God bless Texas

[Bullypulpit]

I wonder if there is ANY speculation as to which way the Missus and I voted?

Against?

 

[Gunny]

If anyone is sick here, it's you. Why don't you read your little rant aloud, and just see how bad-crazy it sounds. What are you afraid of?...That if same-gender couples are allowed to have families and lives like straight couples you're going to wake up queer the next morning? Gimme a break! And while you're at it why don't you provide proof of any demonstrable harm by same-gender couples in committed, long term relationships to either themselves or the community at large. Until then, just STFU, before you say something else stupid.

I beg to differ. Those of you attempting to shove abnormal behavior down our throats and create special laws that cater only to them are the ones that are sick.

What you lefties need is your own little fascist Nation where no one is allowed to think outside the little box you prescribe for them. Feel free to get the Hell out of mine and go find one more suiting your intolerance to democracy.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

I beg to differ. Those of you attempting to shove abnormal behavior down our throats and create special laws that cater only to them are the ones that are sick.

What you lefties need is your own little fascist Nation where no one is allowed to think outside the little box you prescribe for them. Feel free to get the Hell out of mine and go find one more suiting your intolerance to democracy.

We just want consenting adults to be able to do whatever they want without intolerant people like you forcing them to do what you want them to do. Nobody's trying to force you to be gay or to marry another man. You don't even have to consider it as normal behavior. But let the people who do, do so. What you righties need is to stop trying to control everybody's lives by forcing them to conform to your Christian viewpoints. Practice your religion but let the rest of society do whatever it is that they want to do. Just because you believe something doesn't automatically mean that everyone else should believe it too. When you ban things like this you're forcing other people to conform to your values and you're restricting them from living by theirs. That's unconstitutional man.

The irony here is that you accuse libs of being the intolerant, narrow-minded fascists, but it's your kind who are banning things because you don't tolerate them. It's ridiculous hypocrisy.

 

[Avatar4321]

We just want consenting adults to be able to do whatever they want without intolerant people like you forcing them to do what you want them to do. Nobody's trying to force you to be gay or to marry another man. You don't even have to consider it as normal behavior. But let the people who do, do so. What you righties need is to stop trying to control everybody's lives by forcing them to conform to your Christian viewpoints. Practice your religion but let the rest of society do whatever it is that they want to do. Just because you believe something doesn't automatically mean that everyone else should believe it too. When you ban things like this you're forcing other people to conform to your values and you're restricting them from living by theirs. That's unconstitutional man.

The irony here is that you accuse libs of being the intolerant, narrow-minded fascists, but it's your kind who are banning things because you don't tolerate them. It's ridiculous hypocrisy.

Um you freaking idiot. Protecting marriage as between a man and a woman doesn't prevent homosexuals from engaging in perverted sex. they have been doing it for decades with marriage the way its always been.

No Christian is trying to force our way of life on anyone. We are just trying to keep a fringe minority from forcing their perversion on us. Get it right.

And contrary to that appalling Supreme court decision, there is no right to gay sex. In fact, there is no right to sex period. If there was then women have been preventing men from exercising their constitutional rights for centuries.

 

[007]

If anyone is sick here, it's you. Why don't you read your little rant aloud, and just see how bad-crazy it sounds. What are you afraid of?...That if same-gender couples are allowed to have families and lives like straight couples you're going to wake up queer the next morning? Gimme a break! And while you're at it why don't you provide proof of any demonstrable harm by same-gender couples in committed, long term relationships to either themselves or the community at large. Until then, just STFU, before you say something else stupid.

You gotta be the dumbest, most pathetic fucker this board has ever seen. You are a moron extraodiniare. This is what I said your kind would do....

They throw the best barrage of caustic, vile, shrill, invective name calling and character assisnation at you that they can muster. It borders on lunacy. It's a shout down. They expect you to shut the fuck up and cower.

... and that's EXACTLY what you did. I've told you before pulit that you are as predictable as day and night. You can't help yourself. Your brain is so full of liberal CRAP you're completely OUT OF TOUCH.

Well guess what shit for brains, your grotesque line of bull shit and liberal sass hasn't worked on me in the past, and it isn't going to work now. You've run into a dead end here, and you know it.

Get your fat, pimply face over to moveon.org and tell them how lovely it is for men to fuck each other up the ass. They love to hear that kind of SICK SHIT over there. It doesn't cut it here.

Shove off idiot.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Um you freaking idiot. Protecting marriage as between a man and a woman doesn't prevent homosexuals from engaging in perverted sex. they have been doing it for decades with marriage the way its always been.

No Christian is trying to force our way of life on anyone. We are just trying to keep a fringe minority from forcing their perversion on us. Get it right.

And contrary to that appalling Supreme court decision, there is no right to gay sex. In fact, there is no right to sex period. If there was then women have been preventing men from exercising their constitutional rights for centuries.

Haha, I like the name-calling. What a joke. You and yours are banning homos from marrying each other because it goes against how YOU think marriages or "civil unions" should be defined. It's intolerant and unfair to them because they want to marry each other--you're not taking anybody's viewpoints into account but your own (see "narrow-mindedness). Leaving marriage or "civil unions" open to everyone doesn't ruin hetero marriage at all. It just opens up the possibility for other types of couples to marry each other too. Also, why do you care so much about getting the law involved in the sexual acts consenting adults participate in behind closed doors? Stay out of other people's personal lives!

By the way, I knew one of you guys would be intolerant enough, narrow-minded enough and gosh-darn it, petty enough to negative-rep me for telling the truth. I must have hit pretty close to the mark to get you so riled up. It's just too bad that people on your "ignore" list can still influence your rep.

Anyway, here it is again in all it's glory:

We just want consenting adults to be able to do whatever they want without intolerant people like you forcing them to do what you want them to do. Nobody's trying to force you to be gay or to marry another man. You don't even have to consider it as normal behavior. But let the people who do, do so. What you righties need is to stop trying to control everybody's lives by forcing them to conform to your Christian viewpoints. Practice your religion but let the rest of society do whatever it is that they want to do. Just because you believe something doesn't automatically mean that everyone else should believe it too. When you ban things like this you're forcing other people to conform to your values and you're restricting them from living by theirs. That's unconstitutional man.

The irony here is that you accuse libs of being the intolerant, narrow-minded fascists, but it's your kind who are banning things because you don't tolerate them. It's ridiculous hypocrisy.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

If you think gay marriage "threatens the sanctity of marriage," how about a man or woman who gets married over and over again and keeps getting divorced multiple times? Should divorce be banned? It threatens the sanctity of marriage! What about couples who meet in Reno or Vegas and get married in the Chapel-o-love on a whim? Should that be banned? It threatens the holy sanctity of marriage! Your "sanctity" argument is full-o-holes.

hahhahahha, thats funny, cuz those attacks on the sancitity of marriage all come from the left also, no fault divorce!

But anyways, your arguement is sooo damn stupid. So, many are trying to keep marriage as a sanctified relationship, and a method of keeping our society stronger, so it is having its problems,,,so, lets jump on the bandwagon and weaken it even more...yea,

Like saying, well, my car is running crappy anyways, why not drive it on a flat tire !

Now, the divorce courts are up to their necks already, and it causes kids to often wind up with the wrong parent cuz the judge doesnt have enough time to investigate the situation, now all we need is gay couples crowding the courts even more fighting over who gets the pink poodle.

 

[007]

You and yours are banning homos from marrying each other because it goes against how YOU think marriages or "civil unions" should be defined.

Wrong. Marriage is the holy union of a MAN and a WOMAN. Get that through your thick liberal skull.

It's intolerant and unfair to them because they want to marry each other--you're not taking anybody's viewpoints into account but your own.

Wrong. YOU are INTOLERANT of NORMAL PEOPLE. The VAST MAJORITY feel marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN. YOU are the outcast, thinking men should marry men.

Leaving marriage or "civil unions" open to everyone doesn't ruin hetero marriage at all.

Wrong. NO ONE said they opposed civil unions for queers.

Stay out of other people's personal lives!

Would love to, but the fags just keeping pushing their sickness, and want for special treatment at people. We're sick of it. They are the ones who should stop.

By the way, I knew one of you intolerant righties would negative-rep me for telling the truth.

Wrong. You've spoken no truth at all.

Yes I neg'ed ya. Expect it when you spill such idiotic rhetoric.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Haha, I like the name-calling. What a joke. You and yours are banning homos from marrying each other because it goes against how YOU think marriages or "civil unions" should be defined. It's intolerant and unfair to them because they want to marry each other--you're not taking anybody's viewpoints into account but your own (see "narrow-mindedness). Leaving marriage or "civil unions" open to everyone doesn't ruin hetero marriage at all. It just opens up the possibility for other types of couples to marry each other too. Also, why do you care so much about getting the law involved in the sexual acts consenting adults participate in behind closed doors? Stay out of other people's personal lives!

By the way, I knew one of you guys would be intolerant enough, narrow-minded enough and gosh-darn it, petty enough to negative-rep me for telling the truth. I must have hit pretty close to the mark to get you so riled up. It's just too bad that people on your "ignore" list can still influence your rep.

Anyway, here it is again in all it's glory:

Socially speaking, marriage is an institution that helps promote healthy enviorments for kids to grow up in. Kids need a good male and female role model. WIthout it, they lose out on so many social skills to lead to a happy quality life.

Allowing homosexuals to marry wont help this, it will only hurt it. Kids will suffer because of it, but DAMN THEM KIDS anyways, the butt fuckers have ot have their needs met.

But anyways, what rights do I have that a homosexual doesnt?

You also forget, that certain ACTIVITIES can curtail a persons rights. People dont get CONSTITUTIONAL rights as a result of behaviors they exhibit. If anything, they lose them.

And finally, the people spoke. WE DONT WANT IT. Capiche? Too bad for you,,if you dont like it, go fuck yourself, hahhaha, or better yet, go fuck a homo,,,,what,,,you arent gay,,,you intolerant bastard, how do you know you wouldnt like gay sex, have you ever tried it? A little prejudiced arent you?

 

[Hagbard Celine]

hahhahahha, thats funny, cuz those attacks on the sancitity of marriage all come from the left also, no fault divorce!

But anyways, your arguement is sooo damn stupid. So, many are trying to keep marriage as a sanctified relationship, and a method of keeping our society stronger, so it is having its problems,,,so, lets jump on the bandwagon and weaken it even more...yea,

Like saying, well, my car is running crappy anyways, why not drive it on a flat tire !

Now, the divorce courts are up to their necks already, and it causes kids to often wind up with the wrong parent cuz the judge doesnt have enough time to investigate the situation, now all we need is gay couples crowding the courts even more fighting over who gets the pink poodle.

Luvergirl, are you saying that gays are being banned from marrying each other to protect the institution of marriage "cuz" it has already been made "crappy" by heteros who have abused it? Listen, I appreciate the help, but I've pretty much sealed this argument. You can relax with the support posts.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Socially speaking, marriage is an institution that helps promote healthy enviorments for kids to grow up in. Kids need a good male and female role model. WIthout it, they lose out on so many social skills to lead to a happy quality life.

Allowing homosexuals to marry wont help this, it will only hurt it. Kids will suffer because of it, but DAMN THEM KIDS anyways, the butt fuckers have ot have their needs met.

But anyways, what rights do I have that a homosexual doesnt?

You also forget, that certain ACTIVITIES can curtail a persons rights. People dont get CONSTITUTIONAL rights as a result of behaviors they exhibit. If anything, they lose them.

And finally, the people spoke. WE DONT WANT IT. Capiche? Too bad for you,,if you dont like it, go fuck yourself, hahhaha, or better yet, go fuck a homo,,,,what,,,you arent gay,,,you intolerant bastard, how do you know you wouldnt like gay sex, have you ever tried it? A little prejudiced arent you?

Wouldn't you agree that an adopted baby would be better off growing up in a loving "gay" household than an abusive, foster household?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Luvergirl, are you saying that gays are being banned from marrying each other to protect the institution of marriage "cuz" it has already been made "crappy" by heteros who have abused it? Listen, I appreciate the help, but I've pretty much sealed this argument. You can relax with the support posts.

no, thats not what I said. I said, even though it is having problems as compared to say 50 years ago, is NO EXCUSE to add onto the problems. What the fuck, are you brain dead?

You do see the difference dont you?

You are arguing its ok to add to the destruction of marriage, cuz its already fucked up.

Im saying, its NOT ok to add to it, for that reason. SIMPLE.

Im pointing out the fallacy in YOUR ARGUEMENT, its not mine.

My arguement is that marriage is a social institution to help promote healthy families, man, woman, children.

WIthout it, even in its easily divorced situation brought on by no fault divorce of liberals, it would be even worse. Men are notoriously NOT MONOGAMOUS. Marriage helps to keep them at home and raise kids. You do realize that over 90% of prison inmates come from fatherless homes.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Wouldn't you agree that an adopted baby would be better off growing up in a loving "gay" household than an abusive, foster household?

Why would you compare the two? Its not an either or situation. Eliminate the abusive foster homes. You dont need to create gay adoption to do that.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

no, thats not what I said. I said, even though it is having problems as compared to say 50 years ago, is NO EXCUSE to add onto the problems. What the fuck, are you brain dead?

You do see the difference dont you?

You are arguing its ok to add to the destruction of marriage, cuz its already fucked up.

Im saying, its NOT ok to add to it, for that reason. SIMPLE.

Im pointing out the fallacy in YOUR ARGUEMENT, its not mine.

My arguement is that marriage is a social institution to help promote healthy families, man, woman, children.

WIthout it, even in its easily divorced situation brought on by no fault divorce of liberals, it would be even worse. Men are notoriously NOT MONOGAMOUS. Marriage helps to keep them at home and raise kids. You do realize that over 90% of prison inmates come from fatherless homes.

No, I never said that marriage is "f*cked up." You did. Why would you say something like that? Do you have something against marriage? Do you have some agenda we all need to know about Luvergirl?

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Eliminate the abusive foster homes. You dont need to create gay adoption to do that.

Oh well, if it's that simple...

What about low-income foster homes? Wouldn't an adopted baby being raised by loving adoptive gay or lesbian parents in a middle or upperclass, financially stable environment be better off than one who is passed around poverty-stricken foster homes?

 

[007]

Wouldn't you agree that an adopted baby would be better off growing up in a loving "gay" household than an abusive, foster household?

This is so much bull shit!! What the fuck makes you think faggots are "loving" and "caring", and capable of teaching a NORMAL child how to be NORMAL?

You need to do some reading lib...

MARRIAGE DIGEST: New study: Homosexual men prone to promiscuity
Jan 16, 2004
By Michael Foust
Baptist Press
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--A new study by a group of University of Chicago researchers reveals a high level of promiscuity and unhealthy behavior among that city's homosexual male population.

According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men in Chicago's Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners. All total, 61.3 percent of the area's homosexual men have had more than 30 partners, and 87.8 percent have had more than 15, the research found.

As a result, 55.1 percent of homosexual males in Shoreland -- known as Chicago's "gay center" -- have at least one sexually transmitted disease, researchers said.

The three-year study on the sexual habits of Chicago's citizens will appear in the upcoming book, "The Sexual Organization of The City" (University of Chicago Press), due out this spring.

The researchers interviewed 2,114 people from throughout the city and its suburbs, asking them detailed questions about their sexual behavior and beliefs.

While the research dealt with the behavior of all people -- heterosexuals included -- its findings on homosexual men are sure to raise eyebrows.

"Informants from several institutional spheres noted the common expectation among white gay men of having multiple sex partners," researchers wrote. "Ads for gay bars and clubs convey the message that being gay is about having sexual encounters, not relationships.... The majority of personal ads in city papers under the headline 'men seeking men' identify casual sex rather than long-term relationships as their goal."

The sexual partners of homosexual men are likely to be someone they previously did not know, researchers found. Nearly 60 percent of respondents said their circle of friends did not know their most recent sex partner.

The most likely meeting place was a bar or dance club, where 50 percent of homosexual men said they met their most recent partner.

Researchers said that homosexual men tended to be primarily "transactional" -- a term used for seeking short-term sexual encounters -- while homosexual women tended to be more relational by seeking "enduring sexual relationships."

Researchers concluded that a number of factors encourage homosexual male promiscuity, including the presence of popular meeting places and the "absence of cultural forces that encourage monogamy."

The research team was led by Edward O. Laumann, professor of sociology at the University of Chicago and the co-author of several other books on sexuality.

Traditionalists say that the lack of monogamy among homosexual men underscores the notion that homosexuality is not natural. They also say that such unhealthy behavior should play a larger role in the national debate over same-sex "marriage," because its legalization would radically undermine the traditional belief in monogamy.

The New York Times ran a story in August showing that homosexuals in Canada, where same-sex "marriage" is legal in two provinces, are not rushing to tie the knot. The story followed two men in their 40s, David Andrew and David Warren, who have lived together for seven years.

Although the men promise to protect one another, the story said "they stop short of monogamy, which is something Mr. Andrew also says he does not believe in."

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17458

 

[LuvRPgrl]

No, I never said that marriage is "f*cked up." You did. Why would you say something like that? Do you have something against marriage? Do you have some agenda we all need to know about Luvergirl?

Silly boy. Show where I specifically said its fucked up.

Im not sure what your motives of putting words in others mouths is all about?
Are you so self deluded that you believe your own lies and hence, feel you won an arguement?

You dont really think anyone on this board is falling for your lies? That just cuz you falsely claim I said the institution of marriage is "fucked" up, then I must have?

Wow, you are truy pathetic,,,,Yea, you need to know about my agenda, its called conservative values keeping America strong. Get used to it, we are shoving it down the mouths of liberals like you,,,,who only want to see America destroyed. Have a nice day

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Oh well, if it's that simple...

What about low-income foster homes? Wouldn't an adopted baby being raised by loving adoptive gay or lesbian parents in a middle or upperclass, financially stable environment be better off than one who is passed around poverty-stricken foster homes?

Would it be better to eat pop tarts of brownies?

Gay couples are rarely stable. Men are notoriously polygamous. Without a female partner, there is no one there to rein in the "playing of the field".

 

[LuvRPgrl]

This is so much bull shit!! What the fuck makes you think faggots are "loving" and "caring", and capable of teaching a NORMAL child how to be NORMAL?

You need to do some reading lib...



http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17458

hahha, thats pretty funny actually. Although it is nice to have a study to refer to, as the libs are always screaming for proof!, But most common sense people dont need a study to realize what it showed. I just read your post AFTER I made my reply to Haggy on the subject.

I also think there is a thread where they discuss "studies" that we really didnt need. Something about too much sex on tv.....

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Silly boy. Show where I specifically said its fucked up.

Im not sure what your motives of putting words in others mouths is all about?
Are you so self deluded that you believe your own lies and hence, feel you won an arguement?

Silly willy, here's where you said it!

You are arguing its ok to add to the destruction of marriage, cuz its already fucked up.