 | | 
06-16-2009, 10:13 AM
|  | Liberals suck. Member #1322 | | Join Date: May 2004 Location: You can't get there from here.
Posts: 12,220
Thanks: 497
Thanked 415 Times in 323 Posts
Rep Power: 120 | |
Quote: Originally Posted by Coloradomtnman 
Quote: Originally Posted by Pale Rider That's not quite the issue Cmm... what you're not mentioning is normal behavior as opposed to abnormal, deviant, perverted behavior. What's there to accept about normal? It is after all "normal." But to ask normal people to accept two men jamming each others cock up their asses is enough to make most normal people sick to their stomach in disgust. It's vile, it's perverted, it's sick, and these militant, bigot, fags demonizing anyone and everyone who DARES voice a differing opinion has got to end.
The prior Miss USA ordeal will no doubt shed much light on the BIGOTRY of the homos and their supporters. Well, I can't say that I like thinking about other people's sex acts at all, not just homosexuals but my parents, grandparents, my obese neighbors, etc. I also don't like brussell sprouts, but I don't deem those who do as sick. And I also don't think its any of my business. I also don't consider homosexuality as sick, vile, or perverted. I couldn't say that all homosexuals and those who support same-sex marriage aren't bigots, but I would say that most attempt NOT to be hypocritical and try to be good people, just like anyone else.
I think demonizing homosexuals is just as wrong as demonizing anyone. Well, then I appreciate your calm, sensible reply, but we'll have to leave it at we agree to disagree, because I DO find homosexuality vile, disgusting, perverted and sick, and I'm in line with the majority of people.
It's not my intention to demonize homosexuality either, although I'll hold nothing back when describing it. Since sucking each others cocks and ramming them up each others butt holes is what they do, then that's what I'll say. I'm a little shocked you don't find that perverted... unless of course you have homosexual tendencies yourself... just guessing not accusing.
God makes it perfectly clear what he thinks about homos and their perverted actions, so it's not up to me to judge or demonize. God said their blood shall be upon them and they will surely die. I'll leave it at that. But the homos and their supporters HAVE been waging ALL OUT WAR against ANYONE who DARE speak out against them with a differing opinion, and NOTHING has DEMONSTRATED THAT BETTER than this last offensive against the former Miss USA. Their BIGOTRY will be on stark display for all to see as Miss USA goes forward with her law suit. It's going to be a bad time for homos and their war against normal people.
Last edited by Pale Rider; 06-16-2009 at 10:19 AM.
|
06-16-2009, 10:39 AM
|  | The Loneliest Highway Member #12120 | | Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,014
Thanks: 341
Thanked 103 Times in 76 Posts
Rep Power: 37 | |
Quote: Originally Posted by sidneyworld Well, I have two choices here, Colorado in your initial post on this thread. I can either reciprocate point by point or simply generalize. I appreciate your post by the way. I'll go with the generalization.
What you have failed to do here, is acknowledge the crux of the story. Acceptance is a very difficult issue when the belief system of people are being challenged to the point of extinction. Opinions are largely benign until it's met with unreasonable challenges of the moral integrity of that individual. Core values are part of the quality of life we are afforded especially something as fundamental as marriage. Something most of us are raised with and respect and have embraced as the core structure of traditional family life. While it's certainly not perfect, especially in this increasing secular society where everything goes, it still represents a foundation of structure which essentially demonstrates the values of the moral majority of this country. I understand your point but this is my take on it: Christians, Muslims, etc., and traditionalists don't like the idea of marriage being something other than between a man and a woman. They don't want to accept that. However, they don't have to. All they have to do is get married to one person of the opposite gender. Two people of the same gender marrying has no direct effect on them. You can hold on to the traditional family as the core structure of your values and homosexual can marry and neither has to exclude the other.
Quote: Originally Posted by sidneyworld Change should not mean the encroachment of the quality of life of any citizen in this country. Change should only accommodate basic discrimination and prejudices but marriage is not part of such a scenario. The discrimination of homosexuals, historically, in this country is indeed prejudicial. However, life choices of partners does not fit into the arena of changing the protocols of an institution whose most fundamental cannon is intended for the joint, legal union of a man and a woman, with the potential, if possible or if desired, of the procreation of children. Says who? Who gets to corner the market on the definition of marriage? Christians? Muslims? Traditionalists? Why do they get to define marriage? What gives them the right? Because they are the majority? That is mob rule.
And not allowing same-sex marriages is discrimination by the government. If heterosexual can marry eachother, why can't homosexuals? It doesn't guarantee happiness but it does guarantee the right to pursue it. That's why its a right and why its an issue. Another reason why its discrimination is because there are homosexuals and hetersexual Americans whose religious beliefs are that they should be allowed to marry whom they love and not being allowed to do that is the imposition of one group's religious beliefs onto another's life. That violates the Freedom of Religion.
Quote: Originally Posted by sidneyworld Marriage does not require procreation, however any natural children deliberately conceived in a same sex marriage does not legally protect the child under such a law, nor the child's absentee natural parent whom, by whatever arrangement, was commissioned to conceived. If you legislate for the right to marry someone of the same sex, you must also account for the potential of that couple to conceive, no matter how small a percentage. So how would this be done? Well, let's find out. I'm sure there's nothing that Americans can't do!
Quote: Originally Posted by sidneyworld And what about the natural legacy of that child's outside natural parent? Neither the child nor this "third" entity have any rights in marriage. They still don't. Why did this couple get married? To create this entity in a child's life is completely compromising the rights of that child to be conceived and raised by a mother and a father. We do not own our children. By that's another story altogether. A huge story. Well, since it happens anyway with straight parents, and homosexuals adopt or have children now, why not address this issue straight (no pun intended) on.
Quote: Originally Posted by sidneyworld To begin with, Homosexuals in this country can be together as a couple, and raise children and they do. There are no laws against this. There are no issues of constitutional violation of human rights or civil rights. Marriage is not a civil right. It requires a license which, among other things requires that marriage is between a man and a woman. This issue concerns circumventing the definition of marriage. It's not an issue of the prevention of an individual from joining an institution who is simply NOT qualified to do so. What group gets to define the criteria for marriage? The majority? Once again that is mob rule.
Quote: Originally Posted by sidneyworld Procreation is a human right. Being with whomever we please and raising a family is also a human right. So, you agree, being with whomever we please and raising a family is a human right. Is there any law which states that you can't marry whom you, as a heterosexual, please (as long as it harms no human being)?
Quote: Originally Posted by sidneyworld However there are loose ends to the coupling of same sex genders even on a secular standpoint. The paternal legacy of that child is forever compromised for one. And this is not exclusive to homosexual couples with children. It's a phenomena in this country. The indiscrimate multiplicity of parents, having children through every imaginable dynamic. Children are conceived with complete disgard in this country. Married individuals having children outside the marriage. Teenagers packing together to bring children into this world. And a percentage of single parents raising their children which exceeds well over 50% in this country. There is no real political representation of children. Only when there is a marriage, and of course, that vow is as good as the total commitment by both parents too ensure that proper rightful representation. Even when there isn't a marriage there is some legal representation for children.
Quote: Originally Posted by sidneyworld You simply cannot legislate the right of marriage to same sex couples and not include the inherent right of any potentially conceived child to be raised by a man and a woman. To be raised by its natural parents. And again, there is the issue of that child's other natural parent who is not legally or ethically a part of that child's life by design, by choice. This issue isn't addressed well now. So, like I said, why not tackle it straight on.
Quote: Originally Posted by sidneyworld In this country, we can do as we please, on such critical matters. But only one thing ensures the integrity of a viable family structure on every level. Traditional Marriage is an institution and as a core principled value for future generations as it has been for thousands of years. And homosexuals marrying eachother won't change that. For those who believe in ensuring the integrity of a viable family structure on every level can still believe in it and practice it without being effected by same-sex marriage.
Quote: Originally Posted by sidneyworld There are no loose ends as a matter of legitimacy. And this requires a sense of discipline and choice to not further perpetuate an increasing dilemma of dyfunctional lifestyles which have outlived itself in terms of self-gratification. And to legislate that dysfunctional families can't have children is the same as legislating that homosexuals can't marry. Would you ever vote to support a law which bans man and woman married couples can't have children because they don't meet certain criteria?
I appreciate you civility. Its too bad not more of us who are all Americans can remain civil during our debates. Perhaps if politicians could, instead of wrangling over whose a marxist leftwingnut and whose a rightwing reactionary nazi, we could get something worthwhile accomplished in government?
__________________
Faith is nothing more than the desire to believe.
If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.
-Rene Descartes
Last edited by Coloradomtnman; 06-16-2009 at 10:44 AM.
|
06-16-2009, 10:41 AM
| | The Loneliest Highway Member #12120 | | Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,014
Thanks: 341
Thanked 103 Times in 76 Posts
Rep Power: 37 | |
Quote: Originally Posted by jblue1978 OMFG you are SOO full of shit!!
Judeo-Christian Values in America have a basis in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."
Here, do you know how to fucking read?... American Thinker: Judeo-Christian Values
Doesn't sound Atheist to me. Get your facts right moron...
Anyway, lets stick to the thread, aye.... Quit derailing the conversation with your gas... Its says Creator, jblue, not the Christian God, Father of Jesus Christ. That means ANY religion.
__________________
Faith is nothing more than the desire to believe.
If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.
-Rene Descartes |
06-16-2009, 10:46 AM
|  | Shaking You Violently Member #13034 | | Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 321
Thanks: 4
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Rep Power: 3 | |
Quote: Originally Posted by Coloradomtnman
Quote: Originally Posted by jblue1978 OMFG you are SOO full of shit!!
Judeo-Christian Values in America have a basis in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."
Here, do you know how to fucking read?... American Thinker: Judeo-Christian Values
Doesn't sound Atheist to me. Get your facts right moron...
Anyway, lets stick to the thread, aye.... Quit derailing the conversation with your gas... Its says Creator, jblue, not the Christian God, Father of Jesus Christ. That means ANY religion. You are right. It says THEIR creator. Doesn't sound Christian to me. Do some research jblue. |
06-16-2009, 10:50 AM
|  | Registered User Member #19586 | | Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 37
Thanks: 1
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Rep Power: 1 | |
Quote: Originally Posted by Coloradomtnman
Quote: Originally Posted by jblue1978 OMFG you are SOO full of shit!!
Judeo-Christian Values in America have a basis in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."
Here, do you know how to fucking read?... American Thinker: Judeo-Christian Values
Doesn't sound Atheist to me. Get your facts right moron...
Anyway, lets stick to the thread, aye.... Quit derailing the conversation with your gas... Its says Creator, jblue, not the Christian God, Father of Jesus Christ. That means ANY religion. Our Founding Fathers separated church from state, but they wisely did not separate God from state; they acknowledged God as the source of our rights, and, in fact, they were careful to place Biblical morality directly into our founding documents and laws, and into our values and culture precisely to help prevent a future of totalitarian or tyrannical rule in America.
Sounds like "Christian" to me.... Wow, it's even in the title of their faith: Judeo- Christian Did you even try reading the article? Guess not...
Last edited by jblue1978; 06-16-2009 at 10:52 AM.
| | The Following User Says Thank You to jblue1978 For This Useful Post: | |
06-16-2009, 10:50 AM
| | The Loneliest Highway Member #12120 | | Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,014
Thanks: 341
Thanked 103 Times in 76 Posts
Rep Power: 37 | |
Quote: Originally Posted by Pale Rider Well, then I appreciate your calm, sensible reply, but we'll have to leave it at we agree to disagree, because I DO find homosexuality vile, disgusting, perverted and sick, and I'm in line with the majority of people. But in this country because you find someone's act or lifestyle in poor taste doesn't mean you get to discriminate against them.
Quote: Originally Posted by Pale Rider It's not my intention to demonize homosexuality either, although I'll hold nothing back when describing it. Since sucking each others cocks and ramming them up each others butt holes is what they do, then that's what I'll say. That's okay with me since I hate "PC" as well and it IS what gay men do...
Quote: Originally Posted by Pale Rider I'm a little shocked you don't find that perverted... unless of course you have homosexual tendencies yourself... just guessing not accusing. I don't find it perverted because I know many homosexuals and I think that they are just like everyone else except they suck eachothers' cocks, ram it up eachothers' buttholes, lick eachothers' muffs, etc. I like to do those same things, only with my girlfriend, so nope, I'm not homosexual, and I really dislike the idea of sucking cocks or hairy asses, so I don't have any tendencies to be one either.
Have you ever read Shaespeare? "Methinks you doth protest too much!" Not accusing...just guessing.
Quote: Originally Posted by Pale Rider God makes it perfectly clear what he thinks about homos and their perverted actions, so it's not up to me to judge or demonize. God said their blood shall be upon them and they will surely die. I'll leave it at that. What about Freedom of Religion and those of us who don't believe in God or the same God you do?
Quote: Originally Posted by Pale Rider But the homos and their supporters HAVE been waging ALL OUT WAR against ANYONE who DARE speak out against them with a differing opinion, and NOTHING has DEMONSTRATED THAT BETTER than this last offensive against the former Miss USA. Their BIGOTRY will be on stark display for all to see as Miss USA goes forward with her law suit. It's going to be a bad time for homos and their war against normal people. I think this is an issue which will die out as not really being all the important, whether it was the homosexual community throwing a fit, or the conservative Right.
__________________
Faith is nothing more than the desire to believe.
If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.
-Rene Descartes |
06-16-2009, 10:55 AM
| | The Loneliest Highway Member #12120 | | Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,014
Thanks: 341
Thanked 103 Times in 76 Posts
Rep Power: 37 | |
Quote: Originally Posted by jblue1978 Our Founding Fathers separated church from state, but they wisely did not separate God from state; By separating Church and State the Founding Fathers effectively DID separate God from state.
Quote: Originally Posted by jblue1978 they acknowledged God as the source of our rights, No, they achnowldged a CREATOR as the source of our rights, and whether or not a CREATOR is the source of human rights is debatable.
Quote: Originally Posted by jblue1978 and, in fact, they were careful to place Biblical morality directly into our founding documents and laws, and into our values and culture precisely to help prevent a future of totalitarian or tyrannical rule in America. Those very same values are held by people other than Christians, jblue. They aren't JUST Christians values
Quote: Originally Posted by jblue1978 Sounds like "Christian" to me.... Wow, it's even in the title of their faith: Judeo-Christian The Founding Fathers were deists, not Judeo-Christians, unless you speak of the environment in which they lived and not they're religious faith.
__________________
Faith is nothing more than the desire to believe.
If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.
-Rene Descartes |
06-16-2009, 10:57 AM
| | Shaking You Violently Member #13034 | | Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 321
Thanks: 4
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Rep Power: 3 | |
Quote: Originally Posted by jblue1978
Quote: Originally Posted by Coloradomtnman
Quote: Originally Posted by jblue1978 OMFG you are SOO full of shit!!
Judeo-Christian Values in America have a basis in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."
Here, do you know how to fucking read?... American Thinker: Judeo-Christian Values
Doesn't sound Atheist to me. Get your facts right moron...
Anyway, lets stick to the thread, aye.... Quit derailing the conversation with your gas... Its says Creator, jblue, not the Christian God, Father of Jesus Christ. That means ANY religion. Our Founding Fathers separated church from state, but they wisely did not separate God from state; they acknowledged God as the source of our rights, and, in fact, they were careful to place Biblical morality directly into our founding documents and laws, and into our values and culture precisely to help prevent a future of totalitarian or tyrannical rule in America.
Sounds like "Christian" to me.... Wow, it's even in the title of their faith: Judeo- Christian Did you even try reading the article? Guess not... Judeo-Christian values is the name of the article Einstein. "Biblical morality" or more appropriately the Ten Commandments are pretty much common sense and can be translated to any number of religions. So show me the word "christian" in the Declaration or in any founder's documents and you have an argument. Otherwise you have no footing.  |
06-16-2009, 10:59 AM
| | Egaliterra Member #4196 | | Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: the West
Posts: 1,014
Thanks: 2
Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts
Rep Power: 8 | |
Quote: Originally Posted by Pale Rider
That's not quite the issue Cmm... what you're not mentioning is normal behavior as opposed to abnormal, deviant, perverted behavior. What's there to accept about normal? It is after all "normal." But to ask normal people to accept two men jamming each others cock up their asses is enough to make most normal people sick to their stomach in disgust. It's vile, it's perverted, it's sick, and these militant, bigot, fags demonizing anyone and everyone who DARES voice a differing opinion has got to end.
The prior Miss USA ordeal will no doubt shed much light on the BIGOTRY of the homos and their supporters.
Clint...Clint...
You're argument sounds like "I really don't like certain thaings! I wish they didn't exist!"
as opposed to A is true because of B, supported by C.
You're free to hate as much as you like, maybe you should care about homosexual sex quite as much. You're basically acting in the manner you accuse the 'gays' of acting.
__________________
Freedom is free - oppression costs money. |
06-16-2009, 11:00 AM
| | << Daarth Savior Member #8806 | | Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: under your skin
Posts: 14,189
Thanks: 425
Thanked 576 Times in 434 Posts
Rep Power: 20 | | Wait, wait, I think I get it...
The 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, not freedom from speech. 
__________________
PLEASE READ!: The contents of the above post is the educated opinion of the author. At times, said opinion is so strong it gets stated as fact. This is simply how the author chooses to express his deeply held opinion and should not be misconstrued to suggest more. Or it's a joke. Deal. |
06-16-2009, 11:03 AM
|  | Registered User Member #19686 | | Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 361
Thanks: 1
Thanked 14 Times in 12 Posts
Rep Power: 3 | | Colorado, Quote: I understand your point but this is my take on it: Christians, Muslims, etc., and traditionalists don't like the idea of marriage being something other than between a man and a woman. They don't want to accept that. However, they don't have to. All they have to do is get married to one person of the opposite gender. Two people of the same gender marrying has no direct effect on them. You can hold on to the traditional family as the core structure of your values and homosexual can marry and neither has to exclude the other.
Exceptional point until you add in the potentiality of offspring. But even beforehand, changing the definition of marriage, essentially changes its intended value and compromises a core foundation of this institution as it relates to maintstream socio-political values in this country. Again, Colorado, marriage is not a civil or human right. It's a subscription with mandatory qualifications predicated on it's cannons, no different than the boyscouts, no different than a corporate charter, as a demonstration. Quote: Says who? Who gets to corner the market on the definition of marriage? Christians? Muslims? Traditionalists? Why do they get to define marriage? What gives them the right? Because they are the majority? That is mob rule.
And not allowing same-sex marriages is discrimination by the government. If heterosexual can marry eachother, why can't homosexuals? It doesn't guarantee happiness but it does guarantee the right to pursue it. That's why its a right and why its an issue. Another reason why its discrimination is because there are homosexuals and hetersexual Americans whose religious beliefs are that they should be allowed to marry whom they love and not being allowed to do that is the imposition of one group's religious beliefs onto another's life. That violates the Freedom of Religion. I am reminded here of an issue regarding woman's rights in this country and the compromise of safety protocols to allow women into the fire department. This was around 1975 I believe. The standard/minimum weight a firefighter must carry a person out of a building was 150lbs. It was lowered after NOW (National Association of Women) won argument of discrimination against women because of gender, and successfully had those safety protocols lowered. This was a critical compromise in the viability of the fire department's general standards as was originally mandated for the good of the common public.
What this demonstrates is the disproportion and defunct ideology of exercising one's liberty by challenging simple common sense when it critically affects the common public. In the case of Same Sex Marriages, on a legislative level, it compromises a segment of core values of those who embrace marriage and the sanctity of marriage being that between a man and a woman for the sake of another's belief that they are being singled out of such a privilege. But in fact, they are not. The dynamic this couple simply do not qualify such a union uner the auspices of marriage.
Colorado, I have a meeting I have to get to... I'll continue later. Thanks for the civility as well. I greatly appreciate that. We might not find ourselves in complete agreement, no doubt. But your diplomacy is well received.
Anne Marie |
06-16-2009, 11:08 AM
| | Moderater Microchip Member #11994 | | Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Nowhere
Posts: 23,289
Thanks: 217
Thanked 1,096 Times in 909 Posts
Rep Power: 161 | | | Another gay-bashing thread from those who claim to not be gay ... not surprising one bit. |
06-16-2009, 11:16 AM
| | The Loneliest Highway Member #12120 | | Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,014
Thanks: 341
Thanked 103 Times in 76 Posts
Rep Power: 37 | |
Quote: Originally Posted by sidneyworld Exceptional point until you add in the potentiality of offspring. But even beforehand, changing the definition of marriage, essentially changes its intended value and compromises a core foundation of this institution as it relates to maintstream socio-political values in this country. Again, Colorado, marriage is not a civil or human right. It's a subscription with mandatory qualifications predicated on it's cannons, no different than the boyscouts, no different than a corporate charter, as a demonstration. Here's the difference: The boyscouts are a private organization. Corporations would violate Equal Opportunity. Marriage is a government status. The government should not discriminate.
Quote: Originally Posted by sidneyworld I am reminded here of an issue regarding woman's rights in this country and the compromise of safety protocols to allow women into the fire department. This was around 1975 I believe. The standard/minimum weight a firefighter must carry a person out of a building was 150lbs. It was lowered after NOW (National Association of Women) won argument of discrimination against women because of gender, and successfully had those safety protocols lowered. This was a critical compromise in the viability of the fire department's general standards as was originally mandated for the good of the common public. Let me say that the "common sense" you refer to could also be said to have "physical evidence" supporting it.
Quote: Originally Posted by sidneyworld What this demonstrates is the disproportion and defunct ideology of exercising one's liberty by challenging simple common sense when it critically affects the common public. In the case of Same Sex Marriages, on a legislative level, it compromises a segment of core values of those who embrace marriage and the sanctity of marriage being that between a man and a woman for the sake of another's belief that they are being singled out of such a privilege. How will government recognized same-sex marriages effect those who believe that marriage is between and man and woman? I believe that God doesn't exist and I don't go to Sunday Services. Does that effect your belief in God?
Same-sex couples aren't being singled out for a privelege, there are being granted the equality of sharing in that privelege.
Quote: Originally Posted by sidneyworld But in fact, they are not. The dynamic this couple simply do not qualify such a union uner the auspices of marriage. As per your definition, not mine.
Quote: Originally Posted by sidneyworld Colorado, I have a meeting I have to get to... I'll continue later. Thanks for the civility as well. I greatly appreciate that. We might not find ourselves in complete agreement, no doubt. But your diplomacy is well received.
Anne Marie My pleasure. We'll argue more when you get back.
__________________
Faith is nothing more than the desire to believe.
If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.
-Rene Descartes |
06-16-2009, 11:48 AM
| | Liberals suck. Member #1322 | | Join Date: May 2004 Location: You can't get there from here.
Posts: 12,220
Thanks: 497
Thanked 415 Times in 323 Posts
Rep Power: 120 | | ***
Quote: Originally Posted by Coloradomtnman
Quote: Originally Posted by Pale Rider Well, then I appreciate your calm, sensible reply, but we'll have to leave it at we agree to disagree, because I DO find homosexuality vile, disgusting, perverted and sick, and I'm in line with the majority of people. But in this country because you find someone's act or lifestyle in poor taste doesn't mean you get to discriminate against them. Just because you bring the word discriminate into the debate with no prior discrimination present, it doesn't mean I or anyone else has discriminated against homos. You're spinning and using a buzz word to deflect. The issue at hand is the militant responses normal people get from homos and their supporters when they voice an opinion that's different from the homo agenda.
Quote: Originally Posted by Pale Rider It's not my intention to demonize homosexuality either, although I'll hold nothing back when describing it. Since sucking each others cocks and ramming them up each others butt holes is what they do, then that's what I'll say. That's okay with me since I hate "PC" as well and it IS what gay men do...
I don't find it perverted because I know many homosexuals and I think that they are just like everyone else except they suck eachothers' cocks, ram it up eachothers' buttholes, lick eachothers' muffs, etc. I like to do those same things, only with my girlfriend, so nope, I'm not homosexual, and I really dislike the idea of sucking cocks or hairy asses, so I don't have any tendencies to be one either.
Have you ever read Shaespeare? "Methinks you doth protest too much!" Not accusing...just guessing. You see no difference between you having anal sex with your wife, a female, instead of having it with another man? Are you being obtuse for lack of a better argument?
And no, I'm not the one that claimed I didn't think it was perverse, you were. So aping my comment won't get you very far. It sounds more like, "nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, naaaah, nah, I know you are but what am I," than anything else.
Quote: Originally Posted by Pale Rider God makes it perfectly clear what he thinks about homos and their perverted actions, so it's not up to me to judge or demonize. God said their blood shall be upon them and they will surely die. I'll leave it at that. What about Freedom of Religion and those of us who don't believe in God or the same God you do? Whatever. Believe what you want.
Quote: Originally Posted by Pale Rider But the homos and their supporters HAVE been waging ALL OUT WAR against ANYONE who DARE speak out against them with a differing opinion, and NOTHING has DEMONSTRATED THAT BETTER than this last offensive against the former Miss USA. Their BIGOTRY will be on stark display for all to see as Miss USA goes forward with her law suit. It's going to be a bad time for homos and their war against normal people. I think this is an issue which will die out as not really being all the important, whether it was the homosexual community throwing a fit, or the conservative Right. Sure it will die out, but before it does it's going to leave a lasting impression in people's minds about the BIGOTRY of the homos and their supporters.
Last edited by Pale Rider; 06-16-2009 at 11:52 AM.
|
06-16-2009, 11:58 AM
|  | <--- Oh . . . snap Member #13669 | | Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Just off to the side of wherever you are
Posts: 8,396
Thanks: 536
Thanked 951 Times in 715 Posts
Rep Power: 213 | |
Quote: Originally Posted by Coloradomtnman
Quote: Originally Posted by Zoom-boing Don't know if that number is accurate but homosexuals are the minority in this country. So, why all the cow-towing to them? Because that's what this country has become, a country that favors the minority and the majority be damned. No, this is a country that favors equal rights and the majority be damned. Equal rights for all is fine but I don't believe that is how it is in this country at this time. The minority is greatly favored at the expense of many other factors. Have to hire someone? Must meet your 'minority quota', even if it means hiring a less qualified person for the job. How's that make sense?
__________________   Talk is cheap, it's what you do that counts. "My commitment is make sure that we've got universal health care for all Americans by the end of my first term as president.
But I don't think we're going to be able to elminate employer coverage immediately.
There's going to be potentially some transition process I can envision a decade out or 15 or 20 years out."
Barack Obama 3/24/07 | | The Following User Says Thank You to Zoom-boing For This Useful Post: | | | |
Lower Navigation
| | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
| | |
|
| » Site Navigation | | | | » Apple iPad Forum | | | |
