Peach
Gold Member
- Jan 10, 2009
- 20,864
- 2,732
- 245
Gay Couple Says Waitress Told Them 'We Don't Serve Fags Here'
- Thread starter DigitalDrifter
- Start date
LockeJaw
VIP Member
Haha! One problem with that...I'm married and have been for 15 years. Have had sex almost every single day with my wife, she is also usually the one who instigates it, so yeah... You're going to have to hope you find a man that can keep you satisfied like that. Good luck finding it with the sissyfied liberal man purse wearers you consider "real men" lol.
What you have to look forwad to:
"Is it okay if I kiss you, can I put my arms around you, sweety"...yeah, we know you ain't finding it in a liberal man....
What you have to look forwad to:
"Is it okay if I kiss you, can I put my arms around you, sweety"...yeah, we know you ain't finding it in a liberal man....
bodecea
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #603
Haha! One problem with that...I'm married and have been for 15 years. Have had sex almost every single day with my wife, she is also usually the one who instigates it, so yeah... You're going to have to hope you find a man that can keep you satisfied like that. Good luck finding it with the sissyfied liberal man purse wearers you consider "real men" lol.
What you have to look forwad to:
"Is it okay if I kiss you, can I put my arms around you, sweety"...yeah, we know you ain't finding it in a liberal man....
Cool story, bro.
LockeJaw
VIP Member
Not quite as cool as the story about you being a fighter pilot, She-bro.
Haha! One problem with that...I'm married and have been for 15 years. Have had sex almost every single day with my wife, she is also usually the one who instigates it, so yeah... You're going to have to hope you find a man that can keep you satisfied like that. Good luck finding it with the sissyfied liberal man purse wearers you consider "real men" lol.
What you have to look forwad to:
"Is it okay if I kiss you, can I put my arms around you, sweety"...yeah, we know you ain't finding it in a liberal man....
As Seawytch noted, enjoy yourself ALONE.
Cool story, bro.
Pop23
Gold Member
I don't want to deny you a single thing. There are plenty of men, the thing that nature wants you to couple with, available. In the end it is your failure to fight your obsession that creates the perception of discrimination.
So how is it that nature is bigoted again?
LockeJaw
VIP Member
Not quite as cool as the story about you being a fighter pilot, She-bro.
Cool story, bro.
Yes...that WOULD be an interesting story since I wasn't a Fighter pilot. The Navy, in that time period, did not allow women to fly tactical aircraft. They do now.
So when are you going to reenlist & show us what ya got, Maverick?
Peach
Gold Member
- Jan 10, 2009
- 20,864
- 2,732
- 245
Yes...that WOULD be an interesting story since I wasn't a Fighter pilot. The Navy, in that time period, did not allow women to fly tactical aircraft. They do now.
So when are you going to reenlist & show us what ya got, Maverick?
You ever sign up? It may noy be too late, even for you.
dcraelin
VIP Member
- Sep 4, 2013
- 2,553
- 136
- 85
The 14th amendment, under which these gay "marriage" suits are brought is illegitimate.
Here is some of part of book by John R Graham on the subject
"The work of the framers has been upstaged by what is officially reputed to be amendment IV of United States constitution. The study of American constitutional law in conventional law schools has been reduced to not much more than the study of judicial decisions which purport to interpret this alleged article of fundamental law, but actually use it as a pretext for social engineering by whatever fragile majority controls the highest court of the land at any particular time.
..those liberated from slavery would have enjoyed the full benefits of citizenship under the United States constitution without the article which has been designated amendment XIV.
In any event, amendment XIV, as it has been called, was never necessary, and the country could've done without it, yet accomplished social justice.
The first section declares ... was meant to reverse the erroneous decision in Dred Scott V. Sanford. 19 Howard 393 at 404-427 (US 1857) where it was held that nobody held in slavery or descended from one held in slavery could become a citizen, either by natural birth or by naturalization. This error was already remedied by amendment XIII
The first section also prohibits any state from denying equal protection of laws, which was undoubtedly meant too restrain unjust legislation against new freedmen, yet such wrongdoing was independently prohibited by amendments XIII and XV,
The third section punished, without trial for supporting secession, southerners previously serving as public officers and taking an oath to supported the United States Constitution by denying them the right to hold any public office under the United States, unless the disability was removed by 2/3 of both chambers of Congress. As such, it was a bill of attainder. This provision explains why southern states voted against the proposed amendment.
The fourth section .....was a favor to money lenders who would surely not have been thus benefited without consideration,hence they probably bought members of Congress for the accommodation. It further explains Southern opposition to the proposed amendment. In any event, the sonorous phrases in the first section, whenever they were supposed to mean, were merely window dressing to conceal the vindictiveness in the third section and the bribery behind the fourth.
The so called Fourteenth Amendment, therefore, served no legitimate objective which might not otherwise have been accomplished by proper means. It emitted the stench of political hatred and raw corruption.
...
And it was never lawfully laid before the country in a resolution of Congress, nor was it ever lawfully ratified by the several states. The published scholarship on this astonishing truth is impressive, 29 ... certain main points are undeniable:"
Here is some of part of book by John R Graham on the subject
"The work of the framers has been upstaged by what is officially reputed to be amendment IV of United States constitution. The study of American constitutional law in conventional law schools has been reduced to not much more than the study of judicial decisions which purport to interpret this alleged article of fundamental law, but actually use it as a pretext for social engineering by whatever fragile majority controls the highest court of the land at any particular time.
..those liberated from slavery would have enjoyed the full benefits of citizenship under the United States constitution without the article which has been designated amendment XIV.
In any event, amendment XIV, as it has been called, was never necessary, and the country could've done without it, yet accomplished social justice.
The first section declares ... was meant to reverse the erroneous decision in Dred Scott V. Sanford. 19 Howard 393 at 404-427 (US 1857) where it was held that nobody held in slavery or descended from one held in slavery could become a citizen, either by natural birth or by naturalization. This error was already remedied by amendment XIII
The first section also prohibits any state from denying equal protection of laws, which was undoubtedly meant too restrain unjust legislation against new freedmen, yet such wrongdoing was independently prohibited by amendments XIII and XV,
The third section punished, without trial for supporting secession, southerners previously serving as public officers and taking an oath to supported the United States Constitution by denying them the right to hold any public office under the United States, unless the disability was removed by 2/3 of both chambers of Congress. As such, it was a bill of attainder. This provision explains why southern states voted against the proposed amendment.
The fourth section .....was a favor to money lenders who would surely not have been thus benefited without consideration,hence they probably bought members of Congress for the accommodation. It further explains Southern opposition to the proposed amendment. In any event, the sonorous phrases in the first section, whenever they were supposed to mean, were merely window dressing to conceal the vindictiveness in the third section and the bribery behind the fourth.
The so called Fourteenth Amendment, therefore, served no legitimate objective which might not otherwise have been accomplished by proper means. It emitted the stench of political hatred and raw corruption.
...
And it was never lawfully laid before the country in a resolution of Congress, nor was it ever lawfully ratified by the several states. The published scholarship on this astonishing truth is impressive, 29 ... certain main points are undeniable:"
Last edited:
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
Sure hon, if that's what you need to think to overcome your personal inadequacies, you go ahead and think that...doesn't change my life one bit.
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
I'm not attracted to men and don't wish to partner with one. I'm already legally married, thanks.
No, nature made me gay so it is not bigoted. Your having different standards for gay and infertile straight couples does make you bigoted though.
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
Yes...that WOULD be an interesting story since I wasn't a Fighter pilot. The Navy, in that time period, did not allow women to fly tactical aircraft. They do now.
So when are you going to reenlist & show us what ya got, Maverick?
How 'bout you tough guy? You ever enlist?
Pop23
Gold Member
No, your obsession made you gay, but gay or not, you may marry any man you wish, gay or not.
Peach
Gold Member
- Jan 10, 2009
- 20,864
- 2,732
- 245
Why not let Locke continue boring us to tears with his "manliness". Odd, I have never read as much 'detail' about the sex life of any other poster. I remain thankful.
LockeJaw
VIP Member
I don't have any inadequecies to overcome.. You do, and that's not having a penis, which you would kill to have if you could. I know it, and you know it.
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
Really? I was "obsessive" from my earliest memories then.
Blacks could marry any black and whites any whites. Same argument, different bigots.
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
LockeJaw
VIP Member
Reduced to repeating yourself...looks like I hit a soft spot.
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
Why not let Locke continue boring us to tears with his "manliness". Odd, I have never read as much 'detail' about the sex life of any other poster. I remain thankful.
They're obsessed with gay sex is all. When I'm introduced to someone's opposite sex partner, I don't think about how they have sex...these freaks do when they think about gays.
Peach
Gold Member
- Jan 10, 2009
- 20,864
- 2,732
- 245
Why not let Locke continue boring us to tears with his "manliness". Odd, I have never read as much 'detail' about the sex life of any other poster. I remain thankful.
They're obsessed with gay sex is all. When I'm introduced to someone's opposite sex partner, I don't think about how they have sex...these freaks do when they think about gays.
Yes, and it is annoying. Endless diatribes about gay Americans, preoccupation with how other Americans act in the privacy of their homes, or in public. If it doesn't scare the horses, look away, and quit worrying about it.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Iran with cleverest people on the planet is the last Defence against the Control Grid
- Started by luiza
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
