Gay Couple Says Waitress Told Them 'We Don't Serve Fags Here'

[Seawytch]

Do you use dildos with your partners or have you ever used a dildo with your partners?

Do you?

No, I already have a penis. Why would I need to? How about yourself? Might as well ask since we are being all out on the open here.

Why do you want to know. Can't get it up the conventional way?

I don't need a penis or a fake penis. Fingers and tongues have more than sufficed.

 

[LockeJaw]

Those male parts are 50% responsible for all Human life.

Essential? You bet your ass they are.

You're right, but she was refering to them not being essential for her to enjoy her perversion in the bedroom. They're homosexuals and base their entire life on that fact, sex on the mind...all other aspects of reality be damned as long as she can be a deviant pervert.

Gay humans have been known in every society ever known. How can a human trait be a "deviant perversion"?

Grab a dictionary, maybe that will help you out. You've posted numerous falsehoods(science has found the gay gene, gays are more the 2% of the US population), all have been debunked...and then you just come back the next day and spout off the same lies as if they weren't disproven already.

Either you don't care to know that you're wrong on these things or you're extremely bullheaded. Either way, I'm not interested in discussing things with people who cannot admit when they're wrong. It gets boring & tedious.

 

[Seawytch]

So? What does that have to do with civil marriage? Put 100 couples over the age of 60 on the island and you will get the same results. Put young infertile couples on your island, same result.



You keep repeating the "males and females procreate" line like it matters. Procreation isn't required for marriage, marriage isn't required to procreate and it's love, not DNA, that makes a family.

Yes, love creates a family, not sexual orientation.

But only one coupling can create a family that consists of more than two. Even same sex adoptive couples rely on that formula.

You mean infertile or adoptive straight couples "rely"on someone else's "coupling"...so why do they get civil marriage in your world...other than plain old bigotry?

 

[Peach]

You're right, but she was refering to them not being essential for her to enjoy her perversion in the bedroom. They're homosexuals and base their entire life on that fact, sex on the mind...all other aspects of reality be damned as long as she can be a deviant pervert.

Gay humans have been known in every society ever known. How can a human trait be a "deviant perversion"?

Straw man

Exchange gay humans for murders, cheats, frauds, pedophiles or rapists. They all have existed throughout history, therefor?

All of the above have been discriminated against? How exactly?

There is no comparison; you could substitute "short" or "tall" for any of the criminals/crimes listed also.

 

[LockeJaw]

Just by the way you're responding I can tell you're lying. You use dildos everyday.

Do you?

No, I already have a penis. Why would I need to? How about yourself? Might as well ask since we are being all out on the open here.

Why do you want to know. Can't get it up the conventional way?

I don't need a penis or a fake penis. Fingers and tongues have more than sufficed.

 

[Peach]

You're right, but she was refering to them not being essential for her to enjoy her perversion in the bedroom. They're homosexuals and base their entire life on that fact, sex on the mind...all other aspects of reality be damned as long as she can be a deviant pervert.

Gay humans have been known in every society ever known. How can a human trait be a "deviant perversion"?

Grab a dictionary, maybe that will help you out. You've posted numerous falsehoods(science has found the gay gene, gays are more the 2% of the US population), all have been debunked...and then you just come back the next day and spout off the same lies as if they weren't disproven already.

Either you don't care to know that you're wrong on these things or you're extremely bullheaded. Either way, I'm not interested in discussing things with people who cannot admit when they're wrong. It gets boring & tedious.

Yet I continue to attempt debate with you. Now, gay humans are down to only 2% of the population. The genetic foundations of humans being gay is complex:

Simon LeVay: The Paradox of Gay Genes

In any event, not a "perversion" nor a threat to the species.

 

[Pop23]

Yes, love creates a family, not sexual orientation.

But only one coupling can create a family that consists of more than two. Even same sex adoptive couples rely on that formula.

You mean infertile or adoptive straight couples "rely"on someone else's "coupling"...so why do they get civil marriage in your world...other than plain old bigotry?

All male female dear, ALL. You can cry all you want, you can make things up then cry bigot until you lose your shrill lil voice

Truth is truth, facts are facts. All children come from the components of males and female.

Until you figure out that it is nature that provides these truths, not man, you will continue your sad lil outbursts

Tell me SeaWytch, is nature also a bigot?

 

[LockeJaw]

What are you, stuck in a time warp or something? LaVey's research has already been found to be extremely lacking, it provides ZERO concrete proof of a gay gene, noone else found the same findings when they tried to reproduce his work, and let's not forget that LaVey was an open homosexual himself and is even quoted as saying"If I do not find the gay gene, I will give up on science altogether"...a bit fishy eh? Probably not to a willfully ignorant dufus like yourself. But here goes a HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVIST saying the exact same thing, there is NO evidence for a gay gene, just speculation. Link: http://socialinqueery.com/2013/03/18/no-one-is-born-gay-or-straight-here-are-5-reasons-why/
Snippet- "2. The science is wrong (Part 1): People like to cite “the overwhelming scientific evidence” that sexual orientation is biological in nature.* But show me a study that claims to have proven this, and I will show you a flawed research design.* Let’s take one example:* In 2000, a team of researchers at UC Berkeley conducted a study*in which they found that lesbians were more likely than heterosexual women to have a “masculine” hand structure.**Presumably, most men have a longer ring finger than index finger, whereas most women have the opposite (or they have index and ring fingers of the same length).* Lesbians, according to this study, are more likely than straight women to have what we might call “male-pattern hands.” *The researchers concluded that this finding supports their theory that lesbianism might be caused by a “fetal androgyn wash” in the womb—that is, when female fetuses are exposed to greater levels of a masculinizing hormone, it shows up later in the form of female masculinity: *male-pattern hands and… attraction to women. *But this study makes the same error that countless others have made: it does not properly distinguish between gender (whether one is masculine or feminine) and sexual orientation (heterosexuality or homosexuality).* Simply put, the fact that a woman is “masculine” (itself a social construction) or has been introduced to greater levels of a male hormone need not have anything to do with whether she is attracted to women. *We would only assume this if we had already accepted the heteronormative premise that masculine people (or men) are naturally attracted to femaleness and*that normal (i.e., feminine) women are naturally attracted to men.* Herein lies the bias.** Many “masculine” women who are heterosexual (have you been to the rural South?) would like us to know that their gender does not line up with their sexual desire in any predictable way.* And many very feminine lesbians would like us to know this too.* The bottom line is that ideas about sexual desire are so bound up with misconceptions about gender and with the presumption that heterosexuality is nature’s default, that science has yet to approach this subject in an objective way.* For a comprehensive examination of the flaws in the most widely cited research on sexual orientation, see Rebecca Jordan-Young’s brilliant book Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences (Harvard University Press, 2011).

3.* The science is wrong (Part II): An even greater problem with the science of sexual orientation is that it seeks to find the genetic causes of gayness, as if we all agree about what gayness is.* To say that “being gay” is genetic is to engage in science that hinges on a very historically recent and specifically European-American understanding of what being gay means. *In Ancient Greece, sex between elite men and adolescent boys was a common and normative cultural practice. According to historians Michel Foucault and Jonathan Ned Katz, these relationships were considered the most praise-worthy, substantive and Godly forms of love (whereas sex between a man and a woman was, for all intents and purposes, sex between a man and his slave).* If men having frequent and sincere sex with one another is what we mean by “gay,” then do we really believe that something so fundamentally different was happening in the Ancient Athenian gene pool?* Did some evolutionary occurrence enable Plato’s ancestors to get rid of all of those heterosexual genes?* And what about native cultures in which all boys engage in homosexual rites of passage? *Do we imagine that we could identify some genetic evidence of propensity to ingest sperm as part of a cultural initiation into manhood?* What about all of the cultures around the globe in which male homosexual sex does not signal gayness except for under certain specific circumstances (e.g., you are only gay if you are the receptive sexual partner, or if you are feminine)?* And while I am on this subject, what about the fact the United States is precisely one of those cultures? *When young college women lick each other’s boobs at frat parties, or when young college men stick their fingers in each other’s butts while being hazed by their frat brothers, we don’t call this gay—we call this “girls gone wild” or “hazing.” *My point here is that a lot of people engage in homosexual behavior, but somehow we talk about the genetic origins of homosexuality as if we are clear about who is gay and who is not, and as if it’s also clear that “gay genes” are possessed only by people who are culturally and politically gay (you know, the people who are*seriously*gay).* This is a bit arbitrary, don’t you think?

Just 150 years ago, scientists went searching for the physiological evidence that women were hysterical.* Hysteria, by Victorian medical definition, meant that a woman’s uterus had become dislodged from its proper location and was floating around her body causing all sorts of trouble—like feminism, and other matters of grave concern.* And guess what, they found the evidence, and they published books and articles to prove it.* They also looked for and found the evidence that all people of African and Asian ancestry were intellectually and morally inferior to people of European Ancestry.* Many books were published dedicated to establishing these obviously absurd and violent beliefs as legitimate and indisputable scientific facts.* Similarly, the science of sexual orientation has a long and disturbing history.* In the late 1800s and early 1900s, it was believed that homosexuals had beady eyes, particularly angular facial structures, and “bad blood.”* Today, we apparently have gender variant fingers and gay brains.

Is it possible that people who identify themselves as “gay” in the United States (again, keep in mind that “gay” is a culturally and historically specific concept), share some common physiology?* Perhaps.* But even if this is so, do we really know why?* Indeed, we may find (as Simon LeVay did) that men who identify as gay share a certain trait—a larger VIP SCN nucleus of the hypothalamus, for instance.* But how do we know that this “enlargement” is a symptom or cause of their homosexuality, and not, say, a symptom or cause of their general propensity for bravery, creativity, or rebellion?* In a homophobic culture, you need some bravery (and other awesome traits) to be queer. *Perhaps these personality traits are what are actually being observed under the microscope.

And, of course, there is the time-eternal question: why aren’t scientists looking for the genetic causes of heterosexuality?* Or masturbation?* Or interest in oral sex?* The reason is that none of these sex acts currently violate social norms, at least not strongly enough to be perceived as sexual aberrations.* But this was not always true.* In the 19th century, scientists were interested in the biological origins of the “masturbation perversion.”* They were interested because they believed it was pathological, and because they wanted to know whether it could be repaired.

At the end of the day, what we can count on is that the science of sexual orientation will produce data that simply mirror the most crass and sexist gender binarisms circulating in the popular imagination. *This research will report that women are innately more sexually fluid than men, capable of being turned-on by almost anything and everything (hmmm…. other than in Lisa Diamond’s research, where have I seen that idea before?* Ah yes, heterosexual pornography.)* *It will report that men are sexually rigid, their desires impermeable.* It will tell us that straight men simply cannot be aroused by men and that gay men are virtually hardwired to be repulsed by the thought of sex with women. *Regardless of what else we might say about the soundness of these studies, what is evident to me is that they have been used to authorize many a straight man’s homophobia, and many a gay man’s misogyny."

So get with the times, Peach. There is no evidence for a gay gene...period.
"

Gay humans have been known in every society ever known. How can a human trait be a "deviant perversion"?

Grab a dictionary, maybe that will help you out. You've posted numerous falsehoods(science has found the gay gene, gays are more the 2% of the US population), all have been debunked...and then you just come back the next day and spout off the same lies as if they weren't disproven already.

Either you don't care to know that you're wrong on these things or you're extremely bullheaded. Either way, I'm not interested in discussing things with people who cannot admit when they're wrong. It gets boring & tedious.

Yet I continue to attempt debate with you. Now, gay humans are down to only 2% of the population. The genetic foundations of humans being gay is complex:

Simon LeVay: The Paradox of Gay Genes

In any event, not a "perversion" nor a threat to the species.

 

[Peach]

Locke at one time argued neither atheists nor Catholics could be a true part of society.

From 2014:

Male sexual orientation influenced by genes, study shows | Science | The Guardian

Not a "gene" but still a part of NATURAL human variances, as I have often written:

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-12/being-born-gay-isnt-your-genes-its-them

 

[LockeJaw]

Locke at one time argued neither atheists nor Catholics could be a true part of society.

From 2014:

Male sexual orientation influenced by genes, study shows | Science | The Guardian

Simon LaVeys on words, "It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work."

Now stop spreading lies. We know why folks like yourself are out there lying to people. If people percieve homosexuality to be genetic, they'll be less weary of normalizing it. That part of the agenda was outlined in "After The Ball".

So give me the honest truth...are you actually a dupe or do you know what you are pushing is a lie, but the ends justify the means, so you don't care about lying? Be honest...

 

[Seawytch]

Just by the way you're responding I can tell you're lying. You use dildos everyday.

No, I already have a penis. Why would I need to? How about yourself? Might as well ask since we are being all out on the open here.

Why do you want to know. Can't get it up the conventional way?



I don't need a penis or a fake penis. Fingers and tongues have more than sufficed.

Sounds like deflection to me...

I wish I was having sex everyday, dildo or no...but, alas, we have children.

 

[Peach]

Locke at one time argued neither atheists nor Catholics could be a true part of society.

From 2014:

Male sexual orientation influenced by genes, study shows | Science | The Guardian

Simon LaVeys on words, "It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work."

Now stop spreading lies. We know why folks like yourself are out there lying to people. If people percieve homosexuality to be genetic, they'll be less weary of normalizing it. That part of the agenda was outlined in "After The Ball".

So give me the honest truth...are you actually a dupe or do you know what you are pushing is a lie, but the ends justify the means, so you don't care about lying? Be honest...

Neither, of course. More sources, all showing a natural variance:

Biology and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Writing too quickly is not lying, accusing others of lies because of abbreviated statements does reflect dishonesty.

Being gay is not a choice, nor is being obese, purely a choice. Genetic variances cannot be brushed off as "choices".

 

[Seawytch]

But only one coupling can create a family that consists of more than two. Even same sex adoptive couples rely on that formula.

You mean infertile or adoptive straight couples "rely"on someone else's "coupling"...so why do they get civil marriage in your world...other than plain old bigotry?

All male female dear, ALL. You can cry all you want, you can make things up then cry bigot until you lose your shrill lil voice

Truth is truth, facts are facts. All children come from the components of males and female.

Until you figure out that it is nature that provides these truths, not man, you will continue your sad lil outbursts

Tell me SeaWytch, is nature also a bigot?

Your idea of "Nature" doesn't have anything to do with civil law. Is procreation required anywhere for civil marriage? No...rendering your "argument" a smelly fish.

 

[Pop23]

You mean infertile or adoptive straight couples "rely"on someone else's "coupling"...so why do they get civil marriage in your world...other than plain old bigotry?

All male female dear, ALL. You can cry all you want, you can make things up then cry bigot until you lose your shrill lil voice

Truth is truth, facts are facts. All children come from the components of males and female.

Until you figure out that it is nature that provides these truths, not man, you will continue your sad lil outbursts

Tell me SeaWytch, is nature also a bigot?

Your idea of "Nature" doesn't have anything to do with civil law. Is procreation required anywhere for civil marriage? No...rendering your "argument" a smelly fish.

So is nature bigoted or not. How can man make two groups the equal when the mightiest force known cannot?

You choose an obsession over reality. Your problem, nobody else's.

Interesting

 

[LockeJaw]

Yep. You have major penis envy issues alright. Nope, no deflecting. I have 4 kids myself, I still have sex pretty much every night. You should get a bigger house, preferably two stories so that they get the downstairs and you get the upstairs. I have a makeshift music studio in my bedroom so I had it soundproofed. Hope that helps you get laid more often.

Just by the way you're responding I can tell you're lying. You use dildos everyday.

Why do you want to know. Can't get it up the conventional way?



I don't need a penis or a fake penis. Fingers and tongues have more than sufficed.

Sounds like deflection to me...

I wish I was having sex everyday, dildo or no...but, alas, we have children.

 

[Peach]

Just by the way you're responding I can tell you're lying. You use dildos everyday.

Why do you want to know. Can't get it up the conventional way?

I don't need a penis or a fake penis. Fingers and tongues have more than sufficed.

Sounds like deflection to me...

I wish I was having sex everyday, dildo or no...but, alas, we have children.

As America moves towards legalizing marriage between more and more gay Americans, that "problem" will only grow worse. : ) We are rid of the " its illegal" chain that bound us ALL, thank God. Florida banned adoption by gay Americans until not too long before Lawrence V. Texas, I believe.

 

[Seawytch]

Yep. You have major penis envy issues alright. Nope, no deflecting. I have 4 kids myself, I still have sex pretty much every night. You should get a bigger house, preferably two stories so that they get the downstairs and you get the upstairs. I have a makeshift music studio in my bedroom so I had it soundproofed. Hope that helps you get laid more often.

Just by the way you're responding I can tell you're lying. You use dildos everyday.

Sounds like deflection to me...



I wish I was having sex everyday, dildo or no...but, alas, we have children.

Yes I do have penis envy...when camping only...otherwise I haven't suffered from my or my bondmate's lack of one. You obviously are though. I'm sorry. Was it an industrial accident?

My house isn't set up for soundproof sex. Glad you can enjoy yourself all alone though.

 

[Seawytch]

All male female dear, ALL. You can cry all you want, you can make things up then cry bigot until you lose your shrill lil voice

Truth is truth, facts are facts. All children come from the components of males and female.

Until you figure out that it is nature that provides these truths, not man, you will continue your sad lil outbursts

Tell me SeaWytch, is nature also a bigot?

Your idea of "Nature" doesn't have anything to do with civil law. Is procreation required anywhere for civil marriage? No...rendering your "argument" a smelly fish.

So is nature bigoted or not. How can man make two groups the equal when the mightiest force known cannot?

You choose an obsession over reality. Your problem, nobody else's.

Interesting

Nature doesn't want to deny me a civil marriage license, you do...while still granting it to infertile straight couples.

 

[Peach]

Your idea of "Nature" doesn't have anything to do with civil law. Is procreation required anywhere for civil marriage? No...rendering your "argument" a smelly fish.

So is nature bigoted or not. How can man make two groups the equal when the mightiest force known cannot?

You choose an obsession over reality. Your problem, nobody else's.

Interesting

Nature doesn't want to deny me a civil marriage license, you do...while still granting it to infertile straight couples.

The DOMA required procreation, of course ; )

 

[LockeJaw]

What you mean by that is that you can't make love to a woman good enough to need a soundproof room, right Seahag? Keep displaying your jealousy of my penis, it's very entertaining to watch your penis envy manifest before the whole board's eyes.

Lol

Yep. You have major penis envy issues alright. Nope, no deflecting. I have 4 kids myself, I still have sex pretty much every night. You should get a bigger house, preferably two stories so that they get the downstairs and you get the upstairs. I have a makeshift music studio in my bedroom so I had it soundproofed. Hope that helps you get laid more often.

Sounds like deflection to me...



I wish I was having sex everyday, dildo or no...but, alas, we have children.

Yes I do have penis envy...when camping only...otherwise I haven't suffered from my or my bondmate's lack of one. You obviously are though. I'm sorry. Was it an industrial accident?

My house isn't set up for soundproof sex. Glad you can enjoy yourself all alone though.