Boss takes on LGBTQ+

[Boss]

Well that one is easy. Everybody can agree that rapists and beastiality-people (not sure what the term for that is) are not acceptable because we view children and animals as being incapable of giving consent. On the other hand, the homosexual community was fighting for its right to practice their lifestyle between consenting individuals without being penalized for it. So there is your hard stop. Fighting for the equality and freedom for sexual orientation is different from gender identity, and doesn't involve trying to give those people more rights than an average American citizen (meaning they can engage in conduct that doesn't have to be consensual while everybody else does).

Maybe I'm confused here...but is your issue against the entire movement? Or against the modern absurdity it has devolved into by bringing gender identity into it? Are you against the equality and freedom regarding sexual orientation as well as the absurdity of gender identity? I clearly stated my position as being for "gay rights" while opposed to gender identity...however, I'm still unclear on what your actual standpoint is.

Well that one is easy. Everybody can agree that rapists and beastiality-people (not sure what the term for that is) are not acceptable because we view children and animals as being incapable of giving consent.

Here's the interesting thing about "consent" ....it can be a subjective term. When we speak about "age of consent" we have to objectively understand there is no magical date on a calendar when a person suddenly obtains the ability to reasonably consent. We establish that arbitrary and subjective date for them. Who are we to decide that's appropriate for everybody? We can also comprehend a thing we call "implied consent" ...again, this can be subjective and arbitrary. Consent is just a word like marriage, it can mean whatever the hell we want it to mean. Nothing is written in stone that it must always and forever mean what it means today. Especially if it infringes on someone's "rights" they are owed by society. The point here is, not everybody can agree. That should be brutally obvious at this point.

...the homosexual community was fighting for its right to practice their lifestyle between consenting individuals without being penalized for it.

Oh, I know! I was here! I heard all the arguments! As soon as we legitimized sexual behavior through marriage under the law, guess who suddenly appeared for THEIR rights? The Transvestites! They've got to be given bathroom privileges! They get those and here comes someone else... more RIGHTS being demanded! LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ.... Never ends! There will constantly be someone who steps up to the plate with their sexually deviant behavior demanding THEIR RIGHTS!

Oh what's the harm in letting two gay people do their thing? Well, HERE is the problem! You are seeing the problem manifest itself before your very eyes and we can't ever stop this now.

I clearly stated my position as being for "gay rights" while opposed to gender identity.

Well what's the matter with you? Are you some kind of uptight hypocritical bigot? What happened to people doing their own thing because it makes them happy? All of a sudden, you want to put the stops down and say... no no.., we can't go there! Well it's too late for that now! You've already established legitimacy of sexual behavior as a right under the law. The genie ain't going back in the bottle because you're uncomfortable.

Look... I have NEVER been opposed to homosexuals being left alone and not harassed. I have always been fine with letting them do their thing as long as they keep it in their bedroom. The ONLY reason I ever opposed "gay marriage" is because of this "gender identity" nonsense we're seeing today. I KNEW this would happen. I warned people it would happen as soon as we legitimized sexual behavior through marriage under the law. Ohhh.... that's just homophobic fear mongering... slippery slope argument.... nonsense.... won't be a problem! Guess what? Turns out, it is a problem now and we have no recourse to deal with it. We've made our proverbial bed and now we'll have to lie in it, regardless of what kind of perverts crawl in it!

 

[Roudy]

Very soon we will have a list of letters as long as the number of letters in the alphabet, to describe people's sexuality. Whatever happened to the good old days of Adam and Eve?

 

[there4eyeM]

Very soon we will have a list of letters as long as the number of letters in the alphabet, to describe people's sexuality. Whatever happened to the good old days of Adam and Eve?

They are where they always were; in the marvelous world of l'imaginaire.

 

[bodecea]

I really think that is why Lesbians got top billing.

Lesbos are different than gay males. Gays are into it for the sex. Lesbians are male haters. The professional haters are making the noise so they get the attention. The ole squeaky wheel scenario.

Where DO you get this stuff?

 

[bodecea]

I really think that is why Lesbians got top billing.

Lesbos are different than gay males. Gays are into it for the sex. Lesbians are male haters. The professional haters are making the noise so they get the attention. The ole squeaky wheel scenario.

But there's actually two types of Lesbians. The bull dyke and the lipstick lesbians. Bull dykes tend to be more man hater, angry, militant... the lipstick lesbians are the ones hetero men fantasize about.

Even funnier.

I love when people like you go on about us like that......

 

[bodecea]

I think that the biggest issue with this "movement" is that it doesn't really represent what it once was. At its foundations, it used to represent fighting for the equality and freedom of sexual orientation (the "LGB" part). Now, somehow, it has morphed into some sort of gender identity movement...which isn't related at all. Gender identity is not equivalent to sexual orientation...they are two different topics.

Personally, I don't have issue with, and generally support, the rights for freedom and equality of sexual orientation. On the other hand, I'm pretty ardently opposed to the whole "gender identity" movement that, in my mind, is an absurd construct.

Yeah, but then... that's where this has kind of led you, right? I mean, we were all sold on this notion of "equality and freedom" for those poor unfortunate "gay" people and we went along with it.... now look where that got us? Okay, okay... we'll accept the trannies too.... okay, okay... and the "questioning" ....when do the pedophiles and dog fuckers come? What other depravity will attach itself to the Acronym Snowball?

Oh... no need in opposing it NOW baby.... the snowball is rolling! There is now 63 various gender identities and we're just now getting started with our creativity.

Doesn't take long for people like you to slide right into "pedophiles and dog fuckers", does it?

 

[Boss]

Doesn't take long for people like you to slide right into "pedophiles and dog fuckers", does it?

Again, we are already starting to see the bravest of the pedos slithering out of the shadows of their depravity to say.... Hey, what's wrong with it? It's how we are! They point to ancient Greece and Rome where sex with children was common. It's really just a matter of time before they earn a letter in the Acronym Snowball because "The Movement" must continue!

 

[Boss]

Doesn't take long for people like you to slide right into "pedophiles and dog fuckers", does it?

And you can mock me all you like... who would have thought, when the "gay marriage" debate was raging, that the next thing on the docket would be grown-ass men going into restrooms with little girls because they put on a dress and lipstick?

 

[Never3ndr]

Well that one is easy. Everybody can agree that rapists and beastiality-people (not sure what the term for that is) are not acceptable because we view children and animals as being incapable of giving consent. On the other hand, the homosexual community was fighting for its right to practice their lifestyle between consenting individuals without being penalized for it. So there is your hard stop. Fighting for the equality and freedom for sexual orientation is different from gender identity, and doesn't involve trying to give those people more rights than an average American citizen (meaning they can engage in conduct that doesn't have to be consensual while everybody else does).

Maybe I'm confused here...but is your issue against the entire movement? Or against the modern absurdity it has devolved into by bringing gender identity into it? Are you against the equality and freedom regarding sexual orientation as well as the absurdity of gender identity? I clearly stated my position as being for "gay rights" while opposed to gender identity...however, I'm still unclear on what your actual standpoint is.

Well that one is easy. Everybody can agree that rapists and beastiality-people (not sure what the term for that is) are not acceptable because we view children and animals as being incapable of giving consent.

Here's the interesting thing about "consent" ....it can be a subjective term. When we speak about "age of consent" we have to objectively understand there is no magical date on a calendar when a person suddenly obtains the ability to reasonably consent. We establish that arbitrary and subjective date for them. Who are we to decide that's appropriate for everybody? We can also comprehend a thing we call "implied consent" ...again, this can be subjective and arbitrary. Consent is just a word like marriage, it can mean whatever the hell we want it to mean. Nothing is written in stone that it must always and forever mean what it means today. Especially if it infringes on someone's "rights" they are owed by society. The point here is, not everybody can agree. That should be brutally obvious at this point.

...the homosexual community was fighting for its right to practice their lifestyle between consenting individuals without being penalized for it.

Oh, I know! I was here! I heard all the arguments! As soon as we legitimized sexual behavior through marriage under the law, guess who suddenly appeared for THEIR rights? The Transvestites! They've got to be given bathroom privileges! They get those and here comes someone else... more RIGHTS being demanded! LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ.... Never ends! There will constantly be someone who steps up to the plate with their sexually deviant behavior demanding THEIR RIGHTS!

Oh what's the harm in letting two gay people do their thing? Well, HERE is the problem! You are seeing the problem manifest itself before your very eyes and we can't ever stop this now.

I clearly stated my position as being for "gay rights" while opposed to gender identity.

Well what's the matter with you? Are you some kind of uptight hypocritical bigot? What happened to people doing their own thing because it makes them happy? All of a sudden, you want to put the stops down and say... no no.., we can't go there! Well it's too late for that now! You've already established legitimacy of sexual behavior as a right under the law. The genie ain't going back in the bottle because you're uncomfortable.

Look... I have NEVER been opposed to homosexuals being left alone and not harassed. I have always been fine with letting them do their thing as long as they keep it in their bedroom. The ONLY reason I ever opposed "gay marriage" is because of this "gender identity" nonsense we're seeing today. I KNEW this would happen. I warned people it would happen as soon as we legitimized sexual behavior through marriage under the law. Ohhh.... that's just homophobic fear mongering... slippery slope argument.... nonsense.... won't be a problem! Guess what? Turns out, it is a problem now and we have no recourse to deal with it. We've made our proverbial bed and now we'll have to lie in it, regardless of what kind of perverts crawl in it!

I'm glad you mentioned slippery slope because it applies to your standpoint entirely. You don't seem to actually have a position where you make a difference of standing for this, or being against that simply based off of your moral compass...you seem to argue against anything related to the concept because disaster may strike or has struck.

I can actually 100% refute your claim (that you fought against gay marriage based off of gender identity) because gay marriage has been an issue for the past several decades (at least since the 90's). Gender identity is a relatively new concept...starting to really pop up maybe 5-8 years ago. So, claiming that you solely fought against gay marriage based off of a concept that didn't even exist...is just plain false.

You can say you are against gay marriage because you simply don't believe in that, or you hate homosexuality, or it is against your religion, etc...and these are opinion based arguments but at least lend a degree of understandability to your argument. On the other hand, it truly seems that you have constructed a web of rationales to justify your real reason, which I remain unclear upon.

I'm just going to also point out that you are making the same erroneous conclusions the majority of people do by conflating sexual orientation with gender identity (you lump them both into "sexual behavior"). Nothing about gender identity is sexual in nature. I may staunchly oppose the movement but I at least understand their standpoints. It is like saying that being a man or a woman is inherently sexual...which is untrue. It is like saying that because you were born with a certain race you must be racist. These are two separate things and conflating the two is diminishing your legitimacy in this topic.

 

[Boss]

I'm glad you mentioned slippery slope because it applies to your standpoint entirely. You don't seem to actually have a position where you make a difference of standing for this, or being against that simply based off of your moral compass...you seem to argue against anything related to the concept because disaster may strike or has struck.

I can actually 100% refute your claim (that you fought against gay marriage based off of gender identity) because gay marriage has been an issue for the past several decades (at least since the 90's). Gender identity is a relatively new concept...starting to really pop up maybe 5-8 years ago. So, claiming that you solely fought against gay marriage based off of a concept that didn't even exist...is just plain false.

You can say you are against gay marriage because you simply don't believe in that, or you hate homosexuality, or it is against your religion, etc...and these are opinion based arguments but at least lend a degree of understandability to your argument. On the other hand, it truly seems that you have constructed a web of rationales to justify your real reason, which I remain unclear upon.

I'm just going to also point out that you are making the same erroneous conclusions the majority of people do by conflating sexual orientation with gender identity (you lump them both into "sexual behavior"). Nothing about gender identity is sexual in nature. I may staunchly oppose the movement but I at least understand their standpoints. It is like saying that being a man or a woman is inherently sexual...which is untrue. It is like saying that because you were born with a certain race you must be racist. These are two separate things and conflating the two is diminishing your legitimacy in this topic.

Sorry, but I repeatedly made the argument that once we legitimize a sexual behavior under the law through the institution of marriage, we will open the doors to all kinds of sexual behavior being similarly legitimized. We have a thing called "equal protection under the law" and whenever we establish a "right" to a certain group of individuals, we have to afford that same right to all similar groups. That's EXACTLY what is happening now! We're ON the slippery slope!

"Gender identity" is complete nonsense. You are born with one of two genders. You are either male or female... not withstanding rare and unusual genetic mutations. This is nothing more than a way to knock the wheels off social stigmas. Once that is accomplished, there is no end to the progression of perversions that will be unleashed and indeed, normalized and protected as a class. Like I said, genie ain't going back in the bottle now baby... you're going to have to live with the consequences.

 

[Never3ndr]

I'm glad you mentioned slippery slope because it applies to your standpoint entirely. You don't seem to actually have a position where you make a difference of standing for this, or being against that simply based off of your moral compass...you seem to argue against anything related to the concept because disaster may strike or has struck.

I can actually 100% refute your claim (that you fought against gay marriage based off of gender identity) because gay marriage has been an issue for the past several decades (at least since the 90's). Gender identity is a relatively new concept...starting to really pop up maybe 5-8 years ago. So, claiming that you solely fought against gay marriage based off of a concept that didn't even exist...is just plain false.

You can say you are against gay marriage because you simply don't believe in that, or you hate homosexuality, or it is against your religion, etc...and these are opinion based arguments but at least lend a degree of understandability to your argument. On the other hand, it truly seems that you have constructed a web of rationales to justify your real reason, which I remain unclear upon.

I'm just going to also point out that you are making the same erroneous conclusions the majority of people do by conflating sexual orientation with gender identity (you lump them both into "sexual behavior"). Nothing about gender identity is sexual in nature. I may staunchly oppose the movement but I at least understand their standpoints. It is like saying that being a man or a woman is inherently sexual...which is untrue. It is like saying that because you were born with a certain race you must be racist. These are two separate things and conflating the two is diminishing your legitimacy in this topic.

Sorry, but I repeatedly made the argument that once we legitimize a sexual behavior under the law through the institution of marriage, we will open the doors to all kinds of sexual behavior being similarly legitimized. We have a thing called "equal protection under the law" and whenever we establish a "right" to a certain group of individuals, we have to afford that same right to all similar groups. That's EXACTLY what is happening now! We're ON the slippery slope!

"Gender identity" is complete nonsense. You are born with one of two genders. You are either male or female... not withstanding rare and unusual genetic mutations. This is nothing more than a way to knock the wheels off social stigmas. Once that is accomplished, there is no end to the progression of perversions that will be unleashed and indeed, normalized and protected as a class. Like I said, genie ain't going back in the bottle now baby... you're going to have to live with the consequences.

I have two major issues with this. Firstly, I again say that I disagree that gender identity is "sexual behavior." So conflating these two groups is incorrect as, in my opinion, there is a clear divide.

Secondly, there are clear stops, there is no slippery slope. For instance, I believe that it is relatively non-controversial to say that a dating couple (we will say a man and woman to make this less controversial), should be allowed to have sex with each other as they choose to do so. However, allowing for this "freedom"...which relatively everybody can agree upon...does not put us on a slippery slope to allowing violent rapists. There is a clear barrier here (in this case being consent). Ignoring this barrier and just saying nobody should have sex because it can lead to rapists is insane. I hope that should illustrate the degree to which your slippery slope argument falls apart. You refuse to acknowledge hard stops that prevent that slippery slope from coming to realization.

 

[Boss]

You can say you are against gay marriage because you simply don't believe in that, or you hate homosexuality, or it is against your religion, etc...and these are opinion based arguments but at least lend a degree of understandability to your argument.

I've never made ANY of those arguments. Repeatedly, my consistent stand was a matter of legal precedent. Once you've protected a group of people based on their sexual behavior, there is no end to that. The Constitution is clear on equal protection, and this is the problem with Gay Marriage.

I lobbied for changes that would remove government from sanctioning ALL marriages. I am of the opinion that "marriage" should be definable by the individuals involved and no one else. Instead, I was hooted down as some kind of backward homophobic bigot who hated gay people and told to shut the fuck up. Now we've codified Gay Marriage under the law and we see what came next... Trannies in bathrooms! And this isn't the end, it's just the beginning.

 

[Boss]

I have two major issues with this. Firstly, I again say that I disagree that gender identity is "sexual behavior." So conflating these two groups is incorrect as, in my opinion, there is a clear divide.

Secondly, there are clear stops, there is no slippery slope. For instance, I believe that it is relatively non-controversial to say that a dating couple (we will say a man and woman to make this less controversial), should be allowed to have sex with each other as they choose to do so. However, allowing for this "freedom"...which relatively everybody can agree upon...does not put us on a slippery slope to allowing violent rapists. There is a clear barrier here (in this case being consent). Ignoring this barrier and just saying nobody should have sex because it can lead to rapists is insane. I hope that should illustrate the degree to which your slippery slope argument falls apart. You refuse to acknowledge hard stops that prevent that slippery slope from coming to realization.

What is this "hard stops" crap? We don't have any "hard stops" when it comes to Equal Protection Under The Law! If you've given Group A a certain "right" then you MUST give that same "right" to Group B.... that's how "equal protection" works.

You've argued that "everybody agrees on consent" but that is not true. Everybody does not agree with you! It's just a matter of time before you are hooted down as an old-fashioned traditionalist who is out of touch with a stick up your ass. You will be told that "pretty much everybody agrees" that grown men can marry 12-year olds, and if you don't agree, you must be some kind of a backward-thinking bigot. If you oppose people having loving relationships with their dogs, it must be because of your uptight religious beliefs! What the fuck is your hangup that you can't allow some goth chick the "right" to preserve her dead fiance's corpse so she can ride him like a sybian every night? If that cranks her tractor, who the hell are YOU to stand in her way of happiness and fulfillment?

Hard stops? What the hell is THAT? More of your archaic religious-based morality crap? We're WAY beyond your "hard stops" now buddy!

 

[Never3ndr]

I have two major issues with this. Firstly, I again say that I disagree that gender identity is "sexual behavior." So conflating these two groups is incorrect as, in my opinion, there is a clear divide.

Secondly, there are clear stops, there is no slippery slope. For instance, I believe that it is relatively non-controversial to say that a dating couple (we will say a man and woman to make this less controversial), should be allowed to have sex with each other as they choose to do so. However, allowing for this "freedom"...which relatively everybody can agree upon...does not put us on a slippery slope to allowing violent rapists. There is a clear barrier here (in this case being consent). Ignoring this barrier and just saying nobody should have sex because it can lead to rapists is insane. I hope that should illustrate the degree to which your slippery slope argument falls apart. You refuse to acknowledge hard stops that prevent that slippery slope from coming to realization.

What is this "hard stops" crap? We don't have any "hard stops" when it comes to Equal Protection Under The Law! If you've given Group A a certain "right" then you MUST give that same "right" to Group B.... that's how "equal protection" works.

You've argued that "everybody agrees on consent" but that is not true. Everybody does not agree with you! It's just a matter of time before you are hooted down as an old-fashioned traditionalist who is out of touch with a stick up your ass. You will be told that "pretty much everybody agrees" that grown men can marry 12-year olds, and if you don't agree, you must be some kind of a backward-thinking bigot. If you oppose people having loving relationships with their dogs, it must be because of your uptight religious beliefs! What the fuck is your hangup that you can't allow some goth chick the "right" to preserve her dead fiance's corpse so she can ride him like a sybian every night? If that cranks her tractor, who the hell are YOU to stand in her way of happiness and fulfillment?

Hard stops? What the hell is THAT? More of your archaic religious-based morality crap? We're WAY beyond your "hard stops" now buddy!

If you think I am speaking in error, then you can feel free to provide evidence for your argument. Personally, I don't think I have met anybody that condones pedophilia, beastiality, or some of the deeper terrors you keep arguing we are on a slippery slope towards. If you don't feel like there are any hard stops against this sentiment I simply ask you to provide clear evidence where large portions of the population have shown that they are open to the ideas of pedophilia or beastiality...because, in my experience, that simply is not true.

 

[Never3ndr]

You can say you are against gay marriage because you simply don't believe in that, or you hate homosexuality, or it is against your religion, etc...and these are opinion based arguments but at least lend a degree of understandability to your argument.

I've never made ANY of those arguments. Repeatedly, my consistent stand was a matter of legal precedent. Once you've protected a group of people based on their sexual behavior, there is no end to that. The Constitution is clear on equal protection, and this is the problem with Gay Marriage.

I lobbied for changes that would remove government from sanctioning ALL marriages. I am of the opinion that "marriage" should be definable by the individuals involved and no one else. Instead, I was hooted down as some kind of backward homophobic bigot who hated gay people and told to shut the fuck up. Now we've codified Gay Marriage under the law and we see what came next... Trannies in bathrooms! And this isn't the end, it's just the beginning.

Again, gender identity is not sexual behavior. It deals with an individual's ability (or inability) to adhere to general behavior associated with masculinity or femininity. If anything it is more associated with psychology or a social disorder rather than anything sexual.

I would tend to agree with you that the government should, in theory, not really be involved with marriage due to it being, at its core, a religious tradition. However, for better or for worse, we live in a day and age where a lot of things hinge on marriage, which removes it from its strictly religious background and puts it into a category where everything from taxes to insurance to legal status may depend upon its existence or absence. Without removing our dependency upon this institution of marriage for so many things we cannot really remove government involvement with it either.

 

[bodecea]

Doesn't take long for people like you to slide right into "pedophiles and dog fuckers", does it?

And you can mock me all you like... who would have thought, when the "gay marriage" debate was raging, that the next thing on the docket would be grown-ass men going into restrooms with little girls because they put on a dress and lipstick?

"grown-ass men" You refer to heteros....like, in some cases, fathers and brothers and others....since 1 in 4 girls are sexually abused before they reach 18.

But by all means go after those transitioning.

 

[Roudy]

...and when they run out of letters to allocate to human sexuality, they'll start with animals. "I think my dogs are gay, even though they're both male, I often find them taking turns mounting each other".

 

[Mudda]

And, will do so like a Boss!

First let me say, I am a libertarian constitutionalist. I believe in letting people pretty much do as they please as long as what they are doing isn't detrimental to others. I don't generally favor courts or government getting involved any more than they must in order to protect fundamental rights of individuals.

I've watched this LGBTQAAIGWXYZ+&et.all;etc. Movement evolve from it's humble beginnings. It really took off in the late 70s and early 80s with a raising of social consciousness about the bullying of pansies. 'Pansy' was the name commonly applied to boys who displayed homosexual behavioral stereotypes. Other more graphic pejoratives were "queer" and "homo". In any event, a lot of people could sympathize with these underdogs being bullied by society and it was relatively easy to build public support to protect these poor souls from the relentless attacks. It became more widely accepted in the 80s to be a male homosexual. The term "gay" became in vogue. Then came the AIDS epidemic. A social polarization happened as a result and in order to turn around the damage done to all the headway, the adoption of lesbian women and bisexuals stepped up to claim victimhood and appeal to public sympathies.

This begs my first question, how did "L" leapfrog over "G" in the acronym? I believe it was because of the negative stigma from AIDS. The Lesbian could be the new "front-man" of the movement, pardon the pun, and this could avoid direct connection with the negative stigma. But why not the Bisexual? Surely, these people are the most all-encompassing of sexuality as a whole, you'd think they would be the obvious leading face for the movement. I think the reason for this not being the case, and indeed, the reason they are relegated to a place behind the Gay, is because Bisexuality sort of has an illegitimacy about it. Like it's not really serious with regard to homosexuality, it's often just confused young people experimenting. Such a huge movement couldn't be trusted to the Bisexual who may or may not be homosexual tomorrow. It was far too risky, so they took the backseat to Lesbians and then Gays. We had the LGB movement.

At this point, we're well into the 90s and most places have implemented hate crime laws and protections against the gay community in general, which now included lesbians and bisexuals. So the movement was beginning to fade because there was a lack of "victims" on the news... enter the lowly transsexual. They had always been loosely associated with homosexuals but also had that same air of illegitimacy as the bisexual. But they were targeted victims of bullying and that served the needs of the movement, so they completed the acronym... LGBT and it became one big happy "community" to lobby for our social sympathies.

As the movement grew and obtained more social protections and influenced laws against discrimination, we see they continue to add letters to the acronym. This snowball effect is a direct result of trying to keep the social justice monster alive. In creating a paradigm where "gender" is no longer simply "male" or "female" you create a never-ending supply of victims to exploit. Last report, there are now over 63 gender identities, all of which are protected by The Movement.

This leads to my final questions: What is the logical conclusion here? Where does this thing end? At what point does this movement simply become so diluted with various gender identities that it becomes impossible to reconcile itself? What happens when a transsexual's "rights" are infringed by a bisexual's "rights" or visa versa? And what about the Lesbians, the preeminent leaders of this movement... what if one of them decides to stop being lesbian and settle down with a nice man and raise a family? Are they Forever Lesbians? Is it like being crowned Miss America, you have that title until you die? What about the transsexual who is actually heterosexual in every way, they just dig dressing up like women to get into the ladies rooms? Are we to just ignore them and pretend they pose no threat to the movement's legitimacy? And finally, what does this movement do when approached by the Pedophile? Are kiddie-diddlers deserving of a letter in the acronym?

Bossy, you've completely lost it this time, lol. Go suck a cock and get it over with, you're wasting way too much time just wishing you could open the closet door and be free. I say go for it.

 

[Mudda]

...and when they run out of letters to allocate to human sexuality, they'll start with animals. "I think my dogs are gay, even they're both male, I often find them taking turns mounting each other".

We see that it bothers you when your dog does that. Why is that?

 

[Roudy]

...and when they run out of letters to allocate to human sexuality, they'll start with animals. "I think my dogs are gay, even they're both male, I often find them taking turns mounting each other".

We see that it bothers you when your dog does that. Why is that?

Actually I have one German Sheperd dog and he never did that, they cut his nuts off before I adopted him.