Gay couple asked to reverse shirt at Dollywood

[ConHog]

No twisting required. You attempted to justify the behavior of half the unit.

Sir, IF that were my unit and half of them tried to kill a homosexual unit member. I would as their commanding officer proffer charges and push for an Article15 hearing. Believe that.

[fj1200]

Sir, IF that were my unit and half of them tried to kill a homosexual unit member. I would as their commanding officer proffer charges and push for an Article15 hearing. Believe that.

I believe it. That's good to hear.

[ConHog]

No offense to the queer lovers 'round these parts, but if I had my choice I would rather share my room with a few cockroaches.

That's not entirely fair. Not all gays are queers. My friend for example, I promise you wouldn't know he was gay at all. And he'd stomp a mudhole in both anyone who called him a queer, and and any gay that was umm shall we say flamboyant.

That's my ONLY objection, why do SOME have to act like total assholes. Be gay, that's your choice, don't subject me to your stupidity though.

[J.T]

You dishonest troll. Gunny never said he nor any other Marine was afraid of queers.

Post 233 demonstrates the classical fear response and the violent reaction resulting from the fight-or-flight response following the perception of a threat. Specifically, they fear that the homosexual will seduce them into a homosexual encounter in which they will receive penetration, thereby reducing them to the lesser status of a female. They fear emasculation and being made 'less' than a man- of being made a beta, a submissive, a weak and dependent subject of a stronger alpha- and they fear the exclusion and violence that others like themselves will inflict upon them if they are seduced into or subjected to this lesser status of feminization and submission. The homosexual is thus perceived as a threat, triggering a deep sense of fear and the fight-or-flight response, which manifests as anger and violent behavior as they attempt to assert their dominance, masculinity, and social rank as alpha males capable of inflicting their will upon lesser or weaker members of the collective. This fear is made all the more intense if the homosexual in question can be identified as 'effeminate'- for to be submissive in the sexual act to an effeminate homosexualis to even further immaculate the homophobe and make one not only less than an alpha male, but one lower than and submissive a feminine power, placing one at the very bottom of the social order near a child and wholly subject to the will of the rest of the pack.

This is why the violent homophobic response is strongest in prisons, the military, and other environments characterized by an alpha-male culture and the infliction of the will of the strong upon the weak and inferior.

-but I probably lost you with the first three-syllable word....


I'm not afraid of cock roaches, nor do I hate them , nor does anyone tell me to kill them if and when I see them, and yet I will do so.

Actually, you are. The repulsion and hatred people feel toward cockroaches stem from the association of the roach with filth, contamination, disease, and illness- and the instinctual fear of disease and illness that runs deep within the animal mind. That is why the NAZIs depicted the Jews and the Hutus depicted the Tutsi as carriers of illness and disease in order to dehumanize them and make it possible for the masses to view them as something [I]other and less than human, and as a threat that had to be destroyed.


he'd stomp a mudhole in both anyone who called him a queer, and and any gay that was umm shall we say flamboyant.



I wonder why that might be... (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31915-Gay-couple-asked-to-reverse-shirt-at-Dollywood/page17&p=481597#post481597)

[ConHog]

I wonder why that might be... (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31915-Gay-couple-asked-to-reverse-shirt-at-Dollywood/page17&p=481597#post481597)


Umm because he can't stand queers and doesn't want to be associated with them either??

[LuvRPgrl]

Why would they want to kill something they're not afraid of, hate, or are told to kill?

Good satire though.

So what if the guys hate homosexuals. A phobia is an irrational fear.
But go ahead and continue calling using childish name calling, it immediately puts to rest any possiblity of a rational discussion, something the pro homo crowd never wants.

[ConHog]

So what if the guys hate homosexuals. A phobia is an irrational fear.
But go ahead and continue calling using childish name calling, it immediately puts to rest any possiblity of a rational discussion, something the pro homo crowd never wants.

Maybe we should start calling them heterophobic.

[LuvRPgrl]

Post 233 demonstrates the classical fear response and the violent reaction resulting from the fight-or-flight response following the perception of a threat. Specifically, they fear that the homosexual will seduce them into a homosexual encounter in which they will receive penetration, thereby reducing them to the lesser status [in a patriarchal culture of dominance and violence] of a female. They fear emasculation and being made 'less' than a man- of being made a beta, a submissive, a weak and dependent subject of a stronger alpha- and they fear the exclusion and violence that others like themselves will inflict upon them if they are seduced into or subjected to this lesser status of feminization and submission. The homosexual is thus perceived as a threat, triggering a deep sense of fear and the fight-or-flight response, which manifests as anger and violent behavior as they attempt to assert their dominance, masculinity, and social rank as alpha males capable of inflicting their will upon lesser or weaker members of the collective. This fear is made all the more intense if the homosexual in question can be identified as 'effeminate'- for to be submissive in the sexual act to an effeminate homosexualis to even further immaculate the homophobe and make one not only less than an alpha male, but one lower than and submissive a feminine power, placing one at the very bottom of the social order near a child and wholly subject to the will of the rest of the pack.

This is why the violent homophobic response is strongest in prisons, the military, and other environments characterized by an alpha-male culture and the infliction of the will of the strong upon the weak and inferior.

-but I probably lost you with the first three-syllable word....

REALLY?
You wasted all your time typing that tripe?
You are really full of yourself.
Do you really think alot of people will read the whole thing?
And those few who do, you really think they will believe any of i t.
Not only is it stupid, but downright boring. I bet people who know you think of cardboard when describing your personality.

Do you have a twin named "the shadow know"?

[ConHog]

REALLY?
You wasted all your time typing that tripe?
You are really full of yourself.
Do you really think alot of people will read the whole thing?
And those few who do, you really think they will believe any of i t.
Not only is it stupid, but downright boring. I bet people who know you think of cardboard when describing your personality.

Do you have a twin named "the shadow know"?



Funny thing is JB errr uh JT thinks of himself as an intellectual . LOL

[J.T]

I know, I know... I knew there were too many big words for you.

Here are some links to help you get a clue and become less ignorant.

http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Apsychology textbook&page=1

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=university+psychology+courses

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=university+sociology+courses

http://www.amazon.com/Sociobiology-New-Synthesis-Twenty-Fifth-Anniversary/dp/0674002350

You're welcome.

[ConHog]

I know, I know... I knew there were too many big words for you.

Here are some links to help you get a clue and become less ignorant.

http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Apsychology textbook&page=1

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=university+psychology+courses

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=university+sociology+courses

http://www.amazon.com/Sociobiology-New-Synthesis-Twenty-Fifth-Anniversary/dp/0674002350

You're welcome.


I don't click on links you post. I have no desire to see gay porn pop onto my pc.

[LuvRPgrl]

I know, I know... I knew there were too many big words for you.

Here are some links to help you get a clue and become less ignorant.

http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Apsychology textbook&page=1

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=university+psychology+courses

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=university+sociology+courses

http://www.amazon.com/Sociobiology-New-Synthesis-Twenty-Fifth-Anniversary/dp/0674002350

You're welcome.

You really dont mind wasting your time.

[J.T]

gay porn

Well, we know what's on your mind. No wonder you and Gunny get so wound up over this stuff. Do you two need some time alone?

And I once thought he had standards...

[ConHog]

Well, we know what's on your mind. No wonder you and Gunny get so wound up over this stuff. Do you two need some time alone?

And I once thought he had standards...



This right here is what makes you a stupid hypocrite. I mean MANY things make you an idiot. But this is quite hilarious. Here you are purporting to be defending gays, all the while using gay as a pejorative. LOL what a clown you have proven yourself to be.

[J.T]

This right here is what makes you a stupid hypocrite. I mean MANY things make you an idiot. But this is quite hilarious. Here you are purporting to be defending gays, all the while using gay as a pejorative. LOL what a clown you have proven yourself to be.

The word 'gay' never appears in that post, genius. In fact, no pejoratives appear in that post, only the clear implication that Gunny should set higher standards for himself if he's involved with you. I do with you the best though; you have my blessing and are more than welcome to my leftovers.

[LuvRPgrl]

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY PRESIDENT OBAMA:


post 254 demonstrates the classical fear response and the violent reaction resulting from the fight-or-flight response following the perception of a threat. Specifically, jt fear that the those with lower iq's will seduce them into a intellectual encounter in which jt will be shown to be a bozo, thereby reducing him to the lesser status [in a patriarchal culture of dominance and violence] of a retard. jt fears emasculation and being made 'less' than a man- of being made a beta, a submissive, a weak and dependent subject of a stronger alpha- and jt fears the exclusion and violence that others like themselves will inflict upon him if they are seduced into or subjected to this lesser status of dumb and dumber. The intellectual is thus perceived as a threat, triggering in jt a deep sense of fear and the fight-or-flight response, which manifests as anger and violent behavior as attempts to assert their dominance, masculinity, and social rank as smarter males capable of inflicting their will upon lesser or weaker members of the collective,specifically jt. This fear is made all the more intense if the true intellectual in question can be identified as 'funny and having some kind of personality, unlike jt'- for to be submissive in the act to a true intellectual to even further immaculate the logicphobia and make one not only less than an alpha male, but one lower than and submissive an intellectual power, placing jt at the very bottom of the social order near a child and wholly subject to the will of the rest of the pack.

This is why the violent response by jt is strongest in prisons, the military, and other environments characterized by an alpha-male culture and the infliction of the will of the strong upon the weak and inferior, specifically jt.

-but i probably lost jt with the first three-syllable word....

oh this is getting to be sooo much fun !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ConHog]

The word 'gay' never appears in that post, genius. In fact, no pejoratives appear in that post, only the clear implication that Gunny should set higher standards for himself if he's involved with you. I do with you the best though; you have my blessing and are more than welcome to my leftovers.



Oh, the clear implication was that you were calling Gunny and I closet gays. At least try to be man enough to admit it when you're caught.

[LuvRPgrl]

The word 'gay' never appears in that post, genius. In fact, no pejoratives appear in that post, .

Thats your best comeback??

hahahahha,,,,,,,HAHAHHAHAHHAHA,,,,,,,BWAAAAHAHHAHA HAHHAHAHAHHA

[J.T]

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY PRESIDENT OBAMA:



oh this is getting to be sooo much fun !!!!!!!!!!!!!

'Intellectual' would be proceeded by 'an', not 'a'. If you want to pretend to be an editor when playing your childish games, you should probably learn the language first.


jt fears emasculation and being made 'less' than a man-

:lol:

Honey, even in a dress and heals I'm more of a man than you could ever handle. ;)




This is why the violent response by jt is strongest in prisons, the military, and other environments characterized by an alpha-male culture and the infliction of the will of the strong upon the weak and inferior, specifically jt.


:lol:

I did just fine, hon. Care to try again?


Oh, the clear implication was that you were calling Gunny and I closet gays.

And? You're the only one who thought it was some terrible thing. I already gave you my blessing. I'm done with him anyway; my new toy is much more fun. :thumb:


Thats your best comeback??

hahahahha,,,,,,,HAHAHHAHAHHAHA,,,,,,,BWAAAAHAHHAHA HAHHAHAHAHHA

2292

You're no PaleRider, but I'll give you 6/10 for effort.

[LuvRPgrl]

2292

You're no PaleRider, but I'll give you 6/10 for effort.

Darn, banned again.

[ConHog]

Darn, banned again.



You can't POSSIBLY be surprised.

[fj1200]

So what if the guys hate homosexuals. A phobia is an irrational fear.
But go ahead and continue calling using childish name calling, it immediately puts to rest any possiblity of a rational discussion, something the pro homo crowd never wants.

They should attack a fellow soldier? What name calling did I engage in?

[ConHog]

They should attack a fellow soldier? What name calling did I engage in?



Sir, it's possible to hate someone, or something, and not act on that hate you know.

Not only that, it is our RIGHT to do so. I don't HAVE to like you. You don't have a RIGHT to my friendship, or respect.

[fj1200]

Sir, it's possible to hate someone, or something, and not act on that hate you know.

Not only that, it is our RIGHT to do so. I don't HAVE to like you. You don't have a RIGHT to my friendship, or respect.

What are you even talking about? I don't control your hate and I don't care who your friends are.

[ConHog]

What are you even talking about? I don't control your hate and I don't care who your friends are.



I'm talking about not everyone that hates gays, or any other group, is going to act on that hate, so when you say that Gunny is saying Marines will attack gays when all he said is that some Marines will hate gays is just a flat lie.

[fj1200]

I'm talking about not everyone that hates gays, or any other group, is going to act on that hate, so when you say that Gunny is saying Marines will attack gays when all he said is that some Marines will hate gays is just a flat lie.

Gunny clearly stated that the gay Marine is in harms way. Let's review:


I've SEEN what happens when someone openly claims to being gay. It disrupts the unit. PERIOD. Half the unit wants to kill the guy, and you have to figure out who you can use as a chaser to protect the idiot until you can get him out as fast as you can. Then the ones that want to kill him are pissed at you for not letting them.

He didn't even say that his Marines hated him, so I asked for clarification:


Why would they want to kill something they're not afraid of, hate, or are told to kill?


Your cockroach tangent didn't really answer the question and no word yet from Gunny. So, did I lie?

[ConHog]

Gunny clearly stated that the gay Marine is in harms way. Let's review:



He didn't even say that his Marines hated him, so I asked for clarification:



Your cockroach tangent didn't really answer the question and no word yet from Gunny. So, did I lie?



what are you babbling about? Gunny CLEARLY said that half the Marines would WANT to kill him. He did NOT say that half the Marines would actually try to kill him. YOU might be some child who impulsively acts on ever want, but I assure you that the US military trains their men, and women, better than that.

[LuvRPgrl]

They should attack a fellow soldier? What name calling did I engage in?

No, I didnt say anything about attacking anyone.
It is common for pro homo crowds to immediately use terms like "hate" to get an emotional response from others. Thats all they want, no thinking or honest discourse.

Thats why conservatives so often lose the battle of public perception. We KNOW our posistion is right, so we think when the facts come out, people willl understand. But the lefties know its a perception game and thats what they play.

[fj1200]

what are you babbling about? Gunny CLEARLY said that half the Marines would WANT to kill him. He did NOT say that half the Marines would actually try to kill him. YOU might be some child who impulsively acts on ever want, but I assure you that the US military trains their men, and women, better than that.

You might try reading his words a little more closely unless "protect the idiot" means they wanted to pat him on the back and say, "we're behind you and support you as you strive to be able to fight alongside your brothers in arms without having to live a lie." :rolleyes:

If the military is as well trained as you say that they are, which I do not dispute, then the acceptance of gays in the military will go smoothly IMO and this is much discussion about nothing.


No, I didnt say anything about attacking anyone.
It is common for pro homo crowds to immediately use terms like "hate" to get an emotional response from others. Thats all they want, no thinking or honest discourse.

The discussion followed from Gunny's post which clearly showed attacking intent. Based on what is apparently still an open question. There is certainly some sort of emotional response to justify restrictions on gay Americans that other Americans are not subject too.

[QUOTE=LuvRPgrl;481797]Thats why conservatives so often lose the battle of public perception. We KNOW our posistion is right, so we think when the facts come out, people willl understand. But the lefties know its a perception game and thats what they play.

I'm conservative and I don't think that your position is right because it limits the freedoms of another group of Americans.

[ConHog]

[QUOTE=LuvRPgrl;481797]No, I didnt say anything about attacking anyone.
It is common for pro homo crowds to immediately use terms like "hate" to get an emotional response from others. Thats all they want, no thinking or honest discourse.

The discussion followed from Gunny's post which clearly showed attacking intent. Based on what is apparently still an open question. There is certainly some sort of emotional response to justify restrictions on gay Americans that other Americans are not subject too.



I'm conservative and I don't think that your position is right because it limits the freedoms of another group of Americans.




How so sir, you do not have the right to serve in the military, or getting back to the point of this thread, you do not have the right to go to DollyWood.

You do understand that , don't you?

[fj1200]

How so sir, you do not have the right to serve in the military, or getting back to the point of this thread, you do not have the right to go to DollyWood.

You do understand that , don't you?

Is asking dumb questions just a debating ploy for you? :rolleyes:

Did I say anything about a "right"? I think a homosexual should have the privilege of serving in the military because they have a right to demonstrate their patriotism in a positive way.

And Dollywood? Why don't you go back and review my position on the OP.

[ConHog]

Is asking dumb questions just a debating ploy for you? :rolleyes:

Did I say anything about a "right"? I think a homosexual should have the privilege of serving in the military because they have a right to demonstrate their patriotism in a positive way.

And Dollywood? Why don't you go back and review my position on the OP.



Good for you, but it doesn't restrict a person's freedoms not to be able to serve. Not to a point where they have a RIGHT to do so. And THAT is the only standard that the military HAS to meet. That's the part people aren't understanding. Myself, I couldn't care less, let them serve. No special protections you understand, but let them serve. BUT they don't have a RIGHT to do so.

[LuvRPgrl]

[QUOTE=LuvRPgrl;481797]No, I didnt say anything about attacking anyone.
It is common for pro homo crowds to immediately use terms like "hate" to get an emotional response from others. Thats all they want, no thinking or honest discourse.

The discussion followed from Gunny's post which clearly showed attacking intent. Based on what is apparently still an open question. There is certainly some sort of emotional response to justify restrictions on gay Americans that other Americans are not subject too.



I'm conservative and I don't think that your position is right because it limits the freedoms of another group of Americans.

I mean that in general terms.
You said that serving isnt a right, but a privledge. FREEDOMS are rights.

[fj1200]

Good for you, but it doesn't restrict a person's freedoms not to be able to serve. Not to a point where they have a RIGHT to do so. And THAT is the only standard that the military HAS to meet. That's the part people aren't understanding. Myself, I couldn't care less, let them serve. No special protections you understand, but let them serve. BUT they don't have a RIGHT to do so.

Hmm, not being able to freely serve doesn't restrict freedoms. Interesting logic you've got there. Some apparently only want straights to have that "RIGHT."


I mean that in general terms.
You said that serving isnt a right, but a privledge. FREEDOMS are rights.

Attacking in "general terms"? If I don't attack then it's general?

So if they don't have that freedom then their rights are restricted? I love how everyone is so intent on ensuring that gays don't have the same privileges as others.

[jimnyc]

Attacking in "general terms"? If I don't attack then it's general?

So if they don't have that freedom then their rights are restricted? I love how everyone is so intent on ensuring that gays don't have the same privileges as others.

Many of us just don't want to be equated with abnormalities. Let them have whatever "rights" they feel will make them have equal standing via law - but they don't have a "right" to force me to see them as MY equal.

[fj1200]

Many of us just don't want to be equated with abnormalities. Let them have whatever "rights" they feel will make them have equal standing via law - but they don't have a "right" to force me to see them as MY equal.

Now if only that were the issue. :rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

Now if only that were the issue. :rolleyes:

It is, for me, and for many others. All those I speak to about the issue are absolutely tired of hearing about the issue and seeing the "displays" from the queers. Most of them just want the constant discussion of it in the paper and radio to go away. Most I know don't care if they get civil unions or any other legal benefits. And most of them just don't want to be told they are the "same" as the queers. But I guess that's because I'm so afraid of them and probably am only speaking with others who have irrational fears of queers.

[ConHog]

Hmm, not being able to freely serve doesn't restrict freedoms. Interesting logic you've got there. Some apparently only want straights to have that "RIGHT."

Proves you don't know shit about the military. All sort of people who would like the "privilege" of serving in the military are denied for various reasons. Should we tell the military to forget about their standards from now on?

[fj1200]

It is, for me, and for many others. All those I speak to about the issue are absolutely tired of hearing about the issue and seeing the "displays" from the queers. Most of them just want the constant discussion of it in the paper and radio to go away. Most I know don't care if they get civil unions or any other legal benefits. And most of them just don't want to be told they are the "same" as the queers. But I guess that's because I'm so afraid of them and probably am only speaking with others who have irrational fears of queers.

Go ahead, claim your superiority but don't restrict others because of your feelings.

[jimnyc]

Go ahead, claim your superiority but don't restrict others because of your feelings.

Not claiming superiority, but claiming they are abnormal. And it's not my feelings necessarily but is a fact.

[ConHog]

Go ahead, claim your superiority but don't restrict others because of your feelings.


When I was in bootcamp there was a fat boy there who couldn't pass the PT standards, should he also have been allowed in because goddamit we have a right to the privilege of serving?

[fj1200]

Proves you don't know shit about the military. All sort of people who would like the "privilege" of serving in the military are denied for various reasons. Should we tell the military to forget about their standards from now on?

Yes, that's exactly what I claimed. :rolleyes: I would hope that they have physical standards to ensure the ability to become an effective soldier just like they have standards for police officers and firemen. I'm sure that there are gays in those positions as well. Still doesn't prove your "logic" however.


Not claiming superiority, but claiming they are abnormal. And it's not my feelings necessarily but is a fact.

I would think that's pretty much the definition.


When I was in bootcamp there was a fat boy there who couldn't pass the PT standards, should he also have been allowed in because goddamit we have a right to the privilege of serving?

Any more words you'd like to put in my mouth or argue against other positions I didn't take?

[ConHog]

Yes, that's exactly what I claimed. :rolleyes: I would hope that they have physical standards to ensure the ability to become an effective soldier just like they have standards for police officers and firemen. I'm sure that there are gays in those positions as well. Still doesn't prove your "logic" however.

So you're problem then isn't with the military having standards, it's with them having standards YOU don't agree with.

I argue that the military themselves should in fact be the ones deciding what their standards are.

[KartRacerBoy]

[QUOTE=ConHog;481858]Proves you don't know shit about the military. All sort of people who would like the "privilege" of serving in the military are denied for various reasons. Should we tell the military to forget about their standards from now on?[/QUOTE

IIRC, this country has civilian control OVER the military.

I seem to recall a time in the 1940s when all hell was going to break loose when blacks were no longer segregated. The people who couldn't deal with the new reality had the choice of staying and adapting or getting the hell out.

And now those of you still serving will finally get to make the same choice. Blacks didn't meet those standards b4 the end of military segregation (that's why they were segregated). Amazingly, once the idiots were gone, blacks proved to be just as good a soldier as the white peopole.

Saying someone doesn't meet a military standard just becz he or she is gay makes the same kinda sense. Which is to say NO SENSE.

[fj1200]

So you're problem then isn't with the military having standards, it's with them having standards YOU don't agree with.

I argue that the military themselves should in fact be the ones deciding what their standards are.


... standards to ensure the ability to become an effective soldier...

Yeah, standards that ensure that they can fulfill their mission. :slap:

I wonder if anyone on Seal Team 6 was DADT. I can just imagine the confusion around here if the "abnormal" took out a "cockroach." Heads would asplode all over the place.

[ConHog]

[QUOTE=ConHog;481858]Proves you don't know shit about the military. All sort of people who would like the "privilege" of serving in the military are denied for various reasons. Should we tell the military to forget about their standards from now on?[/QUOTE

IIRC, this country has civilian control OVER the military.

I seem to recall a time in the 1940s when all hell was going to break loose when blacks were no longer segregated. The people who couldn't deal with the new reality had the choice of staying and adapting or getting the hell out.

And now those of you still serving will finally get to make the same choice. Blacks didn't meet those standards b4 the end of military segregation (that's why they were segregated). Amazingly, once the idiots were gone, blacks proved to be just as good a soldier as the white peopole.

Saying someone doesn't meet a military standard just becz he or she is gay makes the same kinda sense. Which is to say NO SENSE.

First of all, please stop. Gays are not blacks and in noway should be afforded the same level of protections that blacks were given. You may as well as say "well fat people are people to and if people who are in shape in the military don't want to serve with them , tough shit."

Second of all, yes the military is under civilian leadership, but that in NO WAY means that that civilian leadership micromanages them. DO you REALLY think that the POTUS knows whats better for the military then those who have made the military their lives do?

[ConHog]

Yeah, standards that ensure that they can fulfill their mission. :slap:

I wonder if anyone on Seal Team 6 was DADT. I can just imagine the confusion around here if the "abnormal" took out a "cockroach." Heads would asplode all over the place.

ALL SEALS are abnormal. Has nothing to do with anything.

[fj1200]

First of all, please stop. Gays are not blacks and in noway should be afforded the same level of protections that blacks were given. You may as well as say "well fat people are people to and if people who are in shape in the military don't want to serve with them , tough shit."

Second of all, yes the military is under civilian leadership, but that in NO WAY means that that civilian leadership micromanages them. DO you REALLY think that the POTUS knows whats better for the military then those who have made the military their lives do?

No, of course not. :rolleyes:
Admirals, generals: Let gays serve openly (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27774058/ns/us_news-military/t/admirals-generals-let-gays-serve-openly/)



More than 100 retired generals and admirals called Monday for repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays so they can serve openly, according to a statement obtained by The Associated Press.
...
"As is the case with Great Britain, Israel, and other nations that allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, our service members are professionals who are able to work together effectively despite differences in race, gender, religion, and sexuality," the officers wrote.

Yup, our way of life is determined by not treating people with respect and withholding privileges.


ALL SEALS are abnormal. Has nothing to do with anything.

Point? Meet CH.


... those who have made the military their lives do?

More:


Gates: "I Fully Support" Decision To Repeal DADT. In his February 2 testimony, Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated:

Former Defense Secretary and Former Vice President Dick Cheney has called for repeal.During a February 14 interview on ABC's This Week, when asked whether it is "time to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military," former Defense Secretary and Vice President Dick Cheney replied:
Gen. Powell Stated His Support For Allowing Gays and Lesbians To Serve, Cited Change In "Attitudes And Circumstances." A February 4 Washington Post article reported:
Gen. Shalikashvili called for repeal of DADT and open service by gays and lesbians. In a January 2007 New York Times op-ed, General John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when DADT was implemented, wrote:
Gen. Jones: "[Y]oung Men And Women Who Wish To Serve Their Country Should Not Have To Lie In Order To Do That." In a February 14 interview on CNN's State of the Union, Gen. James Jones, currently the National Security Adviser, stated:

Pentagon Report: "70-76% Of Service Members Said Repeal Would Have A Positive, A Mixed, Or No Effect On Aspects Of Task Cohesion." According to the Pentagon's recently released report on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, when asked about the effect of repeal on task cohesion, personal readiness, and unit readiness, majorities of the service members surveyed said they expected a "positive, mixed, or no effect." From the report [emphasis added]:
http://mediamatters.org/research/201012100021

[KartRacerBoy]

[QUOTE=KartRacerBoy;481890]

First of all, please stop. Gays are not blacks and in noway should be afforded the same level of protections that blacks were given. You may as well as say "well fat people are people to and if people who are in shape in the military don't want to serve with them , tough shit."

Second of all, yes the military is under civilian leadership, but that in NO WAY means that that civilian leadership micromanages them. DO you REALLY think that the POTUS knows whats better for the military then those who have made the military their lives do?

Since I don't think being gay is a choice, I won't stop equating it with desegregation of the military. The point is that civilians tell the military what the rules are. If a gay man or woman can do the job, stfu as JT would say. But white men had irrational fears involving blacks back in the 40s. Once integration was the rule, they had to adapt or leave. That's how it should be.

And I don't think that allowing or disallowing discrimination in the military against gay soldiers is "micromanaging." The military is a tool of our civilian society. Civilian society can and does want that tool to mirror society on some levels. We are not a nation (thank god) based on Robert Heinlien's Starship Trooper where only soldiers can have full citizenship rights. We are rather close to the opposite. Citizens (and non-citizens) can be soldiers.

As has been noted, several other western democracies have accepted gay service members. I don't recall any of their militaries collapsing. Why can't the US military do the same? Do you think there wasn't a long period of adjustment during the cold war when blacks were integrated becz I'm pretty sure attitudes didn't change overnight and lots of officers and noncoms resisted.

[ConHog]

[QUOTE=ConHog;481931]

Since I don't think being gay is a choice, I won't stop equating it with desegregation of the military. The point is that civilians tell the military what the rules are. If a gay man or woman can do the job, stfu as JT would say. But white men had irrational fears involving blacks back in the 40s. Once integration was the rule, they had to adapt or leave. That's how it should be.

And I don't think that allowing or disallowing discrimination in the military against gay soldiers is "micromanaging." The military is a tool of our civilian society. Civilian society can and does want that tool to mirror society on some levels. We are not a nation (thank god) based on Robert Heinlien's Starship Trooper where only soldiers can have full citizenship rights. We are rather close to the opposite. Citizens (and non-citizens) can be soldiers.

As has been noted, several other western democracies have accepted gay service members. I don't recall any of their militaries collapsing. Why can't the US military do the same? Do you think there wasn't a long period of adjustment during the cold war when blacks were integrated becz I'm pretty sure attitudes didn't change overnight and lots of officers and noncoms resisted.


Well, you are wrong , gay is a choice, and furthermore telling others you're gay is certainly a choice. No person is ever found to be gay except by his or her own actions. PERIOD. Being black however is simple genetics. Totally different. Oh also, let me Tyou this, blacks were allowed to serve, and have served in the US military since before we declared independence. The only thing that changed was that they were integrated. So does that mean you are for forcibly integrating gays into situations in which other soldiers might not want them? That is more akin to forcing women to bunk with men then it is to forcing whites to bunk with blacks. No matter how much you would like to avoid the sexual component, you simply can't.

Now will ALL gays be on the lookout to be raping straight men, or women as the case may be, of course not. Just as not ALL men would be looking to rape women if they bunked together; but telling the women that isn't going to do much to calm their worries about those who might.

I already know your next argument is going to be "well if military men are afraid that gays are going to rape them, then they are pussies and they can just get out." I counter that with bullshit. Why should straight men be forced to either somehow not worry about gay men or get out? Do we tell women that male soldiers are going to be bunking with them, and if they don't like it they can just get out? Of course we don't.

And contrary to popular belief, not every soldier in the US military is a type A badass . Some , nay many, are just ordinary men and women who could easily be overpowered by those who wish to do so; and they should NOT have to feel like their choice is just hope it doesn't happen or get the fuck out.

For you to act like their is no real concern about allowing gays to openly serve in the military is the height of arrogance. You don't know SHIT about how the military operates.



PS I don't particularly care what other countries have or haven't done in regards to this issue, or any other. The US leads, we do not follow. So what others have done is irfuckingrelevant.

[LuvRPgrl]

[QUOTE=ConHog;481858]Proves you don't know shit about the military. All sort of people who would like the "privilege" of serving in the military are denied for various reasons. Should we tell the military to forget about their standards from now on?[/QUOTE

IIRC, this country has civilian control OVER the military.

I seem to recall a time in the 1940s when all hell was going to break loose when blacks were no longer segregated. The people who couldn't deal with the new reality had the choice of staying and adapting or getting the hell out.

And now those of you still serving will finally get to make the same choice. Blacks didn't meet those standards b4 the end of military segregation (that's why they were segregated). Amazingly, once the idiots were gone, blacks proved to be just as good a soldier as the white peopole.

Saying someone doesn't meet a military standard just becz he or she is gay makes the same kinda sense. Which is to say NO SENSE.

Can you define what a homo is? How do we know someone is a homo?

[KartRacerBoy]

[QUOTE=KartRacerBoy;481969]


Well, you are wrong , gay is a choice, and furthermore telling others you're gay is certainly a choice. No person is ever found to be gay except by his or her own actions. PERIOD. Being black however is simple genetics. Totally different. Oh also, let me Tyou this, blacks were allowed to serve, and have served in the US military since before we declared independence. The only thing that changed was that they were integrated. So does that mean you are for forcibly integrating gays into situations in which other soldiers might not want them? That is more akin to forcing women to bunk with men then it is to forcing whites to bunk with blacks. No matter how much you would like to avoid the sexual component, you simply can't.


Now will ALL gays be on the lookout to be raping straight men, or women as the case may be, of course not. Just as not ALL men would be looking to rape women if they bunked together; but telling the women that isn't going to do much to calm their worries about those who might.

I already know your next argument is going to be "well if military men are afraid that gays are going to rape them, then they are pussies and they can just get out." I counter that with bullshit. Why should straight men be forced to either somehow not worry about gay men or get out? Do we tell women that male soldiers are going to be bunking with them, and if they don't like it they can just get out? Of course we don't.

And contrary to popular belief, not every soldier in the US military is a type A badass . Some , nay many, are just ordinary men and women who could easily be overpowered by those who wish to do so; and they should NOT have to feel like their choice is just hope it doesn't happen or get the fuck out.

For you to act like their is no real concern about allowing gays to openly serve in the military is the height of arrogance. You don't know SHIT about how the military operates.



PS I don't particularly care what other countries have or haven't done in regards to this issue, or any other. The US leads, we do not follow. So what others have done is irfuckingrelevant.



Remember the irrational fears issue? Let's see the number of male hetero soldiers RAPED by gay soldiers. Statistics, please, or please get an argument that has some rational basis in FACT rather than fear. Then I'd like to see the number of male soldiers raping female soldiers. I'm guessing the second number will be infinitely higher than the former number since the first will be "zero." Seriously, if you are going to make such a bald headed inane argument, back it up with numbers. But you CANNOT.

So if male soldiers rape female soldiers, does that mean men shouldn't be allowed in the military? How's that train of logic working for you? Kinda like the Chinese high speed rail system? That's what it looks like to me.


As to your inane comment on America leading and not following, well, I guess leading in bigotry and discrimination is something. Not good, but something. I also guess that since the facts don't support your position and you can't show any real insoluble problems with allowing openly gay serviceman, you'll just ignore the issue and try to be all ballsy about it. But you should've followed it some cheer or something to really pump yourself up on your own mistaken beliefs. If you can't win an argument on merit, go for military macho. At least that gets the other neanderthals on your side.

And grunts like you is why your dear Founding Fathers decided that the civilians control the military. Becz people like you don't know shit about how a military should run in a civilian society.

[ConHog]

[QUOTE=ConHog;481978]



Remember the irrational fears issue? Let's see the number of male hetero soldiers RAPED by gay soldiers. Statistics, please, or please get an argument that has some rational basis in FACT rather than fear. Then I'd like to see the number of male soldiers raping female soldiers. I'm guessing the second number will be infinitely higher than the former number since the first will be "zero." Seriously, if you are going to make such a bald headed inane argument, back it up with numbers. But you CANNOT.

So if male soldiers rape female soldiers, does that mean men shouldn't be allowed in the military? How's that train of logic working for you? Kinda like the Chinese high speed rail system? That's what it looks like to me.


As to your inane comment on America leading and not following, well, I guess leading in bigotry and discrimination is something. Not good, but something. I also guess that since the facts don't support your position and you can't show any real insoluble problems with allowing openly gay serviceman, you'll just ignore the issue and try to be all ballsy about it. But you should've followed it some cheer or something to really pump yourself up on your own mistaken beliefs. If you can't win an argument on merit, go for military macho. At least that gets the other neanderthals on your side.

And grunts like you is why your dear Founding Fathers decided that the civilians control the military. Becz people like you don't know shit about how a military should run in a civilian society.



Excellent, I will tell the straight soldiers who have been raped, or abused in anyway , by gay soldiers that there simply aren't enough instances of it happening for KartBoy to care.


Ignorant sumbitch.

[ConHog]

[QUOTE=ConHog;481978]



Remember the irrational fears issue? Let's see the number of male hetero soldiers RAPED by gay soldiers. Statistics, please, or please get an argument that has some rational basis in FACT rather than fear. Then I'd like to see the number of male soldiers raping female soldiers. I'm guessing the second number will be infinitely higher than the former number since the first will be "zero." Seriously, if you are going to make such a bald headed inane argument, back it up with numbers. But you CANNOT.

So if male soldiers rape female soldiers, does that mean men shouldn't be allowed in the military? How's that train of logic working for you? Kinda like the Chinese high speed rail system? That's what it looks like to me.


As to your inane comment on America leading and not following, well, I guess leading in bigotry and discrimination is something. Not good, but something. I also guess that since the facts don't support your position and you can't show any real insoluble problems with allowing openly gay serviceman, you'll just ignore the issue and try to be all ballsy about it. But you should've followed it some cheer or something to really pump yourself up on your own mistaken beliefs. If you can't win an argument on merit, go for military macho. At least that gets the other neanderthals on your side.

And grunts like you is why your dear Founding Fathers decided that the civilians control the military. Becz people like you don't know shit about how a military should run in a civilian society.


PS - Attempting to insult me by calling me a grunt, a term you clearly don't know the meaning of, will get you nowhere. I know FAR more about the military than you ever will and also PS I hold 4 college degrees, including a Masters, so calling me a neanderthal is equally stupid. If you would like to get your virtual ass kicked by a "neanderthal grunt" , and I mean worse than you already have, you can pick the topic and start a one on one debate with me anytime.


Oh, one more thing meathead. I am actually FOR allowing gays to serve, I just acknowledge that A) The military is the one who should making that determination, not some idiotss who have nothing better to do than bitch about shit that doesn't even affect them in ANY way on a message board, and B) That there are LEGITIMATE reasons to be concerned about letting gays openly serve.

[LuvRPgrl]

[QUOTE=ConHog;481978]



Remember the irrational fears issue? Let's see the number of male hetero soldiers RAPED by gay soldiers. Statistics, please, or please get an argument that has some rational basis in FACT rather than fear..http://www.refusingtokill.net/rape/malerapinthearmy.htm

[QUOTE=ConHog;481978]
Then I'd like to see the number of male soldiers raping female soldiers. I'm guessing the second number will be infinitely higher than the former number since the first will be "zero"..\

And the relevance is???


[QUOTE=ConHog;481978]

And grunts like you is why your dear Founding Fathers decided that the civilians control the military. Becz people like you don't know shit about how a military should run in a civilian society. That isnt the reason. I doubt the Founding fathers ever knew Conhog. chill pilll dude.

http://www.refusingtokill.net/rape/malerapinthearmy.htm

[ConHog]

[QUOTE=KartRacerBoy;481981]http://www.refusingtokill.net/rape/malerapinthearmy.htm
[QUOTE=KartRacerBoy;481981]\

And the relevance is???

[QUOTE=KartRacerBoy;481981] That isnt the reason. I doubt the Founding fathers ever knew Conhog. chill pilll dude.

http://www.refusingtokill.net/rape/malerapinthearmy.htm


I would have loved to have been a founding father. The Bill of Rights would look different , I promise you that.

[logroller]

I would have loved to have been a founding father. The Bill of Rights would look different , I promise you that.

Perhaps if you were THE founding father, but the convention wasn't orchestrated to adopt despotism. An excerpt from the famous speech written by Ben Franklin on the last day of the Convention.


...For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partizans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects & great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength & efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress & confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administred.http://www.usconstitution.net/franklin.html

[Gunny]

Is asking dumb questions just a debating ploy for you? :rolleyes:

Did I say anything about a "right"? I think a homosexual should have the privilege of serving in the military because they have a right to demonstrate their patriotism in a positive way.

And Dollywood? Why don't you go back and review my position on the OP.

Isn't the entire premise of the original topic in this thread just a ploy to yet again sensationalize the homosexual agenda with what is otherwise a rather mundane occurrence?

I could easily come of with a half-dozen examples of people being forced to adhere to arbitrary, judgment-based dress codes. Apparently, none would be newsworthy without my having a homosexual,l illegal immigrant, Democrat, Palestinian, injured non-combatant ... yada, yada yada (enter your favorite "victim" according to the left here).

[fj1200]

Isn't the entire premise of the original topic in this thread just a ploy to yet again sensationalize the homosexual agenda with what is otherwise a rather mundane occurrence?

I could easily come of with a half-dozen examples of people being forced to adhere to arbitrary, judgment-based dress codes. Apparently, none would be newsworthy without my having a homosexual,l illegal immigrant, Democrat, Palestinian, injured non-combatant ... yada, yada yada (enter your favorite "victim" according to the left here).

Did I say otherwise?

[ConHog]

Perhaps if you were THE founding father, but the convention wasn't orchestrated to adopt despotism. An excerpt from the famous speech written by Ben Franklin on the last day of the Convention.

http://www.usconstitution.net/franklin.html

Where sir did I say I would be a despot?

[KartRacerBoy]

Excellent, I will tell the straight soldiers who have been raped, or abused in anyway , by gay soldiers that there simply aren't enough instances of it happening for KartBoy to care.


Ignorant sumbitch.

So if a male soldier gets raped by a gay male soldier, throw all the gay soldiers out, but if a male soldier rapes a female soldier, throw all the females out?

For someone who claims to have 4 college degrees and to have studies the Constitution for 8 long years, your inability to use logic is quite terrifying.

[ConHog]

So if a male soldier gets raped by a gay male soldier, throw all the gay soldiers out, but if a male soldier rapes a female soldier, throw all the females out?

For someone who claims to have 4 college degrees and to have studies the Constitution for 8 long years, your inability to use logic is quite terrifying.

Please provide a link to where I have said anyone should be thrown out..

You are one dishonest troll. are you a JB sock?

[Gunny]

Did I say otherwise?

Didn't say you did. Feeling guilty?

[fj1200]

Didn't say you did. Feeling guilty?

No reason to, just trying to figure out WTF you're talking about.

[KartRacerBoy]

Please provide a link to where I have said anyone should be thrown out..

You are one dishonest troll. are you a JB sock?

I'm trying to figure out if you have any rationale for your position. You don't want "queers" in the military becz they might rape or do rape hetero men. By that logic, since hetero men might rape or do rape female soldiers, all of those the men should be cast out of the military. Use your four fine college degrees and all that constitutional thinking you've acquired and tell me how my logic is flawed other than you just hate "queers" becz then we're back to irrational fear (since the indicence of male soldier on female soldier rapes are going to be an order of magnitude higher than gay soldiers raping male hetero soldiers).

[logroller]

Where sir did I say I would be a despot?

I assumed it wasn't your intent; however, it's the only logical means of one man making a change to what the founding fathers adopted as our BoR.

[ConHog]

I assumed it wasn't your intent; however, it's the only logical means of one man making a change to what the founding fathers adopted as our BoR.

Sir, I could sell ice to an eskimo, I assure you I would have gotten my way on the BoR as well. :D

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm trying to figure out if you have any rationale for your position. You don't want "queers" in the military becz they might rape or do rape hetero men. By that logic, since hetero men might rape or do rape female soldiers, all of those the men should be cast out of the military.

Yea, sure, why not?

oh, thats right, then we wouldnt have an army

[KartRacerBoy]

Yea, sure, why not?

oh, thats right, then we wouldnt have an army

Good god. You approve of raping women as long as we have a military? Are all of ex-militiary types on this site without any ability to exhibit rationale thought? Do complete idiots like you have zero ability to think out the consequence of your "thoughts"?

I've met plenty of thoughtful military types. The questions is why this site attracts folks like you, ConHog, et al. I suspect this site was set up by folk like you.

I'm just glad that guys like you with so little love in their life can lick their balls. Must keep you as close to sane as you're rabid hate will ever get you.

[ConHog]

Good god. You approve of raping women as long as we have a military? Are all of ex-militiary types on this site without any ability to exhibit rationale thought? Do complete idiots like you have zero ability to think out the consequence of your "thoughts"?

I've met plenty of thoughtful military types. The questions is why this site attracts folks like you, ConHog, et al. I suspect this site was set up by folk like you.

I'm just glad that guys like you with so little love in their life can lick their balls. Must keep you as close to sane as you're rabid hate will ever get you.



What are you babbling about now? Yes that is correct, I do NOT condone housing male soldiers and female soldiers together, nor having unisex facilities because there is potential for problems. That hardly means that ALL male soldiers want to rape female soldiers.

[jimnyc]

I tried to fix the last page and a half worth of posts the best I could, or at least the quoted portions. All it takes is for one person to accidentally delete a slash or similar and all subsequent posts will have the quote screwed up too. Please pay attention if this happens and try to correct, or shoot a PM to a staff member to fix for you if necessary.

And to stay on topic - queers should be able to be denied entry to an establishment if the owner wishes. But not only do others think otherwise, but also feel they should dictate other terms for the queer patrons.

[LuvRPgrl]

Good god. You approve of raping women as long as we have a military? Are all of ex-militiary types on this site without any ability to exhibit rationale thought? Do complete idiots like you have zero ability to think out the consequence of your "thoughts"?

I've met plenty of thoughtful military types. The questions is why this site attracts folks like you, ConHog, et al. I suspect this site was set up by folk like you.

I'm just glad that guys like you with so little love in their life can lick their balls. Must keep you as close to sane as you're rabid hate will ever get you.

Im not ex military.

Where did I say I approve of women being raped?

[jimnyc]

What are you babbling about now? Yes that is correct, I do NOT condone housing male soldiers and female soldiers together, nor having unisex facilities because there is potential for problems. That hardly means that ALL male soldiers want to rape female soldiers.


Im not ex military.

Where did I say I approve of women being raped?

It's called putting words in your mouth to make their argument sound better. Typical liberal ploy.

[ConHog]

Im not ex military.

Where did I say I approve of women being raped?



He was talking to me, but someone along the line fucked up the quotes.

I AM ex military, I certainly don't approve of ANY rape.

[ConHog]

I tried to fix the last page and a half worth of posts the best I could, or at least the quoted portions. All it takes is for one person to accidentally delete a slash or similar and all subsequent posts will have the quote screwed up too. Please pay attention if this happens and try to correct, or shoot a PM to a staff member to fix for you if necessary.

And to stay on topic - queers should be able to be denied entry to an establishment if the owner wishes. But not only do others think otherwise, but also feel they should dictate other terms for the queer patrons.



this is why I believe that the equal rights act of 1964 is unconstitutional when it comes to private business. For instance, you own this board, you should be able to right on the front page "No niggger, no Muslims, no fags, and no liberals allowed" if you wanted to. BUT you would get your ass sued off if you did. Not to mention the whining....

[jimnyc]

this is why I believe that the equal rights act of 1964 is unconstitutional when it comes to private business. For instance, you own this board, you should be able to right on the front page "No niggger, no Muslims, no fags, and no liberals allowed" if you wanted to. BUT you would get your ass sued off if you did. Not to mention the whining....

Actually, I could discriminate based on those terms. Hell, democrat underground already discriminates/bans anyone on the right. Anyone can sue for anything, but winning is another thing. I don't think private internet sites would be treated the same as a publicly accessible business. Then again, I think said business SHOULD be able to discriminate against customers as you addressed, and those customers have the right to discriminate against shop owners and shop wherever they choose.

[Sir Evil]

The questions is why this site attracts folks like you, ConHog, et al. I suspect this site was set up by folk like you.


Another incoming raging hemorrhoid.... KartRacerBoy?:laugh2: ...that's gay..

[ConHog]

Actually, I could discriminate based on those terms. Hell, democrat underground already discriminates/bans anyone on the right. Anyone can sue for anything, but winning is another thing. I don't think private internet sites would be treated the same as a publicly accessible business. Then again, I think said business SHOULD be able to discriminate against customers as you addressed, and those customers have the right to discriminate against shop owners and shop wherever they choose.

I may be wrong, but I don't think you could. Sure you could ban people for breaking board rules. But I think you would be breaking the law (spit) if you had a rule against allowing gays to join.

But for the sake of argument let's stick with brick and mortar businesses, because we all know that they would be breaking the law. It isn't right, if I own something, it is my right to determine who I want to let use that thing, whether I'm making a profit or not.

And to make things even more laughable, it seems to be perfectly okay for "minorities" to have exclusive businesses. NAACP, the black coaches association, the black caucus and on and on. Which I actually say good let 'em. But can you imagine the uproar if a a guy like Bobby Knight tried to start up a white coaches association? Good Lord.

[jimnyc]

I may be wrong, but I don't think you could. Sure you could ban people for breaking board rules. But I think you would be breaking the law (spit) if you had a rule against allowing gays to join.

But for the sake of argument let's stick with brick and mortar businesses, because we all know that they would be breaking the law. It isn't right, if I own something, it is my right to determine who I want to let use that thing, whether I'm making a profit or not.

And to make things even more laughable, it seems to be perfectly okay for "minorities" to have exclusive businesses. NAACP, the black coaches association, the black caucus and on and on. Which I actually say good let 'em. But can you imagine the uproar if a a guy like Bobby Knight tried to start up a white coaches association? Good Lord.

Admittedly, I don't know the full law on internet rights. It's something that is still developing and laws changing daily. But for us here, it would make no sense to do so. We WANT those we disagree with to post here, at least I do. The site would be no fun if we all looked alike and posted alike.

And I'm in 2500% agreement with you on the brick and mortar. If I am not using public funds within my business, I should be able to do business with whoever I want and I should be able to deny business to whoever I want.

[ConHog]

Admittedly, I don't know the full law on internet rights. It's something that is still developing and laws changing daily. But for us here, it would make no sense to do so. We WANT those we disagree with to post here, at least I do. The site would be no fun if we all looked alike and posted alike.

And I'm in 2500% agreement with you on the brick and mortar. If I am not using public funds within my business, I should be able to do business with whoever I want and I should be able to deny business to whoever I want.



well of course it wouldn't make any sense. IMO it wouldn't make any sense for a brick and mortar to turn down business either. Not from a gay, or a Muslim, or a black man , or whatever, BUT I just don't see where in the COTUS it says that we don't have the right to do things that don't make sense. If a guy wants to turn down business and alienate people because he's a bigoted asshole, he should have that right. Certainly we have the right to not do business with people like that if we so choose.

[logroller]

Sir, I could sell ice to an eskimo, I assure you I would have gotten my way on the BoR as well. :D

Hence my allusion to despotism.


In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any otherhttp://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/benfranklin1787.htm

[jimnyc]

I may be wrong, but I don't think you could. Sure you could ban people for breaking board rules. But I think you would be breaking the law (spit) if you had a rule against allowing gays to join.

I've done a bit of searching and PM'd with one decent lawyer on a site I know. Not to "beat a dead horse" or start a new debate, but almost all discrimination on the internet is legal, in a sense that many laws haven't been created yet. The only true law I can find in the discrimination area is against the blind, and not even all sites would qualify in that department. Mine wouldn't.

But yeah, you could fly a banner at the top of you like outright stating that you won't allow certain races, religions and any other group if you like. There is TONS of discrimination in almost every aspect of the 'net, and mostly because there are no laws in place to make them illegal. Just do a search on Google for the most racist, vile and discriminatory things you could think of, and you'll find it.

I would love to hear others take on this, or anything they might know to shed more light on this "whether websites are private and can use any methods they want VS even websites need to follow anti-discrimination laws"

If anyone has an interest, maybe we can start another thread on the issue.

[ConHog]

I've done a bit of searching and PM'd with one decent lawyer on a site I know. Not to "beat a dead horse" or start a new debate, but almost all discrimination on the internet is legal, in a sense that many laws haven't been created yet. The only true law I can find in the discrimination area is against the blind, and not even all sites would qualify in that department. Mine wouldn't.

But yeah, you could fly a banner at the top of you like outright stating that you won't allow certain races, religions and any other group if you like. There is TONS of discrimination in almost every aspect of the 'net, and mostly because there are no laws in place to make them illegal. Just do a search on Google for the most racist, vile and discriminatory things you could think of, and you'll find it.

I would love to hear others take on this, or anything they might know to shed more light on this "whether websites are private and can use any methods they want VS even websites need to follow anti-discrimination laws"

If anyone has an interest, maybe we can start another thread on the issue.

MY wife is a prosecuting attorney, and her opinion is that she would NEVER touch a case involving a website because the defense only has to rise to the level of "hey it's all fantasy anyway, we don't even know who's posting to begin with" and like you said, in most cases laws haven't even been created yet to account for the net.

[jimnyc]

MY wife is a prosecuting attorney, and her opinion is that she would NEVER touch a case involving a website because the defense only has to rise to the level of "hey it's all fantasy anyway, we don't even know who's posting to begin with" and like you said, in most cases laws haven't even been created yet to account for the net.

Sweet, married to a lawyer! :thumb:

[ConHog]

Sweet, married to a lawyer! :thumb:

Not just a lawyer, a beautiful, sexy lawyer.

[LuvRPgrl]

Not just a lawyer, a beautiful, sexy lawyer.

well, 2 out of 3 aint half bad

A guy was walking through a field and he sees a lawyer burried up to their neck in sand, and he says:
Darn, they musta run out of sand

:)

[ConHog]

well, 2 out of 3 aint half bad

A guy was walking through a field and he sees a lawyer burried up to their neck in sand, and he says:
Darn, they musta run out of sand

:)


Hey now my wife is one of the good guys, err gals. :dance:

[fj1200]

Excellent, I will tell the straight soldiers who have been raped, or abused in anyway , by gay soldiers that there simply aren't enough instances of it happening for KartBoy to care.

Is it your contention that all male rape in the military is done by gays?

[ConHog]

Is it your contention that all male rape in the military is done by gays?

What? Can you not read? I never even said anything remotely close. I would say that yes most of the time when a man rapes another man, in or out of the military, the perpetrator is gay, but no that's not always the case.

[KartRacerBoy]

Not just a lawyer, a beautiful, sexy lawyer.

Damn, we actually have something in common, but my wife and I are public defenders.

Surprise!!!

[KartRacerBoy]

What are you babbling about now? Yes that is correct, I do NOT condone housing male soldiers and female soldiers together, nor having unisex facilities because there is potential for problems. That hardly means that ALL male soldiers want to rape female soldiers.

And yet if a few "queers" (as you put it) rape a few men, you want them ALL out of the military rather than just the few who committed the crimes. Please educate me. I am curious as to your logic. If the potential for rape is enough to kick one group out of the military, why is it not enough to kick out another? Or did you just not realize what you were saying and the implications?

[fj1200]

What? Can you not read? I never even said anything remotely close. I would say that yes most of the time when a man rapes another man, in or out of the military, the perpetrator is gay, but no that's not always the case.

I read this post of yours just fine:

Now will ALL gays be on the lookout to be raping straight men, or women as the case may be, of course not. Just as not ALL men would be looking to rape women if they bunked together; but telling the women that isn't going to do much to calm their worries about those who might.

I already know your next argument is going to be "well if military men are afraid that gays are going to rape them, then they are pussies and they can just get out." I counter that with bullshit. Why should straight men be forced to either somehow not worry about gay men or get out? Do we tell women that male soldiers are going to be bunking with them, and if they don't like it they can just get out? Of course we don't.

And contrary to popular belief, not every soldier in the US military is a type A badass . Some , nay many, are just ordinary men and women who could easily be overpowered by those who wish to do so; and they should NOT have to feel like their choice is just hope it doesn't happen or get the fuck out.
You are quite concerned that gays will start raping their counterparts when there is already male rape that goes on in the military. There is something wrong with the chain of command when superiors condone, engage in, or look the other way when rape occurs.


PS I don't particularly care what other countries have or haven't done in regards to this issue, or any other. The US leads, we do not follow. So what others have done is irfuckingrelevant.

Also, the experience of other countries in this matter is completely f'inrelevant. If what you are afraid of is not occurring in other militaries then we shouldn't need to worry about it either.

[LuvRPgrl]

this isnt an issue of philosophy or law, it is about reality and solving a problem.


And yet if a few "queers" (as you put it) rape a few men, you want them ALL out of the military rather than just the few who committed the crimes. Please educate me. I am curious as to your logic. If the potential for rape is enough to kick one group out of the military, why is it not enough to kick out another? Or did you just not realize what you were saying and the implications?

[ConHog]

And yet if a few "queers" (as you put it) rape a few men, you want them ALL out of the military rather than just the few who committed the crimes. Please educate me. I am curious as to your logic. If the potential for rape is enough to kick one group out of the military, why is it not enough to kick out another? Or did you just not realize what you were saying and the implications?


Actually moron, and for the probably 40th time in this thread, I SUPPORT allowing them to serve openly. I merely recognize that there ARE valid reasons for concern and that the military should be the ones deciding not some boneheaded cock sucker on the internet.

[LuvRPgrl]

some boneheaded cock sucker on the internet.

ive been outed

[Prince Lemon]

Those fruit cakes make me more frustrated.America indeed a modern Sodom.

[fj1200]

Those fruit cakes make me more frustrated.America indeed a modern Sodom.

You seem to have issues, posting in any thread with a gay theme.

[ConHog]

You seem to have issues, posting in any thread with a gay theme.

I read a few of his/her posts and my first thought concerning his/her major problem is that English seems to be at best a second language.

[fj1200]

Well, it is hard to type through seething hatred.

[chloe]

I read a few of his/her posts and my first thought concerning his/her major problem is that English seems to be at best a second language.

Either that or his language is Jim beam tonight:laugh2:

[ConHog]

Either that or his language is Jim beam tonight:laugh2:

Ah yes, there are quite a few people on the net who speak that fluently , aren't there?

[chloe]

Ah yes, there are quite a few people on the net who speak that fluently , aren't there?

There sure are, I would imagine most don't wake up with regrets in the morning over a post made in that language....I wouldn't know.

[Prince Lemon]

Language.Who thinks that I am a redneck?:laugh:

[ConHog]

Language.Who thinks that I am a redneck?:laugh:

What does that even mean?

[fj1200]

Either that or his language is Jim beam tonight:laugh2:

He's a Calvinist Baptist, that would be worse than the gays!!! :eek:

[Prince Lemon]

He's a Calvinist Baptist, that would be worse than the gays!!! :eek:True Calvinist Baptists are America's way of life.They are roots of this nation.Gays are murderers of this nation as well as abortionists,divorced+remarried,prostitutes,commun ists,Hollywood industry,media,and rest of satanic reprobates.

[Prince Lemon]

What does that even mean?
I heard that people who have wrong language grammar are refered as the rednecks.I am not very sure how accurate that is.:)

[jimnyc]

Not everyone is against the queers based on religious reasons. Just tossing that out there. Some of us are just against things that are abnormal, filthy and bad for our society.

[chloe]

Not everyone is against the queers based on religious reasons. Just tossing that out there. Some of us are just against things that are abnormal, filthy and bad for our society.


oh. well there are alot of things that are filthy and bad for our society, I guess some people like hookers, strippers and escorts, but hate queers, and some don't mind drug addicts or stinky homeless drunks. I don't mind queers it ain't like I'm in bed with them:laugh2:

[jimnyc]

oh. well there are alot of things that are filthy and bad for our society, I guess some people like hookers, strippers and escorts, but hate queers, and some don't mind drug addicts or stinky homeless drunks. I don't mind queers it ain't like I'm in bed with them:laugh2:

Hookers, strippers & escorts are no good for society either. Drugs are horrendously bad for society. ANY stinky drunk is bad for society, whether homeless or not. They all need help, not new laws to make them feel better.

[chloe]

Hookers, strippers & escorts are no good for society either. Drugs are horrendously bad for society. ANY stinky drunk is bad for society, whether homeless or not. They all need help, not new laws to make them feel better.

There are men who practice butt sex with there wives or girlfriends, so why is that different then gay men having anal sex?

[jimnyc]

There are men who practice butt sex with there wives or girlfriends, so why is that different then gay men having anal sex?

I think both are abnormal and disgusting. But only one of those "groups" are demanding rights/laws/benefits based on their desire to live a life of abnormality.

[chloe]

I think both are abnormal and disgusting. But only one of those "groups" are demanding rights/laws/benefits based on their desire to live a life of abnormality.

so you feel as disgusted with hetero men who want butt sex on a woman and equally disgusted with stippers as you do with gays?

[Prince Lemon]

There are men who practice butt sex with there wives or girlfriends, so why is that different then gay men having anal sex?
Dr.Paul Cameron who did real research on GLBT lives,stated the scientific truth that people are not born as gays.Gays live most filthy unsanitary lives.Besides their anal sex(sodomy)they eat parners' feces,digest partners' semen,and urinate on each others(Golden Showers).Besides AIDS/HIV other STDs are most common among GLBT couples.Unsanitary ways of life give a green light for deseases.
Dr.Paul Cameron is also a founder and a director of Family Research Institute in Colorado Springs,CO.

[jimnyc]

so you feel as disgusted with hetero men who want butt sex on a woman and equally disgusted with stippers as you do with gays?

Admittedly, different levels of "disgust". But I imagine if strippers and hetero couples who engage in anal sex, paraded around demanding rights, my level of disgust would likely rise.

[chloe]

Dr.Paul Cameron who did real research on GLBT lives,stated the scientific truth that people are not born as gays.Gays live most filthy unsanitary lives.Besides their anal sex(sodomy)they eat parners' feces,digest partners' semen,and urinate on each others(Golden Showers).Besides AIDS/HIV other STDs are most common among GLBT couples.Unsanitary ways of life give a green light for deseases.

so straight men who do butt sex are actually closet case queers?

[chloe]

Admittedly, different levels of "disgust". But I imagine if strippers and hetero couples who engage in anal sex, paraded around demanding rights, my level of disgust would likely rise.

fair enough

[Prince Lemon]

so straight men who do butt sex or actually closet case queers?Str8 men don't do sodomy(butt sex)They have their wives as part of their flesh and are no longer two,but one flesh.Closeted gays are gays and are never do str8 lives.

[chloe]

Str8 men don't do sodomy(butt sex)They have their wives as part of their flesh and are no longer two,but one flesh.Closeted gays are gays and are never do str8 lives.

That doesn't make sense, and Jim also pointed out not all people against gays are religious.

[jimnyc]

Another question that pops into my head about those who support the queers. Many immediately question a man about whether or not he finds it acceptable with his wife/girlfriend, many assuming men are perverts and of course would like that. Then the questioner can say "well, if it's ok with you and your woman, why is it so wrong for them to do it".

Lets change up the question a bit and aim it at the hetero women. Would you allow your husband/boyfriend have sex with you in this manner?

[Prince Lemon]

That doesn't make sense, and Jim also pointed out not all people against gays are religious.
I agree,there are secular people of moral values are against GLBT,too.Also against abortions.

[Prince Lemon]

Another question that pops into my head about those who support the queers. Many immediately question a man about whether or not he finds it acceptable with his wife/girlfriend, many assuming men are perverts and of course would like that. Then the questioner can say "well, if it's ok with you and your woman, why is it so wrong for them to do it".

Lets change up the question a bit and aim it at the hetero women. Would you allow your husband/boyfriend have sex with you in this manner?
Hi Jim,
As I am against GLBT,I am also against and am strictly against fornicators plus divorced+remarried.Adultery is another filthy abomination that today in America in epidemic proportions.People are not aware that God is not mocked and He destroys every civilizations that dare to do all these things from adultery,GLBT rights,abortions,etc.Here in KJV Bible you need to reed Romans 1:1-32.

[chloe]

Another question that pops into my head about those who support the queers. Many immediately question a man about whether or not he finds it acceptable with his wife/girlfriend, many assuming men are perverts and of course would like that. Then the questioner can say "well, if it's ok with you and your woman, why is it so wrong for them to do it".

Lets change up the question a bit and aim it at the hetero women. Would you allow your husband/boyfriend have sex with you in this manner?


If a heterosexual male or female participates or desires butt sex then turns around and condemns gay men for the act of butt sex, it seems hypocritical to me.

I don't think what other adult couples do in there bedroom is my business.


On a Personal note, no I don't want anything shoved up my arse, but that is me. :laugh2:

[chloe]

Hi Jim,
As I am against GLBT,I am also against and am strictly against fornicators plus divorced+remarried.Adultery is another filthy abomination that today in America in epidemic proportions.People are not aware that God is not mocked and He destroys every civilizations that dare to do all these things from adultery,GLBT rights,abortions,etc.Here in KJV Bible you need to reed Romans 1:1-32.


I don't believe you.

[Prince Lemon]

If a heterosexual male or female participates or desires butt sex then turns around and condemns gay men for the act of butt sex, it seems hypocritical to me.

I don't think what other adult couples do in there bedroom is my business.


On a Personal note, no I don't want anything shoved up my arse, but that is me. :laugh2:Man and woman,dealing with married couples.They have rights to do all sex practices in their private lives.God created sex.But dealing with GLBT.In the beginning God made Adam and Eve,but not Adam and Steve,Eve and Mara.Adam and Eve were made by The Lord as not as twain but as one flesh,so God gave them gift of a normal sex life.

[ConHog]

If a heterosexual male or female participates or desires butt sex then turns around and condemns gay men for the act of butt sex, it seems hypocritical to me.

I don't think what other adult couples do in there bedroom is my business.


On a Personal note, no I don't want anything shoved up my arse, but that is me. :laugh2:


Yoiu don't do butt sex? It is OVER

[chloe]

Yoiu don't do butt sex? It is OVER

well at least it was fun while it lasted....wink


anyone got any fig newtons they feel like sharing....:cool:

[Prince Lemon]

I don't believe you.
If you read worship Jesus not in vain,read KJV Bible,and listen to true prechers(not kissy-poo preachers like Billy Graham,Pat Robertson,etc who preach lies for their love of $) who tell the truth about decaying America,you will started to believe on my statement.

[Prince Lemon]

Yoiu don't do butt sex? It is OVERIn my opinion anal sex is the same perversion as masturbation.

[chloe]

If you read worship Jesus not in vain,read KJV Bible,and listen to true prechers(not kissy-poo preachers like Billy Graham,Pat Robertson,etc who preach lies for their love of $) who tell the truth about decaying America,you will started to believe on my statement.

someone who is divorced didn't necassarily want to be divorced, my case in point I would have stay married but my husband left me and the kids ( maybe he wanted butt-sex and i wouldn't do it and thats why he left) whatever the case he left and you said GOD hates me for being divorced.
Now I know God didn't say it, but you did.:laugh2:

[Prince Lemon]

someone who is divorced didn't necassarily want to be divorced, my case in point I would have stay married but my husband left me and the kids ( maybe he wanted butt-sex and i wouldn't do it and thats why he left) whatever the case he left and you said GOD hates me for being divorced.
Now I know God didn't say it, but you did.:laugh2:
God never condems people who are against the divorce,if divorce happens against their will by a guilty spouse who dares to depart.Like for example you say about a husband.Jesus warned,"if a man departs from his wife and had married to another woman,he commits adultery".Mark 10:12.So it does the same with a wife who departs from her husband against his will in order to marry another man.Regarding the guilty spouses who deprart,God warned in Hebrews 13:4 that they will be judged as adulterers and be damned to Hell.People must accept people who they are.

[chloe]

God never condems people who are against the divorce,if divorce happens against their will by a guilty spouse who dares to depart.Like for example you say about a husband.Jesus warned,"if a man departs from his wife and had married to another woman,he commits adultery".Mark 10:12.So it does the same with a wife who departs from her husband against his will in order to marry another man.Regarding the guilty spouses who deprart,God warned in Hebrews 13:4 that they will be judged as adulterers and be damned to Hell.People must accept people who they are.

what about if a wife leave because her husband beats her up all the time and she afraid he gonna kill her>?

[ConHog]

In my opinion anal sex is the same perversion as masturbation.

Wait a minute here. How in the hell is masturbation a perversion? I mean seriously.

If that is so I am one perverted mofo. Hell, I pervert myself 5 or 6 times a day.

[ConHog]

what about if a wife leave because her husband beats her up all the time and she afraid he gonna kill her>?



Here is MY belief.

God is against Christians divorcing. A Christian man , hopefully, wouldn't be beating on his wife - well unless she REALLY deserved it (just kidding) so God makes allowances for partners who realize there mate isn't a Christian.

I walked in on my first wife and another man. I doubt God is going to condemn me for divorcing her.

[LuvRPgrl]

Not everyone is against the queers based on religious reasons. Just tossing that out there. Some of us are just against things that are abnormal, filthy and bad for our society.you talking about me again Jim?

[chloe]

Here is MY belief. God is against Christians divorcing. A Christian man , hopefully, wouldn't be beating on his wife - well unless she REALLY deserved it (just kidding) so God makes allowances for partners who realize there mate isn't a Christian.I walked in on my first wife and another man. I doubt God is going to condemn me for divorcing her.Geez, that always without fail makes me cringe whenever I hear about someone who is married walking in on a spouse having an affair. I am sorry that she hurt you that way but on the bright side at least you found your soulmate instead of being stuck in a lie of a marriage with your ex whore wife.I have been married and divorced 2 times, my 1st ex husband did used to beat me up, I should have known better since he was on probation when I met him for putting his last girlfriend in the hopsital, but he said it was her and that he nromally never hit a woman, and I was only 16 so yeah I fell for his story LOL. My 2nd ex husband cheated on me too only I never walked in on it thank goodness. He left me and our 2 daughters (who were 6 and 3 at the time) for some girlfriend who it only lasted a couple months with.Now I am just glad to be alone. I flirt online and thats good enough for me. I personally pass on the butt sex but I ain't judging you and your spouse for itnor am I judging stan and stew in they want to play in poo that is there business as long as they adults and do it in there own private space.

[LuvRPgrl]

Another question that pops into my head about those who support the queers. Many immediately question a man about whether or not he finds it acceptable with his wife/girlfriend, many assuming men are perverts and of course would like that. Then the questioner can say "well, if it's ok with you and your woman, why is it so wrong for them to do it".Lets change up the question a bit and aim it at the hetero women. Would you allow your husband/boyfriend have sex with you in this manner?ya know, there is a huge difference between anal sex with two men and anal with man and a woman

[chloe]

ya know, there is a huge difference between anal sex with two men and anal with man and a woman what's the huge difference is the butt canal smaller on a woman?

[chloe]

Man and woman,dealing with married couples.They have rights to do all sex practices in their private lives.God created sex.But dealing with GLBT.In the beginning God made Adam and Eve,but not Adam and Steve,Eve and Mara.Adam and Eve were made by The Lord as not as twain but as one flesh,so God gave them gift of a normal sex life.The muscular structure of the anus is different than that of the vagina. The vaginal passageway is controlled by muscles, that expand or tighten to fit any size penis; the vagina is an organ of accommodation. The vagina can tighten so tight as to not allow anything to enter and can expand to allow the birth of an infant. The rectum cannot. That is why the blood vessels in the rectum break when the penis enters it causing damage to the anal/rectal area and raising the possibility of transfer of disease producing microorganisms.If after a woman has children her vagina is all stretched out she can just get vagina surgery, they can tighten it up to virginal muscular strength LOL. In Utah Vagina surgery is a Huge trend with the mormon women I know because they pop out 10 kids, so when they all done they just get tmmy tucks, boob jobs and vaginal tightening surgeries. Why does a man need to screw her butt when she has a vagina? Or do you guy mean you want her to strap on a plastic object that looks like a mans penus and shove it in your arse>???

[LuvRPgrl]

The muscular structure of the anus is different than that of the vagina. The vaginal passageway is controlled by muscles, that expand or tighten to fit any size penis; the vagina is an organ of accommodation. The vagina can tighten so tight as to not allow anything to enter and can expand to allow the birth of an infant. The rectum cannot. That is why the blood vessels in the rectum break when the penis enters it causing damage to the anal/rectal area and raising the possibility of transfer of disease producing microorganisms.If after a woman has children her vagina is all stretched out she can just get vagina surgery, they can tighten it up to virginal muscular strength LOL. In Utah Vagina surgery is a Huge trend with the mormon women I know because they pop out 10 kids, so when they all done they just get tmmy tucks, boob jobs and vaginal tightening surgeries. Why does a man need to screw her butt when she has a vagina? Or do you guy mean you want her to strap on a plastic object that looks like a mans penus and shove it in your arse>???well, I wouldnt say "shove it"......

[chloe]

well, I wouldnt say "shove it"...... Oh ok well gently glide...sure I dont have a problem gliding some object in my mans ass, wink......I just have no desire for anything being put in mine.Now how is that a straight man has no problem having anything put in his ass but if a gay man has some penus or ojbect gently glided into his ass then it is somehow the end of the world disasterous and evil?

[LuvRPgrl]

Oh ok well gently glide...sure I dont have a problem gliding some object in my mans ass, wink......I just have no desire for anything being put in mine.Now how is that a straight man has no problem having anything put in his ass but if a gay man has some penus or ojbect gently glided into his ass then it is somehow the end of the world disasterous and evil?the object I use....err, I have heard that is used, often have texture, sounds good to me

[LuvRPgrl]

what's the huge difference is the butt canal smaller on a woman?nuero transmitters

[ConHog]

Geez, that always without fail makes me cringe whenever I hear about someone who is married walking in on a spouse having an affair. I am sorry that she hurt you that way but on the bright side at least you found your soulmate instead of being stuck in a lie of a marriage with your ex whore wife.I have been married and divorced 2 times, my 1st ex husband did used to beat me up, I should have known better since he was on probation when I met him for putting his last girlfriend in the hopsital, but he said it was her and that he nromally never hit a woman, and I was only 16 so yeah I fell for his story LOL. My 2nd ex husband cheated on me too only I never walked in on it thank goodness. He left me and our 2 daughters (who were 6 and 3 at the time) for some girlfriend who it only lasted a couple months with.Now I am just glad to be alone. I flirt online and thats good enough for me. I personally pass on the butt sex but I ain't judging you and your spouse for itnor am I judging stan and stew in they want to play in poo that is there business as long as they adults and do it in there own private space.


LOL me and my wife don't partake in the gay sex and pretend it's not gay.


As for my first wife. Eh, ancient history; but when I walked in on her, the guy she was with hauled balls out of there fast as he could leaving her all alone. I walked over to the bed and grabbed her by the hair (on her head) and dragged her out of the house , across the lawn , and into the street where I left her naked. The last I seen of her she was walking naked down the street. Haven't seen her even one time in the 17 years since. She didn't come to court , didn't contest custody , and has never given one bit of support, financial or otherwise , to our son.

Yep, she was a real winner.

[Prince Lemon]

what about if a wife leave because her husband beats her up all the time and she afraid he gonna kill her>?
Perhaps she leaves her violent husband,but there got to be 100% approval in court that her husband is truly violent due to his problems,for example, like drugs and alcohol abuse.In today's society domestic violence sparks on the grounds of sin of adultery as wife cheats on him and makes him as a cuckold.Things like that ignite anger sometimes end up in crime of passion.

[Prince Lemon]

Wait a minute here. How in the hell is masturbation a perversion? I mean seriously.

If that is so I am one perverted mofo. Hell, I pervert myself 5 or 6 times a day.
Did you read in The Book of Genesis regarding sin of Onan against Tamar?In ancient masturbation is called onanism after the name of Onan whom God destroyed for this sin.

[ConHog]

Perhaps she leaves her violent husband,but there got to be 100% approval in court that her husband is truly violent due to his problems,for example, like drugs and alcohol abuse.In today's society domestic violence sparks on the grounds of sin of adultery as wife cheats on him and makes him as a cuckold.Things like that ignite anger sometimes end up in crime of passion.

Did you seriously just write that sometimes women deserve it? Yes, that is EXACTLY what you wrote.


What a dipshit.

[Prince Lemon]

Did you seriously just write that sometimes women deserve it? Yes, that is EXACTLY what you wrote.


What a dipshit.They deserve women and men who love to commit sin of adultery being in promise of wed lock.God is God and He is not mocked,Galatians 13:4,Mark 10:12.

[Gaffer]

Perhaps she leaves her violent husband,but there got to be 100% approval in court that her husband is truly violent due to his problems,for example, like drugs and alcohol abuse.In today's society domestic violence sparks on the grounds of sin of adultery as wife cheats on him and makes him as a cuckold.Things like that ignite anger sometimes end up in crime of passion.

So what is your country or origin? Do you use google translate to make your posts?

[Prince Lemon]

So what is your country or origin? Do you use google translate to make your posts?
I don't use any google stuff.I write on my own.

[KartRacerBoy]

This all started in 1964 when the patently unconstitutional equal rights law was passed. No person nor government should be allowed to tell me what I may or may not do with my own property or who I may or may not serve at my own business. Now mind you this isn't to say that I personally would turn down gays, I wouldn't , their money spends just the same ; BUT that should be MY choice. Just as it should be Dollywood's choice. The consumer of course has the choice of not doing business there if they don't like the way they do business.

You are so full of crap as are the foolls that "Thanked" you for this idiotic post. You scream about about kicking out all the "queers" running around the army raping all the poor heteros soldiers(despite your assertions that you somehow support them serving openly), and now declare the civil rights acts unconstitutional (no doubt due to your 8 yrs of constitutional study in kindergarten). WTF would you know about what is constitutional and what isn't beyond your own petty, demonstrated bigotry?

Education is for learning. If you indeed have 4 degrees, it is a pity that our education system somehow "educated" you without teaching you to think. More the pity if you actually were any kind of leader of men in the military.

And you continue to ignore the logic of your own posts. You said that if any "queers" rape male soldiers, ALL "queers" should be kicked out of the militiary becz of the mere fear that it mght happen to other male soldiers. Yet if some male soldiers rape women soldiers, just kick out the rapists (not all men) and you'd be fine with that. Are you just ignoring this becz you won't admit you're wrong? Or do you truly think "queers" rape more male soldiers than male soldiers rape women soldiers? Or are you just to stubborn to admit it was a stupid thing to say or think? Or that you were wrong. Or are you just to bound up in your own testoserone to actually think about this?

[jimnyc]

You are so full of crap as are the foolls that "Thanked" you for this idiotic post. You scream about about kicking out all the "queers" running around the army raping all the poor heteros soldiers(despite your assertions that you somehow support them serving openly), and now declare the civil rights acts unconstitutional (no doubt due to your 8 yrs of constitutional study in kindergarten). WTF would you know about what is constitutional and what isn't beyond your own petty, demonstrated bigotry?

Education is for learning. If you indeed have 4 degrees, it is a pity that our education system somehow "educated" you without teaching you to think. More the pity if you actually were any kind of leader of men in the military.

Why does his POV make you so angry to the point you need to belittle him in order to make yours?

[jimnyc]

I don't use any google stuff.I write on my own.

I'll ask from another angle - Are you originally from America? Is English your first language?

[LuvRPgrl]

You are so full of crap as are the foolls that "Thanked" you for this idiotic post. You scream about about kicking out all the "queers" running around the army raping all the poor heteros soldiers(despite your assertions that you somehow support them serving openly), and now declare the civil rights acts unconstitutional (no doubt due to your 8 yrs of constitutional study in kindergarten). WTF would you know about what is constitutional and what isn't beyond your own petty, demonstrated bigotry?

Education is for learning. If you indeed have 4 degrees, it is a pity that our education system somehow "educated" you without teaching you to think. More the pity if you actually were any kind of leader of men in the military.

IN OTHER WORDS,,,"I disagree with you"

(But I need to look smart to the other posters so I will lengthen my post with vitriole

[KartRacerBoy]

IN OTHER WORDS,,,"I disagree with you"

(But I need to look smart to the other posters so I will lengthen my post with vitriole

If "disagree" means intellectual dishonesty and an inability to follow the consequences of one's own statements and ideas, then you are correct.

[ConHog]

You are so full of crap as are the foolls that "Thanked" you for this idiotic post. You scream about about kicking out all the "queers" running around the army raping all the poor heteros soldiers(despite your assertions that you somehow support them serving openly), and now declare the civil rights acts unconstitutional (no doubt due to your 8 yrs of constitutional study in kindergarten). WTF would you know about what is constitutional and what isn't beyond your own petty, demonstrated bigotry?

Education is for learning. If you indeed have 4 degrees, it is a pity that our education system somehow "educated" you without teaching you to think. More the pity if you actually were any kind of leader of men in the military.

And you continue to ignore the logic of your own posts. You said that if any "queers" rape male soldiers, ALL "queers" should be kicked out of the militiary becz of the mere fear that it mght happen to other male soldiers. Yet if some male soldiers rape women soldiers, just kick out the rapists (not all men) and you'd be fine with that. Are you just ignoring this becz you won't admit you're wrong? Or do you truly think "queers" rape more male soldiers than male soldiers rape women soldiers? Or are you just to stubborn to admit it was a stupid thing to say or think? Or that you were wrong. Or are you just to bound up in your own testoserone to actually think about this?

Okay little man, let's clear some things up. Now I going to attempt to use very small words here so you can keep up, but IF (as is likely) you feel overwhelmed and unable to understand what I am saying, please don't hesitate to ask for an explanation.

First let's discuss your absurd claim that I have been screaming about kicking ANYONE out of the military. I have in fact NOT been saying that. my OPINION is that they should be allowed to serve. Unlike you however I am able to look at a POV that directly conflicts with my own and say "gee I don't agree with their conclusions, but they DO have valid points" and thus make a statement like " I think gays should be allowed to serve, BUT I can see where there are valid concerns about it" without contradicting myself.

I actually have NO clue what you are talking about in terms of saying I'd kick out all gays because of gay rapists but not all men because of male rapists. That's just dumb, and I never even came close to such a statement.

Second, let's discuss your questioning my education. There is no IF involved. I have a Bachelor of History from College of the Ozarks in Branson , MO; a Bachelor of Science in Library Sciences from the same, a Bachelor of Arts in History from Georgia Tech, and a Masters in History from the University of Arkansas. As I said, IF you wish to challenge my intelligence and education versus your own one one on visa a vie the appropriate forum, come at me bro.

Third, you are not worthy of issuing ANY statement regarding mine nor anyone's military service. End of discussion on that one.

Fourth, you REALLY need to get laid brother. Sheesh.

[ConHog]

I'll ask from another angle - Are you originally from America? Is English your first language?

IOW


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_mDTLphIVY

[ConHog]

If "disagree" means intellectual dishonesty and an inability to follow the consequences of one's own statements and ideas, then you are correct.

I don't know from whence you came. But where I am from we don't allow people to put words in our mouths and then claim we are the ones who said it. So either post some quotes of mine saying what you claimed I said , or shut the fuck up.

[Prince Lemon]

I'll ask from another angle - Are you originally from America? Is English your first language?Perhaps not.

[ConHog]

Perhaps not.

I propose a moratorium on picking on Lemon here. It's not nice to pick on the special ed kids.

[ConHog]

So three hours and no peep later from Kart am I too assume that he has chosen the option of shutting the fuck up since he can't provide any quotes from me saying things he dishonestly claimed I said?


Wise choice on his part.

[chloe]

Perhaps she leaves her violent husband,but there got to be 100% approval in court that her husband is truly violent due to his problems,for example, like drugs and alcohol abuse.In today's society domestic violence sparks on the grounds of sin of adultery as wife cheats on him and makes him as a cuckold.Things like that ignite anger sometimes end up in crime of passion.


Sure, those things aren't hard to prove.

[chloe]

LOL me and my wife don't partake in the gay sex and pretend it's not gay.


As for my first wife. Eh, ancient history; but when I walked in on her, the guy she was with hauled balls out of there fast as he could leaving her all alone. I walked over to the bed and grabbed her by the hair (on her head) and dragged her out of the house , across the lawn , and into the street where I left her naked. The last I seen of her she was walking naked down the street. Haven't seen her even one time in the 17 years since. She didn't come to court , didn't contest custody , and has never given one bit of support, financial or otherwise , to our son.

Yep, she was a real winner.

Well it's a shame when people mistreat each other so cruelly. I never understand why people cheat. I can understand why people fall out of love with each other sure, but an affair is pure selfishness because the married person who is choosing to have the affair hurts the spouse by betraying there vows they took and they also hurt person they are cheating with by leading them to believe the marriage is over and that the sex is something more then sex, Oftentimes a 3rd party isn't even aware the person is married. I always think if a person is that unhappy in a marriage they should at least be honest enough in there life to divorce and face the consequences of the failed choice in the relationship they had entered or suck it up and resolve to make the best of it and quit being on a pity pot. But most cheaters are self absorbed selfish people who don't care who they hurt or how they effect others lives.

[Prince Lemon]

LOL me and my wife don't partake in the gay sex and pretend it's not gay.


As for my first wife. Eh, ancient history; but when I walked in on her, the guy she was with hauled balls out of there fast as he could leaving her all alone. I walked over to the bed and grabbed her by the hair (on her head) and dragged her out of the house , across the lawn , and into the street where I left her naked. The last I seen of her she was walking naked down the street. Haven't seen her even one time in the 17 years since. She didn't come to court , didn't contest custody , and has never given one bit of support, financial or otherwise , to our son.

Yep, she was a real winner.Sad story.If the divorce happens against innocent party will,reamarriage is still as sin.Just share your story in PM and I will share mine.Thanks.

[chloe]

Sad story.If the divorce happens against innocent party will,reamarriage is still as sin.Just share your story in PM and I will share mine.Thanks.

Tread careful conhog!!!! .....this might be the person you were saying is the stalker from the other place with a new game ....just sayin

[LuvRPgrl]

repent or perish in hell,luke 13:3 your sig, luke 13:3, that passage says absolutely nothing about hell

they deserve women and men who love to commit sin of adultery being in promise of wed lock.god is god and he is not mocked,galatians 13:4,mark 10:12.

there are only 6 chapters in galatians

and in mark, it doesnt say they love adultery, just that they are guilty of it if they get divorced and re married

anything else i can help you with?

[LuvRPgrl]

If "disagree" means intellectual dishonesty and an inability to follow the consequences of one's own statements and ideas, then you are correct.

DISAGREE meanss disagree

[ConHog]

Tread careful conhog!!!! .....this might be the person you were saying is the stalker from the other place with a new game ....just sayin

I have no interest in PMing this lemon person, but thank you for your concern.

[ConHog]

Sad story.If the divorce happens against innocent party will,reamarriage is still as sin.Just share your story in PM and I will share mine.Thanks.

So let me get this straight. My ex wife cheated so I got rid of her , when I was 23 mind you, and you think that God intended for me to be single for the rest of my life after that? If that were the case, I don't think that He would have sent the love of my life in my direction now would He have? Certainly the Lord I worship wouldn't have. Your god sounds like a dick.

[KartRacerBoy]

So three hours and no peep later from Kart am I too assume that he has chosen the option of shutting the fuck up since he can't provide any quotes from me saying things he dishonestly claimed I said?


Wise choice on his part.

Your stupidity is tragic. Review your own posts. Previously, you've said I hadn't responded to some vapid question and I pointed out the exact number of the post where I had.You continued to say I hadn't responded. I can't help it if you can't read. I quoted the original post long ago but you as usual ignored it. Find it yourself, dickhead.

[ConHog]

Your stupidity is tragic. Review your own posts. Previously, you've said I hadn't responded to some vapid question and I pointed out the exact number of the post where I had.You continued to say I hadn't responded. I can't help it if you can't read. I quoted the original post long ago but you as usual ignored it. Find it yourself, dickhead.

More childish insults from a childish poster?

Sir , the quest remains. Post a SINGLE quote of mine where I have advocated tossing all gays out of the military because of a few gay rapists, OR where have I said that males that rape women shouldn't be thrown out.

[KartRacerBoy]

More childish insults from a childish poster?

Sir , the quest remains. Post a SINGLE quote of mine where I have advocated tossing all gays out of the military because of a few gay rapists, OR where have I said that males that rape women shouldn't be thrown out.

Why do you only respond to an issue dozens of posts later? As I said, look back at my posts where I quoted you. The post is quoted by me.

And I'm childish? I'm not the one ranting about all the "queers" raping male soldiers.

[ConHog]

Why do you only respond to an issue dozens of posts later? As I said, look back at my posts where I quoted you. The post is quoted by me.

And I'm childish? I'm not the one ranting about all the "queers" raping male soldiers.

More lies from you? You have been ranting through this entire thread , at least since I've been here; I have merely stated the quite reasonable position that I can see where there are valid reasons for concern.

Why do you feel the need to lie to defend your position? There isn't a person here who truly believes that I have ranted about "queers" raping anyone.

Grow the fuck up little man.


PS I respond dozens of posts later becauase I'm not always online

[Prince Lemon]

Fags pray on underage boys.

[ConHog]

Fags pray on underage boys.

Pedophiles pray on children, and they can be either gay or straight. Please stop being a moron all you do is give those who want to lump everyone into the "gay bashers" category more ammo.

[FredPhelps316]

Hhey remember when I was warned for picking on prince lemon. Is it starting to make any sense yet? P.s. he is guilty of onaism because he masturbates into the air conditioning units he fixes.

[logroller]

Fags pray on underage boys.

Pray??? When you said you were homophobic, did you mean a fear of homophones?:laugh2:

[Prince Lemon]

Pray??? When you said you were homophobic, did you mean a fear of homophones?:laugh2:Gays are perverted people who are tempted by The Devil to commit what is against God's nature.Romans 1:26-27,Leviticus 18:22.Yes they pray on boys and we remember a 13 years old Jesse Dirkhising of Arkansas who was kidnapped by a fag couple,brutally raped by them against his will,and they chocked him to death.

[ConHog]

Gays are perverted people who are tempted by The Devil to commit what is against God's nature.Romans 1:26-27,Leviticus 18:22.Yes they pray on boys and we remember a 13 years old Jesse Dirkhising of Arkansas who was kidnapped by a fag couple,brutally raped by them against his will,and they chocked him to death.

He's teasing you b/c you said pray instead of prey. Be that as it may, not all homosexuals are pedophiles so come on now.

[logroller]

Gays are perverted people who are tempted by The Devil to commit what is against God's nature.Romans 1:26-27,Leviticus 18:22.Yes they pray on boys and we remember a 13 years old Jesse Dirkhising of Arkansas who was kidnapped by a fag couple,brutally raped by them against his will,and they chocked him to death.

It's prey, not pray. Rape, by definition, is against someone's will. And you chock wheels to keep them from rolling. Maybe you're content with your ignorance, but if you wish to engage others in a written forum, you'll need to spend a little more energy on your dick-tation:laugh:.

[J.T]

It's prey, not pray. Rape, by definition, is against someone's will. And you chock wheels to keep them from rolling. Maybe you're content with your ignorance, but if you wish to engage others in a written forum, you'll need to spend a little more energy on your dick-tation:laugh:.
It's all intentional with that one.

prince lemon = pl = poe's law.

Stereotypical far-right positions, varying literacy that gets worse the more right-wing the post...

isn't it obvious?

[ConHog]

It's all intentional with that one.

prince lemon = pl = poe's law.

Stereotypical far-right positions, varying literacy that gets worse the more right-wing the post...

isn't it obvious?

I just don't understand why you are so angry over being asked to turn your shirt inside out...