Is this really Homophobic?

Topic's posts
Posts in total: 57
--> @keithprosser
I guess the facts will come out.
--> @Alec
According to....?

It seems to me if you concentrate all possible power of government into fewer people, all you have really done is... well, fascism. The exact opposite of "liberalism" I might add.
--> @FaustianJustice
Liberalism at least American liberalism, is big government with restrictions on a bunch of economic issues.  Conservativism is a smaller government with restrictions on a social issues.
--> @DBlaze
My point is, most people don't get turned on by men kissing, and a lot of people do get turned on by women kissing.... Is this homophobia?
People showing their affection to one another is not supposed to turn you on or off. You are supposed to accept people like different things but guess you can't even do that. That distinction you added that you don't get turned on by two men kissing defeats the purpose of two lovers showing their affection in public. They are not doing it for your benefit it they are rejoicing in what they have.
Most guys don't want to see men kissing
Can you even make a good argument? Do you see anywhere in my comments appealing to someone else that isn't part of this conversation or is it you that is trying to get more validity trying to appeal to societal norms? Appealing to societal norms is not a good argument. If you think that is a good argument then you would have no problem to a person being for slavery just because it is accepted socially. 
I've been to quite a few parties, and egging a man on to kiss another man has never been a thing, but it has for women, they do it (most of the time they aren't even lesbians)... And it is entertaining.
Anecdotes of a specific point in your life growing up where men kissing is seen as taboo but women kissing are not. What is your point? That you still have the same taboo to this day about men kissing? 
I don't WANT to see men kissing other men, but it doesn't offend me if it happens, and they can do whatever they want.  Just like I don't care if an older couple wants to smack face in a public place, I don't want to see it, but go ahead, doesn't bother me none.
Your too much of a coward to say what you truly think. I personally if I don't want to see something would want it removed like murder, rape and pedophilia but you have added men kissing. That is a problem. I don't like furries but I am perfectly capable of seeing what they are doing and carrying on with my day but guess you can't even do that when you just can't even see men kissing. That is a sign of homophobia and guess you are too much of a coward to state why.
I just think these were guys out to find someone to rob and they happened on this lesbian couple and since they were already robbing them, might as well ask them to kiss each other.  I don't think it was the other way around, which apparently the news, and you do.
If it was just this. I wouldn't have a problem but you dedicated an entire paragraph of conspiracy theories mixed in with homophobia saying while appealing to a so-called societal norm with this "I think everyone would agree that two guys kissing is just gross no matter who you are". That was the problem. If you add that thing I quoted from you above with lets say a shred of evidence for your side or possibly critiquing the lack of evidence shown by CNN then I wouldn't have a problem. Why not when unsure about something simply say I think or critique the source instead of giving your homophobic take or at the very least calling a majority of how many people you were talking about homophobic okay? 
Their motives were to steal their shit, and that is exactly what they did early in the morning on a tourist bus on the top where they know would be almost empty and the driver would not be able to see them.  They could get away with stealing their stuff, and had to knock them down, otherwise they would run after them yelling and screaming, this would happen to a straight couple as well, while they are being lewd to them as well.  
Here we are again. No evidence given all this is just guess work. We haven't even got back with the police report and here you are making sh*t up. This is a problem. I don't speak about things that I don't know. I speak about things that I know about or make it perfectly clear that these are thoughts of mine not factual but you can't even do that. Come back to me with the police report saying there was no evidence of it being a hate crime or something. After that I will be on your side when it comes to your conclusion but not your explanation that was based on ignorance since you have no evidence.
Being excited about one girl kissing another girl is hardly homophobia.
Not wanting to see two men kissing is not homophobic?
Homophobia: a fear or dislike of gay people

You haven't actually said why you don't want to see two men kissing but I doubt you would give your reason if you are actually knowledgeable of what you believe is homophobic. I am not a homosexual yet don't say I don't want to see two men kissing. Instead I accept that because it doesn't impact me but to you it impacts you so much that you had to say I don't want to see it and appealing to societal norms to make your stance appear more valid than it is. 

My guess is the reason you don't want to see two men kissing is because you are Religious. I am doubtful I am wrong but I have seen d*mb atheists as well so it wouldn't be a surprise if you weren't Religious. 
5 people arrested including 4 teens.  She doesn't seem to remember what really happened though.  Says she left to go somewhere and when she came back her partner was hurt so she might have started punching someone, then she got beat up.  It's kind of hard to understand her.    

In the picture, she looks a lot like Jennifer Connelly.  I love her... sometimes.
--> @omar2345
I am not religious and WTF is a furry?  I agree with you, and what CNN did is what you are accusing me of doing, the only difference is I don't have a news show and camera to report speculation to the whole world.  They don't have the facts and they assumed, along with the victims, that this was because they were lesbians and it was homophobia, which doesn't make any sense.  The news makes me mad when they assume things without all the facts, and all the victims are getting their 15 minutes of fame only because they are gay.  These girls are now always going to think that they were targeted because they were lesbians, and it had nothing to do with the possibility that assailants were out to rob someone, if not them, it would probably be someone else.  Again, both are speculation.

Now if it comes out that the only reason that they were beaten up and robbed is because they were lesbians, then that is when it should be reported in this manner, but not before that.  So you are condemning me for doing the exact same thing that CNN just did.  All I am doing is stating what else it could be, but we just don't know. I don't see you condemning CNN.

As of right now, it is not even news because the facts are these women were beaten up and robbed... which happens to many people every day, and none of them get reported.   The only reason this made the news is because they are gay women and CNN chose to assume that is the reason.  Would you disagree with that as well?   

Now on to Homophobia

Do homophobes ask the people that they fear or dislike  to continue to do the actual thing that they fear and dislike, in this case kiss each other, and talk to them about different sexual positions?  No, a homophobe would tell them to stop doing it, then beat them up for not complying, but apparently these assailants liked what the lesbians were doing, and wanted them to continue, which is not homophobia.

Would a gay basher tell the people that they were bashing to make out before they started the bashing?  No. 

On societal norms, I guarantee that if you were brought up during slavery (assuming you are white), during a time that there was no uprising against it, you would not question it.  To this day, you think you would, and you hope you would..... Would  you be the advocate to end slavery, be put in the history books for doing so? Do you see anyone from the South in the history books for doing so?  The truth is, you wouldn't even realize how wrong slavery is if you were brought up in that era, because you were taught that way.  Even if you were against it, you wouldn't have spoken out because you would have been condemned for it.

I know couples don't do public displays of affection for other people's enjoyment.  It doesn't matter if I like it or dislike it, I have no problems with men kissing. But most men do like watching girls kissing girls, and they don't usually beat them up for it. Women on women adult films rule the adult film industry, men on men are not even close.  The fact is, the assailants liked it and egged them on to do more of it, then when they refused, they beat them, but probably to just take their stuff.  Again, I have no proof, but it is a possibility, but CNN reported homophobia as fact.  It was not even a question that it might not be, and I am basing this on the facts that we do have, and the victims account of what happened.
--> @DBlaze
I am not religious and WTF is a furry? 
My second guess applies to you then.
Furries are a community who like furry things like cats and dogs. This can be pushed to lets say human like furries. Basically humans with a lot of fur. Don't like it but if I do stumble upon it I will just close it or simply go somewhere instead of appealing to societal norms or saying I don't X people to not enjoy X thing if it doesn't harm others in a reasonable way.
I agree with you
What do you agree with me about?
and what CNN did is what you are accusing me of doing, the only difference is I don't have a news show and camera to report speculation to the whole world.  They don't have the facts and they assumed, along with the victims, that this was because they were lesbians and it was homophobia, which doesn't make any sense.  The news makes me mad when they assume things without all the facts, and all the victims are getting their 15 minutes of fame only because they are gay.  These girls are now always going to think that they were targeted because they were lesbians, and it had nothing to do with the possibility that assailants were out to rob someone, if not them, it would probably be someone else.  Again, both are speculation.
So you agree both you and the CNN coverage is wrong and shouldn't be speculating if you wanted to be taken seriously on a topic? 
So you are condemning me for doing the exact same thing that CNN just did.  All I am doing is stating what else it could be, but we just don't know. I don't see you condemning CNN. 
I condemn CNN for not clearly laying out it was speculation. They did however do a better job than you because they were simply stating what is going on. You were saying what is still speculatory. As you can clearly see from the title of the video "Police are calling for witnesses to come forward after two women were attacked and robbed on a London bus.". They are reporting on what occurred. You were basing ideas off of no evidence. Can you find an instance where CNN in the video stated it was an homophobic attack or were they simply stating what the police were doing or what was reported to have occurred? 
As of right now, it is not even news because the facts are these women were beaten up and robbed... which happens to many people every day, and none of them get reported.
Yes it is not a surprise a private business is trying to make money and will do it by picking news story that will gather the most clicks. Fox does the same. What is your point?
The only reason this made the news is because they are gay women and CNN chose to assume that is the reason.  Would you disagree with that as well?   
A strong case can be made on the currency of reporting on homophobic attacks but you have no actual proof that CNN stated that was their reason. This is of course speculation and if you agree it to being speculation then yeah sure my guess it would also be that they are using this to gain clicks.
Do homophobes ask the people that they fear or dislike  to continue to do the actual thing that they fear and dislike, in this case kiss each other, and talk to them about different sexual positions?  No, a homophobe would tell them to stop doing it, then beat them up for not complying, but apparently these assailants liked what the lesbians were doing, and wanted them to continue, which is not homophobia. 
In the video the correspondent which was Erin Mclaughlin was brought in on the right stated they were spouting homophobic slurs. She talks about it in 1:10 based on the police report. Don't know where the police report it but maybe you have a problem with them not giving a link to it.
On societal norms, I guarantee that if you were brought up during slavery (assuming you are white), during a time that there was no uprising against it, you would not question it.  To this day, you think you would, and you hope you would..... Would  you be the advocate to end slavery, be put in the history books for doing so? 
No if I was living in that time but when looking back we know it is wrong. Since indoctrination is less of a problem now I am allowed to freely make my mind up and since I don't think I would be given the same liberty back then as with now given the more lenient parents I think are now and how much information there is on the internet. If you were indoctrinated into thinking homosexuality is wrong and can't comprehend it being wrong then you have an excuse but if we go by simple values that I am sure we both agree with you won't have an argument. I can win this with one value. People like different things and we ought to allow them to like different granted they are not bringing about harm. If you agree with that value you have no argument against homosexuality or homosexual acts like men kissing.
Do you see anyone from the South in the history books for doing so?  The truth is, you wouldn't even realize how wrong slavery is if you were brought up in that era, because you were taught that way.  Even if you were against it, you wouldn't have spoken out because you would have been condemned for it.
I understand. I don't believe in free will which is why if I wasn't able to freely think and given the tools to make the right decision on issues then I would be the typical slave owner but that is still not a good argument for slavery or for disliking men kissing so much so you don't want them to do it in public.
 I have no problems with men kissing.
You have no problem with men kissing but still you don't want to see it. What do you mean in public or privately? 
but CNN reported homophobia as fact.
Do you have a time stamp and quote from the video to support that?
It was not even a question that it might not be, and I am basing this on the facts that we do have, and the victims account of what happened.
Where is this data? Do you have the police report?
--> @omar2345
The banner on the video says exactly that.  Did you watch the video?
"Women beaten and robbed in homophobic attack in London."  It says it almost throughout the whole video, then it switches to.... London Mayor calls Homophobic Attack Disgusting, Misogynistic.

A better question is where doesn't it say it is homophobic?  


And yes, I agree with you that CNN and I are speculating on this story. However, I would not have heard about it if they had not reported it, just like most robbery assaults, but they spun it to get clicks... which I agree with you on that as well.  This need for clicks is causing a serious division of people.

BTW, I think the same about Fox, they pick and choose what they feel is newsworthy.  I am not married to any news network, I do think that the 24 hour news cycle is the enemy of the people.  They manipulate the stories to support their agenda, and some don't even care about money, but they still care about clicks.

What I am saying is I wouldn't pay to see two men kiss, but I might pay to see two women kiss.  It's a turn on, just like it is for most straight men.  Would you say that most gay men and women think that men kissing is a turn on to them, I wouldn't know because I am neither of those?  Based on my experience though and women I have befriended, I would think that most would say no, also based on the supply and demand for it. I'm just stating the obvious. I can count on probably two hands the amount of major motion pictures that have men kissing in them, but the amount of women kissing women would be way more... you know why?  To sell tickets.

I do think that many homosexuals were abused as children, or sustained some sort of trauma that affected their sexual preference, or they could have some mental issues.  I also believe some of them were actually born that way, so I don't condemn it, and I don't feel ill of it.   


--> @DBlaze
The banner on the video says exactly that.  Did you watch the video?
"Women beaten and robbed in homophobic attack in London."  It says it almost throughout the whole video, then it switches to.... London Mayor calls Homophobic Attack Disgusting, Misogynistic.
That is just something on the bottom to alert people on the current findings. From their information given to them by the correspondent they have gathered that. Sure they don't know it is the case but it is a business and it does not owe anyone correct news more so something worthy of clicks or watching. London Mayor says something if is true is a fact.
If people actually watched the video they would realize it is alleged. If people clicked on the video I assume they have watched it through to the end. If they did not. It is not the fault of CNN if they had the wrong interpretation. They didn't watch the entire video.
And yes, I agree with you that CNN and I are speculating on this story. However, I would not have heard about it if they had not reported it, just like most robbery assaults, but they spun it to get clicks... which I agree with you on that as well.  This need for clicks is causing a serious division of people.
Division will always be a problem. I hope you don't deny that the right also helped create the divide as well but maybe I am wrong about this. The problem isn't division more so how it occurs. If it occurs with violence as in physical or mental then I am against if it involves one side debunking claims of the other then I am okay. 
BTW, I think the same about Fox, they pick and choose what they feel is newsworthy.  I am not married to any news network, I do think that the 24 hour news cycle is the enemy of the people.  They manipulate the stories to support their agenda, and some don't even care about money, but they still care about clicks.
You are wrong about the money. A private businesses sole aim is to make a profit. Fox, CNN even Breitbart care about money. It will always be about that under capitalism. 
What I am saying is I wouldn't pay to see two men kiss, but I might pay to see two women kiss.  It's a turn on, just like it is for most straight men. 
This is fine but don't appeal to societal norms with most people don't like X. If you do decide to go to that path then I would like evidence because then I wouldn't consider what you said a gross generalization.
Would you say that most gay men and women think that men kissing is a turn on to them, I wouldn't know because I am neither of those?
I think so because a gay man would like gay interactions so it is sort of implied with the label of being gay or lesbian.
Based on my experience though and women I have befriended, I would think that most would say no, also based on the supply and demand for it. I'm just stating the obvious. I can count on probably two hands the amount of major motion pictures that have men kissing in them, but the amount of women kissing women would be way more... you know why?  To sell tickets.
Yes money is an aim of a private business.
I do think that many homosexuals were abused as children, or sustained some sort of trauma that affected their sexual preference, or they could have some mental issues.  I also believe some of them were actually born that way, so I don't condemn it, and I don't feel ill of it.  
At least you cleared that up. The part that I don't like saying is the trauma that affected their sexual preference. Do you have evidence for that? Do you also have evidence that mental issues leads to homosexuality? Everything else is fine. 

--> @omar2345
You are wrong about the money. A private businesses sole aim is to make a profit. Fox, CNN even Breitbart care about money. It will always be about that under capitalism. 
I am not wrong, George Soros would rather print fake news against Trump than be real and make money, he has so much money, he doesn't care.  If the Washington Post printed something in favor of Trump, he would be on the phone wondering what the F they were doing.  Right now CNN is losing viewership because people don't trust what they are spewing, yet they keep spewing it... so they don't care either.  Neither did ESPN for the longest time, owned by Disney, but finally wised up and does their best to stay out of politics now.  Thank God... More channels should follow their lead.
What I am saying is I wouldn't pay to see two men kiss, but I might pay to see two women kiss.  It's a turn on, just like it is for most straight men. 
This is fine but don't appeal to societal norms with most people don't like X. If you do decide to go to that path then I would like evidence because then I wouldn't consider what you said a gross generalization.

It is a generalization, but it is true.... I did a poll.
Would you say that most gay men and women think that men kissing is a turn on to them, I wouldn't know because I am neither of those?
I think so because a gay man would like gay interactions so it is sort of implied with the label of being gay or lesbian. 

How do you know this, do you have evidence to support this claim?  I think the opposite, so it looks like we are at a stalemate on that issue.

--> @Alec
Liberalism at least American liberalism, is big government with restrictions on a bunch of economic issues.  Conservativism is a smaller government with restrictions on a social issues.


I think your understanding of what "big government" is would be somewhat biased.  Liberalism, even in "American Liberalism" searches for equality, and the only real apparatus to enforce that is government.  Conservatism having 'restrictions' on social issues is laughable, considering the largest obstacle to social issues being 'accepted' are conservatives.  

It wasn't liberals or moderates that are against gay rights, abortion, legalization of the sex trade, etc etc etc.  But, some how, conservatives are for smaller government while they use government to deny what society should attempt to adopt.
--> @FaustianJustice
I think your understanding of what "big government" is would be somewhat biased.  Liberalism, even in "American Liberalism" searches for equality, and the only real apparatus to enforce that is government.
If they wanted ultimate equality, they would be socialists, since that would mean everyone gets paid the same.  

It wasn't liberals or moderates that are against gay rights, abortion, legalization of the sex trade, etc etc etc.
Conservatives are slowly accepting gay rights, even Trump supports it.  Hillary 8 years ago was against homosexuality and Obama was once against it.  Liberals accept homosexuality, but only a few years before the conservatives did.  Now there is Linda Sarsour, a liberal calling for shariah law in the US, which doesn't just call gays names, but kills them for their sexuality.  Even if conservatives weren't accepting homosexuality any time soon, I'm not a one issue voter and I wouldn't care.

As for abortion, they ought to be against abortion/pro life because of the scientific proof that confirms that a fetus is a human being.

Prostitution can be regulated, but not full blown legal.  Prostitutes must be on 100% effective birth control(99.9999% is also fine, but nothing less).  
--> @Alec
If they wanted ultimate equality, they would be socialists, since that would mean everyone gets paid the same.  
Pure unadulterated ignorance.

As for abortion, they ought to be against abortion/pro life because of the scientific proof that confirms that a fetus is a human being.

As long as you give up your right to bodily autonomy.

Prostitution can be regulated, but not full blown legal.  Prostitutes must be on 100% effective birth control(99.9999% is also fine, but nothing less).  
Conservatives are absolutely convinced that only conservative men have any rights.
--> @Alec
"If they wanted ultimate equality, they would be socialists, since that would mean everyone gets paid the same."

Okay, so lets add "socialism" to the list of things you have a bias/misunderstanding about.


"Conservatives are slowly accepting gay rights, even Trump supports it."

Good for them?  Thank you for conceding the point, I guess.



"Hillary 8 years ago was against homosexuality and Obama was once against it."

... and?

"Liberals accept homosexuality, but only a few years before the conservatives did."

I am still not convinced conservatives have "accepted" it.


"Now there is Linda Sarsour, a liberal calling for shariah law in the US, which doesn't just call gays names, but kills them for their sexuality.  Even if conservatives weren't accepting homosexuality any time soon, I'm not a one issue voter and I wouldn't care."

Right, but you can't claim conservatives are "XYZ" when clearly, they use the institution of a 'smaller government' to limit the rights of certain people through laws.


"As for abortion, they ought to be against abortion/pro life because of the scientific proof that confirms that a fetus is a human being."

Incorrect.  A fetus is an as-of-yet unformed member of the Homo sapiens specie.  'Human being' is a term of philosophical art, not a scientific phrase.


"Prostitution can be regulated, but not full blown legal."

He boldly asserts.

"Prostitutes must be on 100% effective birth control(99.9999% is also fine, but nothing less). "  <--- ah, this must be your 'small government' talking.

--> @DBlaze
I am not wrong, George Soros would rather print fake news against Trump than be real and make money, he has so much money, he doesn't care.  If the Washington Post printed something in favor of Trump, he would be on the phone wondering what the F they were doing.  Right now CNN is losing viewership because people don't trust what they are spewing, yet they keep spewing it... so they don't care either.  Neither did ESPN for the longest time, owned by Disney, but finally wised up and does their best to stay out of politics now.  Thank God... More channels should follow their lead.
This is where you don't have a shred of evidence for you claim. I don't see the distinction between you and a Flat Earther when you say something like this. I know you don't have any but I will ask anyway. Do you evidence or am I actually correct about money and your George Soros conspiracy theory holds no weight.
It is a generalization, but it is true.... I did a poll.
How many people? Where?
How do you know this, do you have evidence to support this claim?  I think the opposite, so it looks like we are at a stalemate on that issue.
This is you actually trying to be pr*ck. Realizing my reasonable asks for evidence then decide to simply joke about it. Maybe you don't actually understand you need evidence to support an argument. By definition a person who is a homosexual would have to commit a homosexual act. This can be engaging oral or anal. Must be more but those are the ones that come up first. Is that too difficult for you to comprehend or do definitions of words require evidence as well or maybe you actually understand the joke made by you is actually st*pid and shows just how st*pid you are when it comes to making an argument?
--> @Alec
NO? When will you turn 12?
--> @disgusted
I'm older then 12.
--> @Alec
"I'm older then 12."


Press (X) to doubt.
--> @omar2345
I am not wrong, George Soros would rather print fake news against Trump than be real and make money, he has so much money, he doesn't care.  If the Washington Post printed something in favor of Trump, he would be on the phone wondering what the F they were doing.  Right now CNN is losing viewership because people don't trust what they are spewing, yet they keep spewing it... so they don't care either.  Neither did ESPN for the longest time, owned by Disney, but finally wised up and does their best to stay out of politics now.  Thank God... More channels should follow their lead.
This is where you don't have a shred of evidence for you claim. I don't see the distinction between you and a Flat Earther when you say something like this. I know you don't have any but I will ask anyway. Do you evidence or am I actually correct about money and your George Soros conspiracy theory holds no weight.
Sorry, I meant Jeff Bezos.  I made a mistake.  He would not approve of any good reporting of Trump.  Almost 95% of the reporting on Trump on any news outlet besides Fox has been negative, even when he does something good, it is twisted into something bad.  

It is a generalization, but it is true.... I did a poll.
How many people? Where?

I was just pulling your leg.  Man we are gulible aren't we.
How do you know this, do you have evidence to support this claim?  I think the opposite, so it looks like we are at a stalemate on that issue.
This is you actually trying to be pr*ck. Realizing my reasonable asks for evidence then decide to simply joke about it. Maybe you don't actually understand you need evidence to support an argument. By definition a person who is a homosexual would have to commit a homosexual act. This can be engaging oral or anal. Must be more but those are the ones that come up first. Is that too difficult for you to comprehend or do definitions of words require evidence as well or maybe you actually understand the joke made by you is actually st*pid and shows just how st*pid you are when it comes to making an argument.

I am not trying to be a prick, you are trying to be a prick by not realizing things that are common sense and acknowledging aspects of human nature that are learned as life goes on, you lose people, you have friends that admit things to you in their older years that you didn't know about, and learn how it affected them, things you don't find in written papers.  Then you calling me stupid for having experience.  These are things that are learned over time.  Reading articles, doing papers, having friends, family, stories told to you, jobs, careers, college (which was really just an extension of being a kid)  I have learned so much more by being out in the real world than I did when I was in college... just being on this earth twice as long as you, and being an adult for 22 years as opposed to your 1 year, owning a house, having real relationships, moving around to different areas, changing careers.  You don't think that has any clout?

Sorry, I meant Jeff Bezos.  I made a mistake.  He would not approve of any good reporting of Trump.  Almost 95% of the reporting on Trump on any news outlet besides Fox has been negative, even when he does something good, it is twisted into something bad.  
Yes CNN ratings are going down. Negative does not mean it is inaccurate. There is a distinction. 
I was just pulling your leg.  Man we are gulible aren't we.
Gross generalization while also not supporting your side with evidence.
I am not trying to be a prick, you are trying to be a prick by not realizing things that are common sense and acknowledging aspects of human nature that are learned as life goes on, you lose people, you have friends that admit things to you in their older years that you didn't know about, and learn how it affected them, things you don't find in written papers.
Yes people die, change and newspapers miss out information. I realize that.
Then you calling me stupid for having experience.
I called you st*pid for not being able to understand how to make a good argument. That wasn't about your experiences.
These are things that are learned over time.  Reading articles, doing papers, having friends, family, stories told to you, jobs, careers, college (which was really just an extension of being a kid)  I have learned so much more by being out in the real world than I did when I was in college... just being on this earth twice as long as you, and being an adult for 22 years as opposed to your 1 year, owning a house, having real relationships, moving around to different areas, changing careers.  You don't think that has any clout?
Yes you have lived longer than me and have experienced more but in this scenario I know more. You didn't make good arguments for your side which is why I called it st*pid. 

--> @Alec
*older than
--> @omar2345
Do you know more?  Really?  Because I made a statement that you contradict, or disagree with, then you want me to show proof.  Why don't you show proof that it is not true. 

I have read these things in certain places throughout my life and certain times.  I don't feel like spending the time to research where I saw them, or where I read them. 

You are right, citations would be nice, but so would a vacation, unfortunately, I'm not getting either of them. 
--> @DBlaze
Do you know more?  Really?  Because I made a statement that you contradict, or disagree with, then you want me to show proof.  Why don't you show proof that it is not true. 
My disagreement wasn't your conclusion or the claim more so how you got there. You have yet to use evidence. That is the problem. I am not complaining about your claims instead I am complaining about your lack of evidence. 
I have read these things in certain places throughout my life and certain times.  I don't feel like spending the time to research where I saw them, or where I read them.  
Okay? Don't see what this got to do with anything.
You are right, citations would be nice, but so would a vacation, unfortunately, I'm not getting either of them. 
You started by making the claims not me. I made claims about your lack of substantial arguments and about homophobia. In order for it to be substantial it requires evidence to support your claim. Homophobic thing you cleared from the looks of it you misspoke. 
--> @FaustianJustice
Simple. Fascism is an authoritarian ideology. Right wing ideologies believe in little to no government.
--> @Mharman
Then why do so many right wing people advocate for more government?