay license...
« on: May 14, 2006, 05:28:02 AM »
I think we should reduce the AA board. I just don't think people could express their opinions without being offensive. I'm all for "free speech" but we don't want to ailenate some people. Maybe have a limit on how many threads could be posted. And set some ground rules for discussion.
Those that are truly offended by threads on the AA board can simply ignore them.
« on: May 10, 2006, 10:07:41 PM »
4)Not UCLA's fault. With Beverly Hills right next door, you get people like that. Fine, I'll give you one thing about people in LA being superficial (if they don't like you, they can hide it well, unlike in NY -- they scream at you).
Alright, while I don't care for the East vs. West coast tone that is apparent in the attitudes of many people on both sides of the argument (because I truly love NY and LA), this is one thing I will say I hate about NY and NYers. I come from Southern/Western stock, and whether or not that is why, I was raised to be polite. I think if you don't like someone, you can still be friendly and nice to them. I call that polite. People around here call it superficial. I have had a lot of people at Columbia not like me because I am supposedly "superficial", and I have disliked a lot of people because I can't handle the unforgiving manner in which they let you know how they really feel about you.
I understand, of course, that there are other elements contributing to LA's reputation for superficiality - the emphasis on youth & beauty at any cost, mainly. But being nice to everybody is just basic decency, and it sure makes life a lot more pleasant - I'm glad LA has figured that part out.
I'm not from New York, but I am from the northeast (and I've spent a few years in the south), and I've got to say, the fake nice pisses me off. Don't get me wrong, some people are geniunely extraordinarily nice, but a lot of people are just insincerely friendly. SO annoying.
just had to jump in and say that I agree with this. First off, I think NYers get a bump wrap for being mean. Well that's not the case. The fact is, in NY and the NE for that matter, people don't feel the need to be nice to people they don't know. Yet, if stop someone in the street and ask them a question, they will help you. That's one thing I hate about the south--if you don't stop and wave and converse, you are seen as a feminine hygiene product, which is ridiculous.
i would rather people be polite than rude jsut because they dont know you. Maybe they arent being fake, they just aren't being rude like you are used to, so you assume they are being insincere. People dont have to be assholes to be "real"
I don't have a bad thing to say about UCLA, but as a Los Angelino who grew up right near UCLA, i can tell you LA people are the most fake of any I have met...
If you grew up in B.H./WeHo/Westwood/The Valley, this doesn't suprise me. It's like saying all new yorkers are fake because you grew up in the upper east side...
Pages: 1  3 4 5 6 7 ... 27