October: **** & **** History Month

jdhdiggs

brettw22 wrote:

Have I missed something that said there's a Straight gene?

James, when did you see me ask for membership to you (or anyone elses) church? Last I checked I hadn't, therefore making your churches guidelines to my life have as much importance as an ant ****.

Wow, you'll just read whatever you want out of anything...

But since you asked: You asked for a marriage that went beyond the civil union rights that you can gain for anyone through contractual law. Wouldn't that be asking for a marriage in a larger context, ie religious? Now what about someones religious rights not to recognize it? As long as the state does, who cares. Obviously you do. BTW, my church condones and is working to legalize **** marriage. Guess I'll tell them you don't want the help since teaching acceptance and tolerance is as important as ant ****.

Here's a question: When did I EVER try to put my guidelines on YOUR life? As I have stated SEVERAL times, I don't care if you want to marry a guy, a girl, a dog, a car, or sixteen magical unicorns. If it makes you happy and it doesn't infringe on my rights to live my life as I want, I don't care. The monogomy/religion thing was in response to Cfrizz's remarks and had nothing to do with you.

What is sickening is the hypocritical nature of the **** position on this. They scream that they want tolerance but are the least tolerant group of people involved, as bad as any fire and brimstone bible thumper.

Try opening your eyes to the greater world beyond your private torment.

EDIT: RE your edit. Good lord your self absorbed. The twins thing: If anything, it showed that being "****" could become a choice and could be "cured" and could/would/should be considered a disease by some. Because of that, should you be treated as a minority? How about the mentally ill or handicapped? It is a very similar phenomenon whether you want to admit it or not. Should they be a minority as well? How about asthmatics? People with allergies? Where do you draw the line?

You seem to want special rights because of the way you are and that people should change their perceptions of the world to suit you. My position is you shouldn't have those special rights. You should only have the same rights as everyone else.

Demiurge

Have I missed something that said there's a Straight gene?

I'm not the one trying to argue my sexual orientation is genetic.

ohskigod

cfrizz wrote:

.

Just look at those white girl twins who run around preaching white superiority!

If they hadn't been raised by bigots they would know that this stance is racist & wrong!

the group (the 2 white blondes of which you speak) is Prussian Blue I believe

ever look at there website? its a jaw dropping combination of disturbing, and friggin hilarious. when I first heard of them, I really thought it was a joke, like "this CANT be real", hence the hilarious part. Then I found out they were dead serious, hence the disturbing part.

Demiurge

A **** childs brain chemistry is different at a younger age and causes different parts of the brain to grow at different rates causing it. Last I knew/heard, they weren't sure if it was a gene in the child that made them predisposed of being ****, but they did find a high correlation in some environmental factors from the childs time in the womb. I'd invite you to search for the article but you'll just find a bunch of religious healing sites if you're not careful. And I wouldn't reccomend searching for "**** twin children", might have the feds show up.

Ah, precisely, there's no **** or straight gene, which was my point. I just wish the apologists for the **** marriage nonsense would stop trying to make science up as they go along. No, I don't think it's a choice. It's likely a chemical imbalance or saturation in the brain. Kind of like depression often being brought on a low level of neurotransmitters.

A **** couple should be able to see one another in the hospital, and yadda yadda yadda. I don't really know anyone personally who would be against stuff like that. I just don't know why they need marriage benefits. They're there for the purpose of family. You know how a man and a woman have sex, and then have a baby. Something that **** couples can't do.

We all strive for equality when we're all different. Start recognizing it and stop bitching about how unfair the world is. There's a difference between being discriminated against, and just looking for something to **** about.

It's kind of like bitching about reparations.

jdhdiggs

ohskigod wrote:

the group (the 2 white blondes of which you speak) is Prussian Blue I believe

ever look at there website? its a jaw dropping combination of disturbing, and friggin hilarious. when I first heard of them, I really thought it was a joke, like "this CANT be real", hence the hilarious part. Then I found out they were dead serious, hence the disturbing part.

There are examples from every group: red, black, yellow, white, whatever. Can't we all just agree that the more labels we apply, the worse this is going to get.

Brett: Out of respect for you, I'd like to apologize if anything I said offended you. I'll be dropping this conversation as I don't like the "me vs. you" bent it took.

Demi: Ah fak man, now you're going to bring up **** adoption... YOU ****!!!

brettw22

James.....I'm self absorbed for responding to your point? That seems like a stretch. Also, it makes no sense at all to say "I want you to have the same rights as me, so I'm saying you don't get the rights/benefits of marriage because you're not special..." You see that as the "same" what exactly....

Demi, unless you're telling me that my being **** is a choice, you seem to have no point. One particular gene doesn't exist, nor does one straight gene.......try again.

To everything else, I'm talking in a broad sense, not specific to one person and their religion......Since James made the arguement, my reponse was to him, but not all about him.......

I don't know how many different ways it needs to be said that I'm not looking for a church to recognize **** marriage. My point has always been that yours (whomevers) religious guidelines shouldn't be the mandate for any limitation against civil legal (non-religious) rights as part of this country. By my specifying marriage on a civil level and not a religious level, I'm acknowledging anyone's religion to either honor it or not. I could have sworn I've said this at least half-dozen times now......what's not clicking exactly?

I disagree with the assertion that '**** are hypocritical' in their practice of tolerance. It does seem a bit incincere that the people expecting **** to be tolerant are seemingly the biggest offenders against it, trying to mandate their way of life onto everyone else (legislating against is imposing someone elses beliefs). I'm not sure what the big threat is to those of you who can/have marry. What exactly is it that you are LOSING by way of ****'s being allowed to marry? What is being compromised in YOUR life by 2 men or women walking down the isle (non religious) together.

Some of you can't differentiate marriage as a sometimes double sided committment. If you marry in a church, you're civil committment is honored by way of your religious ceremony. To those that marry in a civil ceremony, they are doing so free of religious specifications/qualifications. Does marriage of the civil ceremony compromise your church marriage or make you feel like less of a person? (if the answer is yes, there are bigger issues here)

On the genetic point........genetics is about more than what one particular gene does and is responsible for. It seems weak to try and pin all your speculation on one particular gene and use that for any part of your arguement. Also, I wonder when 'that side' is going to quit implying that "****" is the equivelant to depression, pedophila, beasitality, kiddie ****, and incest, blah blah blah..........:rolleyes:

EDIT: I've been trying to keep it more broad overall with my comments.

hearingimpared

All this is very interesting! Conspicuous silence . . . . Z Z Z Z Z Z Z

Skynut

Marrige is between a man and a women. It has been since it was started. The **** people want to change that.
Why is it that straight people are being blamed for not wanting marrige changed?
I have never said I do not want **** people to have rights but why does their union have to be called marrige?
It puts everyone in an us vs. them possition.

Don't blame straight people because they do not want to change marrige.

PolkThug

Skynut wrote:

Marrige is between a man and a women. It has been since it was started. The **** people want to change that.
Why is it that straight people are being blamed for not wanting marrige changed?
I have never said I do not want **** people to have rights but why does their union have to be called marrige?
It puts everyone in an us vs. them possition.

Don't blame straight people because they do not want to change marrige.

Being officially married in the USA carries legal rights, that the un-married don't get to have. The legal rights are taken for granted by those that can legally marry, so they don't realize the impact of not having those rights on a homosexual couple.

brettw22

Why is calling it marriage threatening to you? I say threatening because there's obviously SOMETHING you're bothered with as to how it relates to your marriage. In what way does your commitment to your wife become compromised by a **** couple doing so?

See my quote a few pages back if you want to know my stance on it being called "marriage" vs. "civil union."

dragon1952

Why is it called "**** and ****". I thought ****'s were considered ****. Why not just say '**** History Month'

PolkThug

So.... What happened at hearingimpaireds son's school today? Anything?

Skynut

brettw22 wrote:

Why is calling it marriage threatening to you? I say threatening because there's obviously SOMETHING you're bothered with as to how it relates to your marriage. In what way does your commitment to your wife become compromised by a **** couple doing so?

See my quote a few pages back if you want to know my stance on it being called "marriage" vs. "civil union."

It does not affect my marrige. It affects the word marrige. A word that has been in use for a very long time.
Why does a word have to change to fit your definition?
Why is it my fault that the majority in our country does not want the word changed?
Why can't the **** community choose another word that defines a union between same sex couples?

I would bet that the **** movement would be aided if the word chosen was different even though the benifits stay the same.

Demiurge

How come you scoff at the reference to every other form of sexual deviation when trying to create some sense of normalcy for homosexual behavior? I always find it amusing when we talk about polygamy, or some other odd relationship that it's silly or an overreaction. It's kind of like being born with a bum leg, do you expect the world to coddle to your plight? This is only a big deal because the **** community (read activists who don't speak for all **** people) makes it one.

You're trying to normalize abnormal behavior in every aspect of life. Unfortunately there's no biologically sustaining quality to homosexuality. It's not to say it's not natural occuring, but of course saying that it's abnormal makes you a bigot, homophobe, etc...etc...Can't wait until the polygamists use that one.

Personally, I'd like to see all of the financial marriage benefits ceased. The government should recognize civil unions only for the purpose of insurance, and medical rights. Then let marriage be purely for ceremonial purposes. I wonder if the bitching would cease then. I somehow doubt it.

hearingimpared

So.... What happened at hearingimpaireds son's school today? Anything?

Funny you should ask . . . today all Philadelphia public schools are closed due to the Jewish Holiday Yom Kippur.

When I was in Public school 1967 through 1973 (for you wise guys out there grades 7 through 12 Ha Ha) the kids that were Jewish were allowed to take all Jewish Holidays off as excused absenses. The rest of us had to be in school. I have no idea when that changed to full days off but then again I wasn't in the Philadelphia school system back then.

Joe

PolkThug

Skynut wrote:

It does not affect my marrige. It affects the word marrige. A word that has been in use for a very long time.

You've done more damage to the word marriage than anyone.

hearingimpared

PolkThug wrote:

You've done more damage to the word marriage than anyone.

**** people have damaged the word . .. the word was okay until . . .

PS: I can't have a **** old time like the Flintstones anymore because if I do I'm bringing attention to myself as being a homosexual. Ya can't use that word anymore without be stigmatized!!! Homosexuals took a word from the dictionary and forced others to use it as they deemed fit.....what is so "****" about being a homosexual? The homosexuals on this site don't seem or sound "****" to me.


EDIT: I think I need to let everyone know that I am just being facetious or else I'll get tagged again with taking everything so personally.;) wink wink nudge nudge get wha ah mean

danger boy

unc2701 wrote:

Interesting fact- **** guys have bigger **** on average than the straight folks. I'll try to dig up the paper, but they traced it back to the hormone levels during pregnancy. Same thing goes for lesbians- I'm drawing a blank, but there's this genetic ovarian disorder, where like 60% of the women who get it are openly lesbians... makes a strong argument for a genetic component for sexual orientation.

Ok now.

*i'm making some popcorn... and going to sit back and enjoy the show..

I do find it very interesting how straight society knows more about being **** then i do.... some straight men have better gaydar than i do i guess. Women have excellent gaydar as a matter of fact. I need to get my gaydar in for a 30,000 mile check up i guess. :eek:

Seriously, if you're straight.. don't be telling me you know why some children are born ****.. don't you think as a **** person.. i'd probably know better than you?

hearingimpared

danger boy wrote:

Ok now.

*i'm making some popcorn... and going to sit back and enjoy the show..

Yo Bro, I that's what I've been doing all day today but I couldn't resist the above!!!:D

Do ya see what we started!!!

danger boy

hearingimpared wrote:

**** people have damaged the word . .. the word was okay until . . .

PS: I can't have a **** old time like the Flintstones anymore because if I do I'm bringing attention to myself as being a homosexual. Ya can't use that word anymore without be stigmatized!!! Homosexuals took a word from the dictionary and forced others to use it as they deemed fit.....what is so "****" about being a homosexual? The homosexuals on this site don't seem or sound "****" to me.


EDIT: I think I need to let everyone know that I am just being facetious or else I'll get tagged again with taking everything so personally.;) wink wink nudge nudge get wha ah mean

wow.. now blaming **** for failed marriages.. nice.. very nice.. nearly 50% of all marriages (man to a women) end in divorce. I guess **** are to blame for that too. :rolleyes:

hearingimpared

danger boy wrote:

wow.. now blaming **** for failed marriages.. nice.. very nice.. nearly 50% of all marriages (man to a women) end in divorce. I guess **** are to blame for that too. :rolleyes:

Yeah, you guys and I use that term loosely need to teach us how to save our marraiges!!! LOL

brettw22

So perverts should be allowed to look at, watch, or participate in kiddie ****? Who said it was illegal? Aren't we infringing on the rights of the perverted? Like it or not it we live under the societal standards that the elected majority agrees upon, and we're the ones who send them there. What does that have to do with religion.

....what if nambla tried to make it legal for a 24yo man to marry a 16 year old boy.
I know he is underage but that doesn't matter because they want to change the law to suit their needs because otherwise we are descriminating against them. "Their group".

Also, there are lots or prohibitions in marriage. A man cant marry a child, a man cant marry his sister, a man cant marry 2 women, a man cant marry his horse, a man cant marry a man. You have a right to spend the rest of your life with whom you see fit but we have a right to not have to approve or recognize it.

The above are some of the (yes) outrageous comments that have been made in the past about this. It is outrageous (yes) because there has been a legal age put on "child" as under 18. Legal age is legal age regardless of sexual orientation. Using any of the above is so outside the bounds of what's being sought that it's ridiculous to give arguements like that any credit. TWO consentual adults should have every right to marry each other if they feel that it's what they want to do. Religion isn't at play here, as (again) I'm not looking for acceptance to your religion.

You can't argue that **** would somehow bastardize marriage and then in the same breath try and bring something like polygamy into the mix unless you want to show you really have no valid point.

hearingimpared

brettw22 wrote:

The above are some of the (yes) outrageous comments that have been made in the past about this. It is outrageous (yes) because there has been a legal age put on "child" as under 18. Legal age is legal age regardless of sexual orientation. Using any of the above is so outside the bounds of what's being sought that it's ridiculous to give arguements like that any credit. TWO consentual adults should have every right to marry each other if they feel that it's what they want to do. Religion isn't at play here, as (again) I'm not looking for acceptance to your religion.

You can't argue that **** would somehow bastardize marriage and then in the same breath try and bring something like polygamy into the mix unless you want to show you really have no valid point.

All the crap you quoted above IS AGAINST THE LAW and some of it is down right perverted. Homosexual marraige is against the law (in forty nine states) what give you the right to call anything that you quoted above as not worthy of comparision to what most people in this country consider the same perversion??? Of course our points are invalid Brett because we made them and you disagree.

Polk65

danger boy wrote:

i'm making some popcorn... and going to sit back and enjoy the show..

Pass the popcorn bro and crank up the SRS :rolleyes:

Tolerance and the topic exited along with Elvis.

danger boy

Same-sex marriage is the union of two people who are of the same biological sex, or gender. Other, less common, terms include "gender-neutral marriage", "equal marriage", "**** marriage", "**** marriage," "homosexual marriage", "same-gender marriage", or simply "marriage".

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, opposing efforts to legalize or ban same-sex civil marriage made it a topic of debate all over the world. At present, same-sex marriages are recognized in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, and the U.S. state of Massachusetts for same-sex marriages performed within that state under its laws.

On December 1, 2005, South Africa’s Constitutional Court extended marriage to include same-sex couples. The court mandated that changes go into effect by the end of 2006.

Civil unions, domestic partnerships or registered partnership offer varying amounts of the benefits of marriage are available in: Andorra, Argentina, Brazil, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom; the Australian state of Tasmania, and the U.S. states of California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, and Vermont; and the U.S. District of Columbia (Washington, DC).

The first same-sex union in modern history with government recognition was obtained in Denmark in 1989 (although historian John Boswell argues numerous same-sex unions existed in pre-modern Europe; however, his scholarship standards are subject to intense debate).[1] In Scandinavia registered partnerships are nearly equal to marriage, including legal adoption rights in Sweden, and since June, also in Iceland. However these partnerships are written separately from marriage in the existing laws, and are thus not called marriage except in daily speech. In some countries with legal recognition the actual benefits are minimal. Many people feel that civil unions, even those which grant equal rights, are inadequate as they create a separate status, and should be replaced by gender-neutral marriage.

brettw22

Because I look at anyone who would even seriously put any of those in the same realm as mental midgets.....it's only said to be inflammatory, not for someone to look at them as intelligent.

mrbigbluelight

Well, **** certainly have screwed up some of our Christmas carols.

".....now we don our **** apparel,
Fa la la, la la la, la la la..."

....I guess that's a bad example, though.
That song was already on the "Suspicious" list with the "Fa la la" thing.

Nevermind.

faster100

mrbigbluelight wrote:

Well, **** certainly have screwed up some of our Christmas carols.

".....now we don our **** apparel,
Fa la la, la la la, la la la..."

....I guess that's a bad example, though.
That song was already on the "Suspicious" list with the "Fa la la" thing.

Nevermind.

LOL lets see some **** cats bluelight

Skynut

They chant about being here and **** so we were supposed to get used to it but we can't call them ****?
What about the fact that by abreviating the word homosexual we have made it derogitory?
I also believe that I have read somewhere in this thread that there is a **** day (comming out day) a **** month or two (june and oct?) and I believe threre is a **** week also. (the **** week may be a part of one of those **** months )
Then they want to have marriage (sp) re-defined to suit their purpose.

As for all the talk about comparing homosexuality to beastiality or child ****, I would bet that child **** is legal somewhere on this planet and I have heard about women who preform with animals in other countries so both of those already have a start for becomming legal.

Demiurge

brettw22 wrote:

Because I look at anyone who would even seriously put any of those in the same realm as mental midgets.....it's only said to be inflammatory, not for someone to look at them as intelligent.

No, it's said to show the hypocrisy of your argument. You're only using your feelings and emotions for your argument. Your ends is where someone elses mutation of what's natural begins. I really don't know how on earth you can look around the world at all the countries who have laws we'd call backwards, and then not see the point that's being made. Hell, didn't Dangerboy just bold the **** marriage supporting countries around the world? So lets not pretend that's not in play. We just decided an adult is 18. Could very well be 12 if we really wanted it to be. That's the point. I think you're bent out of shape because some folks view **** marriage as a perversion on the same level as polygamy, and incest. Might piss you off, but thems the breaks.

Furthermore, I have no idea what any of that has to do with religion. Anyone can be in disagreement with the blanket acceptance of the homosexual movement from a purely scientific standpoint. Should you face direct persecution for it? No, but welcome to the real world. Overweight people get called fat, and the world aint fair. Sure, they can help it and you can't, but on that point I'm sure it's something you've learned to deal with just like anyone else with a known difference.

The problem is nobody can say the stuff I just said without getting called homophobic, or bigoted, which quite frankly is a joke. I don't have any personal problem with homosexuals. I just don't agree that **** marriage is a right that has any justification from any practical standpoint. More often than not those folks get lumped in with the montsters who would beat someone for being ****. I think it's quite a stretch.