Gay couple asked to reverse shirt at Dollywood

[jimnyc]

Amazing. It's ok when people are asked to remove or turn an American flag shirt inside out - but don't ask the queers! It's ok to remove Christmas trees and other religious icons so as not to offend the filthy muslims, but don't ask the queers!

I say "too fucking bad". If you don't like their policy, and you don't want to reverse your shirt - then boycott their establishment and go elsewhere.

Why should this place be "more inclusive"?


ASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — A lesbian couple is asking for changes at Dollywood after an employee asked one of the women to turn her T-shirt reading "marriage is so gay" inside-out to avoid offending others on a recent visit to the Tennessee theme park complex.

Olivier Odom and Jennifer Tipton said Tuesday they want the park to be more inclusive of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender families after Odom was asked to reverse her shirt when they visited Dollywood Splash Country next to the Pigeon Forge amusement park. The story was first reported by WBIR-TV in Knoxville.

Dollywood spokesman Pete Owens said on Tuesday that Dollywood is open to all families, but their dress code policy is to ask people with clothing or tattoos that could be considered offensive to change clothes or cover up.

http://news.yahoo.com/gay-couple-asked-reverse-shirt-dollywood-200120079.html

[jimnyc]

On the gay subject - the queer marriages in NY now...

Queers say they are normal, and should be allowed to be married and receive "equal rights". "They are no different than you and I".

If 2 women love one another, and they are normal and just like everyone else - why are they wearing a dress and one wearing a tuxedo? This is what I have seen from tons of pictures here in NY. Is it supposed to be normal when one thinks and/or acts like the man?

[ConHog]

Amazing. It's ok when people are asked to remove or turn an American flag shirt inside out - but don't ask the queers! It's ok to remove Christmas trees and other religious icons so as not to offend the filthy muslims, but don't ask the queers!

I say "too fucking bad". If you don't like their policy, and you don't want to reverse your shirt - then boycott their establishment and go elsewhere.

Why should this place be "more inclusive"?



http://news.yahoo.com/gay-couple-asked-reverse-shirt-dollywood-200120079.html


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.

[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.

Just...WOW.

By your logic, govt shouldn't be able to make murder ON YOUR PROPERTY illegal.

Studied the constitution for 8 years, did you? Good lord...

[ConHog]

Just...WOW.

By your logic, govt shouldn't be able to make murder ON YOUR PROPERTY illegal.

Studied the constitution for 8 years, did you? Good lord...



Oh for the love of God, Gunny told me the level of discourse was higher over here than where I came from. Did he lie to me? NO ONE, and I mean absolutely NO ONE suggested that you ought be able to commit crimes on your own property.

[KartRacerBoy]

Oh for the love of God, Gunny told me the level of discourse was higher over here than where I came from. Did he lie to me? NO ONE, and I mean absolutely NO ONE suggested that you ought be able to commit crimes on your own property.

I can't help it if you don't understand the consequences of your own ideas. You don't want the govt to tell you what you can do on your own property. Think it through. Before you post.

[ConHog]

I can't help it if you don't understand the consequences of your own ideas. You don't want the govt to tell you what you can do on your own property. Think it through. Before you post.




Excuse me, you are correct. I should not have just assumed that you are intelligent enough to understand that I was of course not opining that we should be able to commit crimes as long as we are on our own property while doing so.

[KartRacerBoy]

Excuse me, you are correct. I should not have just assumed that you are intelligent enough to understand that I was of course not opining that we should be able to commit crimes as long as we are on our own property while doing so.

You spoke of constitutionality of the law you dislike. If the govt doesn't have the constitutional power to pass the antidiscrimination law, what gives it the power to make criminal laws?

[logroller]

You spoke of constitutionality of the law you dislike. If the govt doesn't have the constitutional power to pass the antidiscrimination law, what gives it the power to make criminal laws?

Asking someone to abide by a dress code isnt automatically discrimination. If it were, health codes enforcing "NO shirt, No shoes, No service" would be discriminatory.

I believe all people have a right to be comfortable with who they are. If this were a case of a cross-dresser they'd maybe have a claim, as were another gender to dress the same way, it'd be fine. But what this boils down to is someone trying to make a derisive political statement, which could affect the establishment's business, and being asked to refrain. If they had instead worn a shirt stating "Celebrate diversity" , I doubt they'd be asked to change; likewise, if I wore a shirt that said "God Hates fags", I'm sure i'd be asked to change-- thus the policy of Dollywood is not only indiscriminant, but antidiscriminatory.

[fj1200]

You spoke of constitutionality of the law you dislike. If the govt doesn't have the constitutional power to pass the antidiscrimination law, what gives it the power to make criminal laws?

What discrimination occurred? They weren't banned from the park they only wanted a shirt turned inside out. They don't have freedom of speech there do they?

[ConHog]

What discrimination occurred? They weren't banned from the park they only wanted a shirt turned inside out. They don't have freedom of speech there do they?


See that's my problem with the law as written . It's my property shouldn't I have the right to said property, not a customer? But we have it backwards, we are giving customers the right to do business with people who may or may not want to do business with them. Just as an example.


You spoke of constitutionality of the law you dislike. If the govt doesn't have the constitutional power to pass the antidiscrimination law, what gives it the power to make criminal laws?



What a ridiculous argument. If a person is a bigot and doesn't want to do business with say a Muslim, then that isn't hurting that Muslim, he can simply go do business elsewhere , and besides why , other than causing trouble, would he WANT to do business with someone who wants nothing to do with him? Murder on the other hand would obviously harm the Muslim and can't be allowed. I can't even believe you made such a stupid comment.


Oh, here's another thing. If we in the US do not allow discrimination, how then do you explain the Black Caucas, the black coaches association, the NAACP, etc etc etc???? Oh oops.

[Trigg]

Dollywood spokesman Pete Owens said on Tuesday that Dollywood is open to all families, but their dress code policy is to ask people with clothing or tattoos that could be considered offensive to change clothes or cover up.

Dollywood did the right thing. The woman wore a shirt that she knew would be offensive to some. They weren't removed from the park they were simply asked to reverse the shirt.

[Missileman]

People have a right to be offended but not a right to not be offended. The message on the shirt wasn't obscene or vulgar. In fact, it's a cute double entendre.

[ConHog]

People have a right to be offended but not a right to not be offended. The message on the shirt wasn't obscene or vulgar. In fact, it's a cute double entendre.


People have a right to set a dress code for their own property. People do NOT have a right to force their dress code on others people's property.

Do you understand the concept of private property?

[Missileman]

People have a right to set a dress code for their own property. People do NOT have a right to force their dress code on others people's property.

Do you understand the concept of private property?

Was there a sign posted somewhere that said no shirts with any print on them? It's not really a code if ya just make things up as you go along.

[Trigg]

People have a right to be offended but not a right to not be offended. The message on the shirt wasn't obscene or vulgar. In fact, it's a cute double entendre.

This is a park, not a public sidewalk.

If someone was wearing a shirt that said "I hate fags", I'd expect the park to ask that person to reverse their shirt. Even though the person could have simply been expressing their hatred for cigarettes.

[red states rule]

Dollywood did the right thing. The woman wore a shirt that she knew would be offensive to some. They weren't removed from the park they were simply asked to reverse the shirt.

This is what most gays set out to do - offend and then stage a show over the "discrmination" they are a victim of

[ConHog]

This is what most gays set out to do - offend and then stage a show over the "discrmination" they are a victim of

Yep, reminds me of a few shitbags where I used to post. Do something to make a scene and then scream abuse when people react.

Even other gays are like "can't yall just shut the fuck up?"


Was there a sign posted somewhere that said no shirts with any print on them? It's not really a code if ya just make things up as you go along.


It's THEIR property, they can do whatever they want. What if they just woke up one Monday morning and said "we don't feel like opening to the public today" and you wanted to go that day? Would you sue them ? It's THEIR property.

[red states rule]

Yep, reminds me of a few shitbags where I used to post. Do something to make a scene and then scream abuse when people react.

Even other gays are like "can't yall just shut the fuck up?"

and the liberal media will be right there to cover the "story"

They will not mention it was planned and staged of course

[ConHog]

and the liberal media will be right there to cover the "story"

They will not mention it was planned and staged of course



Reminds me of some mods where I used to post. Ignore the instigator and place all blame on those who reacted. And then of course the majority of the posters were like the majority of Americans are, just stand around seeing what is going on, but refuse to say anything.

Well my friend, it is time that we as Americans start standing up and saying "no that isn't right, you don't get to shit all over people then cry and whine when those people react."

I think people are getting fed up enough to do exactly that.

[red states rule]

Reminds me of some mods where I used to post. Ignore the instigator and place all blame on those who reacted. And then of course the majority of the posters were like the majority of Americans are, just stand around seeing what is going on, but refuse to say anything.

Well my friend, it is time that we as Americans start standing up and saying "no that isn't right, you don't get to shit all over people then cry and whine when those people react."

I think people are getting fed up enough to do exactly that.

Being a mod that wil not happen here. Any problems let me know

People are speaking up and standing up and that is why the liberal meida is in a tizzy

[ConHog]

Being a mod that wil not happen here. Any problems let me know

People are speaking up and standing up and that is why the liberal meida is in a tizzy



The vibe here is completely different , I can tell that almost immediately.

And we're agreed. Liberals are mad because the average American is FINALLY waking up.

[red states rule]

The vibe here is completely different , I can tell that almost immediately.

And we're agreed. Liberals are mad because the average American is FINALLY waking up.

The Dems worst fear is a majority of informed voters will turn out to vote. Even after the ass kicking they took in the last election, they still act like they have all the answers to our problems

[ConHog]

The Dems worst fear is a majority of informed voters will turn out to vote. Even after the ass kicking they took in the last election, they still act like they have all the answers to our problems

Luckily for them (and sadly for us), the average American remains an idiot.

[Missileman]

This is a park, not a public sidewalk.

If someone was wearing a shirt that said "I hate fags", I'd expect the park to ask that person to reverse their shirt. Even though the person could have simply been expressing their hatred for cigarettes.

Are you really trying to compare "marriage is so gay" to "I hate fags"? Really?


It's THEIR property, they can do whatever they want. What if they just woke up one Monday morning and said "we don't feel like opening to the public today" and you wanted to go that day? Would you sue them ? It's THEIR property.

Or maybe we let them have white days and reserve negro day for the hottest day of the year...it's THEIR property.

[fj1200]

Was there a sign posted somewhere that said no shirts with any print on them? It's not really a code if ya just make things up as you go along.

Doesn't sound like they're just making it up.

but their dress code policy is to ask people with clothing or tattoos that could be considered offensive to change clothes or cover up.
...
Odom said they understand the park can have dress code policies, but she felt Dollywood needed to make their policies clear and provide better training for employees when determining what is considered offensive.

Then she shouldn't be upset when asked to abide by it.


Or maybe we let them have white days and reserve negro day for the hottest day of the year...it's THEIR property.

They weren't banned from the property.

[J.T]

Dollywood is a private enterprise, right?

Give me one good reason they can't enforce a dresscode without regards to whether you or I might agree with it...


Oh for the love of God, Gunny told me the level of discourse was higher over here
It was before you joined and gabby logged in for the day...

[ConHog]

Or maybe we let them have white days and reserve negro day for the hottest day of the year...it's THEIR property.


I actually think they SHOULD be able to do so if they wish. It would be stupid, and they would lose a lot of business. But it's their business to lose if they wish.

[Missileman]

Doesn't sound like they're just making it up.


Then she shouldn't be upset when asked to abide by it.


but their dress code policy is to ask people with clothing or tattoos that could be considered offensive to change clothes or cover up.

Offensive to whom?

[ConHog]

Offensive to whom?



to their customers?

[fj1200]

Offensive to whom?

Does it matter?

[ConHog]

It was before you joined and gabby logged in for the day...



It would appear, at least at first glance, that the other posters on this board respect my posts more than yours. But eh..

[Missileman]

to their customers?

Holy shit! They've got bonafide clairvoyants employed at Dollywood? S'pose they'll tell me what the next powerball numbers are going to be?


Does it matter?

Uhh, yeah!

[J.T]

If this were a case of a cross-dresser they'd maybe have a claim, as were another gender to dress the same way, it'd be fine.
Depends. Many would consider it obscene or inappropriate for a female to be topless yet acceptable for a male to be shirtless. A woman trying to claim discrimination because they wouldn't let her in wearing 'man clothes' would be bullshit if the reality was she wanted to walk around topless and they said she had to cover her breasts.



They don't have freedom of speech there do they?

No. It's a private enterprise. If I think someone's being too loud, abusive, or inappropriate in my place of business, then I've every right to tell them to leave. Same goes for dress codes and offensive or inappropriate articles of clothing, images, etc.


See that's my problem with the law as written . It's my property shouldn't I have the right to said property, not a customer? But we have it backwards, we are giving customers the right to do business with people who may or may not want to do business with them. Just as an example.
At the time, it was the lesser of two evils- a necessary measure to break the systematic and systemic oppression and discrimination faced by an entire race of people, predominantly in the Southern States.



What a ridiculous argument. If a person is a bigot and doesn't want to do business with say a Muslim, then that isn't hurting that Muslim, he can simply go do business elsewhere
Yes... no harm was done to the Negroes... they should have known their place, eh, piggie?



, and besides why , other than causing trouble, would he WANT to do business with someone who wants nothing to do with him?
Yeah, those damn uppity niggers just wanna cause trouble :rolleyes:



People have a right to be offended but not a right to not be offended. The message on the shirt wasn't obscene or vulgar. In fact, it's a cute double entendre.

Cute or not, the persons who run the business deemed it inappropriate, potentially offensive, and a violation of the dress code. They made a perfectly reasonable request of the patrons- turn the shirt inside-out and please be more considerate of others if you visit again. I don't see the problem.



Why should this place be "more inclusive"?


How were they being exclusive?



Was there a sign posted somewhere that said no shirts with any print on them? It's not really a code if ya just make things up as you go along.

Do I really need a sign saying 'Don't be a jackass'? If I show up with a picture of an aborted foetus on my shirt and the words 'Whose body, whose choice?', do they need to already have a posted dress code in order to say 'Yea, that's unnecessarily provocative and offensive. We're gonna have to ask you to turn your shirt inside-out or change your top, asshole. We're all just tryin' to have a good time, jackass'? Or is there some room for common sense and reason here?


As for whoever made this an issue... I nominate them for Stewart's next installment of You're Not Helping

[fj1200]

Uhh, yeah!

Why?

[Missileman]

Or is there some room for common sense and reason here?


Common sense dictates that a standard of "could be considered offensive" is too vague.


Why?

For starters, maybe nobody found her shirt offensive.

[ConHog]

Common sense dictates that a standard of "could be considered offensive" is too vague.



What part of PRIVATE PROPERTY are you not understanding?


Let me ask you this. Let's say I came to your house and stood on your front lawn screaming obscenities at your wife and children. Now let's say you came out and asked me to leave because I was being offensive, and I responded that to me what I was saying was not offensive. Who should have the call on what is or isn't offensive on YOUR property?


For starters, maybe nobody found her shirt offensive.



Irrelevant.

[J.T]

Common sense dictates that a standard of "could be considered offensive" is too vague.

Only if you're too stupid to apply common sense or critical thinking.

[fj1200]

For starters, maybe nobody found her shirt offensive.

So if one person complained you'd support their right to enforce their code?

[Missileman]

What part of PRIVATE PROPERTY are you not understanding?


Let me ask you this. Let's say I came to your house and stood on your front lawn screaming obscenities at your wife and children. Now let's say you came out and asked me to leave because I was being offensive, and I responded that to me what I was saying was not offensive. Who should have the call on what is or isn't offensive on YOUR property?

That's not their policy though. If their policy was to prohibit "anything we, Dollywood, Inc finds offensive" that would be a different story. They are trying to enforce a totally arbitrary standard. Anyone can find any thing offensive...it's in the eye of the beholder as much as beauty.

[ConHog]

That's not their policy though. If their policy was to prohibit "anything we, Dollywood, Inc finds offensive" that would be a different story. They are trying to enforce a totally arbitrary standard. Anyone can find any thing offensive...it's in the eye of the beholder as much as beauty.

It's their freaking property, they don't owe you , or anyone else, an explanation for how they decide what is too offensive.

How fucking hard is that to understand? I mean really.

[Missileman]

So if one person complained you'd support their right to enforce their code?

A person could have a shitload of fun for a whole day making people turn their shirts inside out...worth the price of admission.

[ConHog]

A person could have a shitload of fun for a whole day making people turn their shirts inside out...worth the price of admission.



So people don't have a right to police their customers because some MIGHT complain about silly things?

[Missileman]

So people don't have a right to police their customers because some MIGHT complain about silly things?

They certainly exercised that EXACT right in this case.

[ConHog]

They certainly exercised that EXACT right in this case.



And you would agree that we as Americans can exercise our rights any time we wish, correct?

[Missileman]

And you would agree that we as Americans can exercise our rights any time we wish, correct?

Surely...and I expect no more complaints from you when some silly atheist group exercises their right to raise a stink about some Christian thing.

[ConHog]

Surely...and I expect no more complaints from you when some silly atheist group exercises their right to raise a stink about some Christian thing.


I have never "raised a stink" about such. Everyone has the freedom of speech, HOWEVER that doesn't mean a place of business has to let you exercise that right on their property.

[Trigg]

Are you really trying to compare "marriage is so gay" to "I hate fags"? Really?

The park asked them to turn the shirt around because it might offend someone. It's as simple as that.

So yes, I think they are compareable.

[Gunny]

Just...WOW.

By your logic, govt shouldn't be able to make murder ON YOUR PROPERTY illegal.

Studied the constitution for 8 years, did you? Good lord...

Just ... WOW.

Your "analogy" ... ummmm ... isn't a valid one? Ridiculous as a matter of fact.


I can't help it if you don't understand the consequences of your own ideas. You don't want the govt to tell you what you can do on your own property. Think it through. Before you post.

Perhaps YOU need to think your statement through. It's nonsense. The government regulating crime does NOT compare to a telling others how they will behave on your property in any way. You are legally responsible for your property and what happens on it; therefore, theoretically, YOU make the rules as to the behavior allowed on it.

You're not allowed to commit crimes on your property. Telling gays they aren't allowed to advertise their aberrant sexual lifestyle on your property is not a crime.

How many kids have been sent home from school for wearing Christian tee's? What about THEIR rights? This goes back to the other thread. While you're thinking through your nonsensical, so-called "analogy", ask yourself what mindset is it you possess that makes you think only aberrant minorities have rights, or that they should have "more" rights than the majority?

[ConHog]

Perhaps YOU need to think your statement through. It's nonsense. The government regulating crime does NOT compare to a telling others how they will behave on your property in any way. You are legally responsible for your property and what happens on it; therefore, theoretically, YOU make the rules as to the behavior allowed on it.

You're not allowed to commit crimes on your property. Telling gays they aren't allowed to advertise their aberrant sexual lifestyle on your property is not a crime.

How many kids have been sent home from school for wearing Christian tee's? What about THEIR rights? This goes back to the other thread. While you're thinking through your nonsensical, so-called "analogy", ask yourself what mindset is it you possess that makes you think only aberrant minorities have rights, or that they should have "more" rights than the majority?

You must spread more reputation around before adding to Gunny , blah blah....

[Gunny]

Holy shit! They've got bonafide clairvoyants employed at Dollywood? S'pose they'll tell me what the next powerball numbers are going to be?

STILL trying to make your arguments playing semantics, huh? Most successful business know who the majority crowd they cater to is. Or, it could just be offensive to the owner. What's it matter? People are hired to make judgment calls and given guidelines to make them.

Your MO is cut -n- paste semantics that could be used to question ANY set of rules and/or judgment call, but is actually no valid argument at all.


Uhh, yeah!

No, it doesn't.


Common sense dictates that a standard of "could be considered offensive" is too vague.

Ummm .... no.

[fj1200]

By your logic, govt shouldn't be able to make murder ON YOUR PROPERTY illegal.

The government is there to enforce contracts. Dollywood contracted with patrons to NOT murder them, they also contracted with them to enforce the dress code.

[Gunny]

Surely...and I expect no more complaints from you when some silly atheist group exercises their right to raise a stink about some Christian thing.

Another bullshit attempt at analogy. Atheist groups attack Christianity when and where found trying to force their religion on Christians. A far cry from a private establishment having its own rules and enforcing them.

But then, the latter wouldn't work for atheists, would it? They'd never get any attention because Christians just wouldn't support their establishments, so they have to go out seeking something Christian and find offense no matter how much twisting of fact and truth they have to do.

[ConHog]

STILL trying to make your arguments playing semantics, huh? Most successful business know who the majority crowd they cater to is. Or, it could just be offensive to the owner. What's it matter? People are hired to make judgment calls and given guidelines to make them.

Your MO is cut -n- paste semantics that could be used to question ANY set of rules and/or judgment call, but is actually no valid argument at all.



Now Gunny, you KNOW that the fact of the matter is that what they are really pissed about is that someone stood up and said "no you will NOT do something that is offensive to conservative Christians, not on our property" , bet you anything these assholes would be cheering if the same people had asked someone to remove a Jesus tee shirt.

[KartRacerBoy]

The government is there to enforce contracts. Dollywood contracted with patrons to NOT murder them, they also contracted with them to enforce the dress code.

Now you're jsut making stuff up cz you're envious of my curly locks and access to hair care products.

Go back early in the thread to see why I made the response to ConHog about constitutional authority to make law about civil matters and criminal matters.

And I've seen how you southerners dress. Dress code. my ass. Tallk about arbitrary and capricious. :laugh:

[Nukeman]

Are you really trying to compare "marriage is so gay" to "I hate fags"? Really?
Yes they both have "DOUBLE" meanings or do you contest that.. Both can be found offensive by others do you contest that???

Offensive to whom?Any person that is for marriage!! Me for one.


Holy shit! They've got bonafide clairvoyants employed at Dollywood? S'pose they'll tell me what the next powerball numbers are going to be?No they know their clientel.. You know those good southern people that ahve a shit load of family and kids....


Uhh, yeah!Uhh NO


Common sense dictates that a standard of "could be considered offensive" is too vague.Not really. anything i find offensive on MY property is my right to ask to either comply with MY standards or leave.. Its MINE!!!!!!


For starters, maybe nobody found her shirt offensive.I found it offensive, but I think " I hate fags" is hilarious.. Does that mean I can wear the later!?!?!?!?!?

[ConHog]

Yes they both have "DOUBLE" meanings or do you contest that.. Both can be found offensive by others do you contest that???
Any person that is for marriage!! Me for one.

No they know their clientel.. You know those good southern people that ahve a shit load of family and kids....

Uhh NO

Not really. anything i find offensive on MY property is my right to ask to either comply with MY standards or leave.. Its MINE!!!!!!

I found it offensive, but I think " I hate fags" is hilarious.. Does that mean I can wear the later!?!?!?!?!?



You know , with certainty, that these assholes would be defending Dollywood had they asked someone turn a t shirt that read "I hate fags" inside out. It's fact.

[fj1200]

Now you're jsut making stuff up cz you're envious of my curly locks and access to hair care products.

Go back early in the thread to see why I made the response to ConHog about constitutional authority to make law about civil matters and criminal matters.

And I've seen how you southerners dress. Dress code. my ass. Tallk about arbitrary and capricious. :laugh:

I did, your line of "reasoning" left a little to be desired. My rationale rocked. :)

Re: your hair, I may have been wrong about Dippity Doo. Your proximity to Gary, IN could be a determining factor.

[KartRacerBoy]

I did, your line of "reasoning" left a little to be desired. My rationale rocked. :)

Re: your hair, I may have been wrong about Dippity Doo. Your proximity to Gary, IN could be a determining factor.

You are a bitter, bitter, very tall man, Gandolf.

And as to my constitutional reasoning, since the power of federal govt to legislate both criminal and civil laws is rooted in the commerce clause, if the federal govt lacks the reach to legislate in one area, it very likely lacks power in the other. Go back and read the 19th and early 20th century caselaw (pre1938ish).

So there, hair envy guy.

[fj1200]

You are a bitter, bitter, very tall man, Gandolf.

And as to my constitutional reasoning, since the power of federal govt to legislate both criminal and civil laws is rooted in the commerce clause, if the federal govt lacks the reach to legislate in one area, it very likely lacks power in the other. Go back and read the 19th and early 20th century caselaw (pre1938ish).

So there, hair envy guy.

I've seen your hair, the envy is in your mind... but I am taller than you, not to mention far better looking. :laugh:

I didn't really question that aspect of constitutional reasoning, nobody questioned government "regulation" of murder they did defend the private property rights of DW. DW also didn't discriminate against them even if orientation were protected, they merely regulated their speech which IMO they have a right to do.

[KartRacerBoy]

I've seen your hair, the envy is in your mind... but I am taller than you, not to mention far better looking. :laugh:

I didn't really question that aspect of constitutional reasoning, nobody questioned government "regulation" of murder they did defend the private property rights of DW. DW also didn't discriminate against them even if orientation were protected, they merely regulated their speech which IMO they have a right to do.


My skin tags are better looking than you, tall one. Your wife said so!

If you read my posts, I never said anything about DW's actions. I was just reacting to something ConHog said about the constitutionality of civil rights laws generarlly. IMO, what DW did was stupid but everyone has at least a limiited right (limited by constitutional laws) to be stupid. Hell, without that right, this forum wouldn't exist.

[ConHog]

My skin tags are better looking than you, tall one. Your wife said so!

If you read my posts, I never said anything about DW's actions. I was just reacting to something ConHog said about the constitutionality of civil rights laws generarlly. IMO, what DW did was stupid but everyone has at least a limiited right (limited by constitutional laws) to be stupid. Hell, without that right, this forum wouldn't exist.



Sure we all have the right to be as stupid as we wish to be. That right however ends where other people's right start. For example you have the right to say just about anything you would like to say. BUT the owner of this board has the right to run it as he sees fit, Meaning of course that you don't get to scream I have the right to free speech if the owner deletes something you have said. I mention this because there are many people who for some odd reason think that the bill of rights extends to protecting their rights from anyone other than the government, and they do not. You do NOT have the right to free speech at Dollywood. PERIOD

[KartRacerBoy]

All that's fine and dandy, but what do think about the asthetic value of my skin tags?

[ConHog]

All that's fine and dandy, but what do think about the asthetic value of my skin tags?

All I know about your skin tags is that your sister finds them fetching..........

[fj1200]

All that's fine and dandy, but what do think about the asthetic value of my skin tags?

:puke3:

... and about as useful as your extension of Con's logic.

[KartRacerBoy]

:puke3:

... and about as useful as your extension of Con's logic.

Hater

[KartRacerBoy]

All I know about your skin tags is that your sister finds them fetching..........

Careful! That's my wife you're talking about...

[ConHog]

Careful! That's my wife you're talking about...


That was implied.

[J.T]

nvm

[Missileman]

Another bullshit attempt at analogy. Atheist groups attack Christianity when and where found trying to force their religion on Christians. A far cry from a private establishment having its own rules and enforcing them.

Wrong! Citizens have the right to present grievances to the government. That you don't agree with their grievance is irrelevant.

[ConHog]

Wrong! Citizens have the right to present grievances to the government. That you don't agree with their grievance is irrelevant.



Where did Gunny say otherwise? In fact there is another poster in this very thread who has said that, but it isn't Gunny.

[Missileman]

STILL trying to make your arguments playing semantics, huh? Most successful business know who the majority crowd they cater to is. Or, it could just be offensive to the owner. What's it matter? People are hired to make judgment calls and given guidelines to make them.

Your MO is cut -n- paste semantics that could be used to question ANY set of rules and/or judgment call, but is actually no valid argument at all.

Why is it the only argument you can ever come up with against me is "semantics"? I'm beginning to think you don't know the meaning of the word. Their policy is to exclude something that "might" be found offensive. You can whine about "semantics" until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't alter the fact it would take the world's greatest psychic to ascertain everything that "might" offend another park visitor. A non-smoker "might" find a Joe Camel shirt offensive. A relative of a retarded person "might" find your wife's "I'm with stupid" shirt offensive. The list of shit that someone "might" find offensive would be endless.

[ConHog]

Why is it the only argument you can ever come up with against me is "semantics"? I'm beginning to think you don't know the meaning of the word. Their policy is to exclude something that "might" be found offensive. You can whine about "semantics" until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't alter the fact it would take the world's greatest psychic to ascertain everything that "might" offend another park visitor. A non-smoker "might" find a Joe Camel shirt offensive. A relative of a retarded person "might" find your wife's "I'm with stupid" shirt offensive. The list of shit that someone "might" find offensive would be endless.

Get this straight. They don't have to have a reason. They could simply say "no blue shirts allowed" and guess what? That's their right, it's THEIR property. They don't have to explain themselves to you.

[J.T]

Why is it the only argument you can ever come up with against me is "semantics"? I'm beginning to think you don't know the meaning of the word. Their policy is to exclude something that "might" be found offensive. You can whine about "semantics" until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't alter the fact it would take the world's greatest psychic to ascertain everything that "might" offend another park visitor. A non-smoker "might" find a Joe Camel shirt offensive. A relative of a retarded person "might" find your wife's "I'm with stupid" shirt offensive. The list of shit that someone "might" find offensive would be endless.
And?


Dollywood is a private enterprise, right?

Give me one good reason they can't enforce a dresscode without regards to whether you or I might agree with it...

[Missileman]

Where did Gunny say otherwise? In fact there is another poster in this very thread who has said that, but it isn't Gunny.

I made a comparison of an atheist's right to take the government to court over perceived separation of church and state issues with Dollywood's right to enforce a dress code.

Gunny said:

Another bullshit attempt at analogy. Atheist groups attack Christianity when and where found trying to force their religion on Christians. A far cry from a private establishment having its own rules and enforcing them.

Exercising rights is exercising rights and the analogy is perfectly valid.

[ConHog]

I made a comparison of an atheist's right to take the government to court over perceived separation of church and state issues with Dollywood's right to enforce a dress code.

Gunny said:


Exercising rights is exercising rights and the analogy is perfectly valid.



You just aren't understanding . You have NO rights to exercise . It is THEIR property.

[Missileman]

Get this straight. They don't have to have a reason. They could simply say "no blue shirts allowed" and guess what? That's their right, it's THEIR property. They don't have to explain themselves to you.

I've already said as much here: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31915-Gay-couple-asked-to-reverse-shirt-at-Dollywood&p=480159#post480159

That doesn't nullify anything else I've written in this thread.


You just aren't understanding . You have NO rights to exercise . It is THEIR property.

You aren't understanding that I'm not talking about an individual exercising their rights at Dollywood.

[ConHog]

I've already said as much here: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31915-Gay-couple-asked-to-reverse-shirt-at-Dollywood&p=480159#post480159

That doesn't nullify anything else I've written in this thread.



Yes it does. How can you argue that anyone has to spell out their reasons for anything they do on their property?

[Missileman]

Yes it does. How can you argue that anyone has to spell out their reasons for anything they do on their property?

I never demanded any such thing, but posted my opinion that their standard is dubious and argued why it's dubious.

[ConHog]

I never demanded any such thing, but posted my opinion that their standard is dubious and argued why it's dubious.


And my response to you was that they in fact need NO standard. They could just arbitrarily say "no blue shirts" and it's their property, if you don't like it, go do business elsewhere. You certainly don't have a right to be on THEIR property.

[KartRacerBoy]

And my response to you was that they in fact need NO standard. They could just arbitrarily say "no blue shirts" and it's their property, if you don't like it, go do business elsewhere. You certainly don't have a right to be on THEIR property.

Am I confused? Is your wife really a lawyer? If she is, you should really have a conversation with her about this subject. She might explain a few realities to you. You may not like them, but despite the fact that you seem to think private property owners can do anything they want, they can't. Laws affect them. Laws that you don't like, but enforcible laws nonetheless.

If you were their lawyer, I suspect you'd make lots of money (telling them what they want ot hear in the short term) but you'd lose them lots of $$$.

[ConHog]

Am I confused? Is your wife really a lawyer? If she is, you should really have a conversation with her about this subject. She might explain a few realities to you. You may not like them, but despite the fact that you seem to think private property owners can do anything they want, they can't. Laws affect them. Laws that you don't like, but enforcible laws nonetheless.

If you were their lawyer, I suspect you'd make lots of money (telling them what they want ot hear in the short term) but you'd lose them lots of $$$.

Is that right? So you take issue with my claim that a private business could at a whim say no blue shirts on our property? Show me what would be done about it.


And duh of course there are some laws that must be followed even in regards to personal property. None of them have anything to do with free speech.

[KartRacerBoy]

Is that right? So you take issue with my claim that a private business could at a whim say no blue shirts on our property? Show me what would be done about it.


And duh of course there are some laws that must be followed even in regards to personal property. None of them have anything to do with free speech.

Perhaps I misconstrue your meaning, but in multiple threads you seem to be saying govt has no ability or right to pass a law saying what you can and cannot do on your private property. Such a broad statement is obviously wrong. Govt can restrict what you do on your property within certain limits. I wasn't talking about speech in my last comment, but the old "yelling fire in a crowded theater" thing comes to mind. So even speech rights on private property have limits.

[ConHog]

Perhaps I misconstrue your meaning, but in multiple threads you seem to be saying govt has no ability or right to pass a law saying what you can and cannot do on your private property. Such a broad statement is obviously wrong. Govt can restrict what you do on your property within certain limits. I wasn't talking about speech in my last comment, but the old "yelling fire in a crowded theater" thing comes to mind. So even speech rights on private property have limits.



No, I was specifically talking about in terms of limiting the rights of others. It's your property so your rights supersede theirs. Nothing the government does can change that.

Of course the government can dictate certain things in terms of safety, cleanliness , etc etc when you are a business who is open to the public.

[J.T]

Am I confused? Is your wife really a lawyer? If she is, you should really have a conversation with her about this subject. She might explain a few realities to you. You may not like them, but despite the fact that you seem to think private property owners can do anything they want, they can't. Laws affect them. Laws that you don't like, but enforcible laws nonetheless.

If you were their lawyer, I suspect you'd make lots of money (telling them what they want ot hear in the short term) but you'd lose them lots of $$$.

Wait... what law says they can't have an arbitrary dress code that you dislike? I'd like you to cite the statute or stfu.

[KartRacerBoy]

Wait... what law says they can't have an arbitrary dress code that you dislike? I'd like you to cite the statute or stfu.

Try to pay more attention. You seem to be confused. And stick it up your ass, nitwit.

[J.T]

Try to pay more attention. You seem to be confused. And stick it up your ass, nitwit.
So you can't tell me where the law says they can't have a dress code you don't like and even enforce it arbitrarily?


And my response to you was that they in fact need NO standard. They could just arbitrarily say "no blue shirts" and it's their property, if you don't like it, go do business elsewhere. You certainly don't have a right to be on THEIR property.


Is your wife really a lawyer? If she is, you should really have a conversation with her about this subject. She might explain a few realities to you. You may not like them, but despite the fact that you seem to think private property owners can do anything they want, they can't. Laws affect them. Laws that you don't like, but enforcible laws nonetheless.


Now... yell us what law says they can't have a dress code you don't like and even enforce it arbitrarily? Tell us what law says they must let you wear a shirt onto their property with words or images they feel might offend or incite other persons.

Cite the statute or stfu and go someplace else if you don't like the dress code.

[KartRacerBoy]

JT, you should try reading previous posts in a conversation between two forum members. You really have no idea what you are talking about. And frankly, you have so little to add to intelligent conversation that you're not worth educating.

[ConHog]

JT, you should try reading previous posts in a conversation between two forum members. You really have no idea what you are talking about. And frankly, you have so little to add to intelligent conversation that you're not worth educating.



All of that may or may not be true, but what is DEFINATELY true is that you are avoiding JT's question, which hits on the crux of this entire thread. What gives ANYONE the right to tell someone what they must accept on THEIR property? You obviously can not cite the law which requires DollyWood, or anyone else, to allow patrons to wear whatever they want; so what DO you think prevents people from enforcing whatever standards they want on their own property?

[KartRacerBoy]

All of that may or may not be true, but what is DEFINATELY true is that you are avoiding JT's question, which hits on the crux of this entire thread. What gives ANYONE the right to tell someone what they must accept on THEIR property? You obviously can not cite the law which requires DollyWood, or anyone else, to allow patrons to wear whatever they want; so what DO you think prevents people from enforcing whatever standards they want on their own property?

If you read back, you will see that I've said not one thing about whether what Dollywood did was legal, illegal, discriminatory, nondiscriminatory, etc. I have called it stupid, however.

You and I have had a debate on whether govt can generally make a constitutional law regarding private action on private property. I'm pretty sure I've stated my position on that issue. If you missed it, reread.

[ConHog]

If you read back, you will see that I've said not one thing about whether what Dollywood did was legal, illegal, discriminatory, nondiscriminatory, etc. I have called it stupid, however.

You and I have had a debate on whether govt can generally make a constitutional law regarding private action on private property. I'm pretty sure I've stated my position on that issue. If you missed it, reread.



Yes and yoru argument was and is ridiculous. Equating making it illegal to murder on your property with making it illegal to discriminate against t shirts. Be serious now.

And we of course have EVERY right to be as stupid as we want in this country, That's a right that I think you enjoy to the fullest. :thumb:

[KartRacerBoy]

Yes and yoru argument was and is ridiculous. Equating making it illegal to murder on your property with making it illegal to discriminate against t shirts. Be serious now.

And we of course have EVERY right to be as stupid as we want in this country, That's a right that I think you enjoy to the fullest. :thumb:

I think your irrational belief that govt can't limit private activity on private land is equally ridiculous and in obvious contravention of the facts. Federal authority to do stems from the Commerce clause both as to criminal and civil activity. If the commerce clause doesn't grant federal power over one, it doesn't grant it over the other. That power has limits, of course. One is the right to free speech. Generally (but not absolutely), govt can't restrict speech based on the content of that speech.

As to the states, there was never any limit on what they could legislate under the federal constitution until the incorporation doctrine gained favor in the courts. So until the bill of rights bound the state and local govt powers, they could've told you to screw your sister every Tuesday if it didn't violate their state constitution. It might not have been smart, but they would've had the authority.

[ConHog]

I think your irrational belief that govt can't limit private activity on private land is equally ridiculous and in obvious contravention of the facts. Federal authority to do stems from the Commerce clause both as to criminal and civil activity. If the commerce clause doesn't grant federal power over one, it doesn't grant it over the other. That power has limits, of course. One is the right to free speech. Generally (but not absolutely), govt can't restrict speech based on the content of that speech.

As to the states, there was never any limit on what they could legislate under the federal constitution until the incorporation doctrine gained favor in the courts. So until the bill of rights bound the state and local govt powers, they could've told you to screw your sister every Tuesday if it didn't violate their state constitution. It might not have been smart, but they would've had the authority.

You are attempting to confuse two issues. Certainly the government can and does limit activity on private property , when that activity is in conflict with the law. IE you can't commit crimes on your property then hide behind "it's my property." No one has argued that you could. However, there is no law stating that a person can not limit what a person may or may not wear on their property. So no matter HOW stupid you think it is that they did so, DollyWood was perfectly within their rights to do so. End of thread.

[J.T]

If you read back, you will see that I've said not one thing about whether what Dollywood did was legal, illegal, discriminatory, nondiscriminatory, etc.

So you've been babbling about the Law for absolutely no reason? Your defense is that you've been avoiding the subject of the thread this entire time?

[logroller]

If you read back, you will see that I've said not one thing about whether what Dollywood did was legal, illegal, discriminatory, nondiscriminatory, etc. I have called it stupid, however.

You and I have had a debate on whether govt can generally make a constitutional law regarding private action on private property. I'm pretty sure I've stated my position on that issue. If you missed it, reread.

Well that's an assertion you're free to make; much as another can assert gay and lesbian marriage is stupid. From a policy standpoint, however, there is little evidence of a compelling public interest (required to override the personal rights of the individual) It does sell ads though. It reminds me of what the Colosseum represented to the people of Rome; Rome is burning, but the show must go on! If for no other reason than distraction from the real issues which need be addressed-- like the economy, public debt, corruption of public officials, etc etc. Talk about GAY!

[ConHog]

Well that's an assertion you're free to make; much as another can assert gay and lesbian marriage is stupid. From a policy standpoint, however, there is little evidence of a compelling public interest (required to override the personal rights of the individual) It does sell ads though. It reminds me of what the Colosseum represented to the people of Rome; Rome is burning, but the show must go on! If for no other reason than distraction from the real issues which need be addressed-- like the economy, public debt, corruption of public officials, etc etc. Talk about GAY!


Exactly what I said in the gay marriage thread. This country has serious issues to deal with. Gay marriage isn't one of them.

[KartRacerBoy]

Civil rights are a serious issue. Deal with it.

[J.T]

Civil rights are a serious issue. Deal with it.

Seriously... wtf are you on about now? Who deprived whom of any civil rights in this story, you stupid motherfucker?

[KartRacerBoy]

Seriously... wtf are you on about now? Who deprived whom of any civil rights in this story, you stupid motherfucker?

I personally wouldn't touch your ugly mother, you twit. Really, how do you get by in life with such poor reading skills?

[J.T]

I personally wouldn't touch your ugly mother, you twit. Really, how do you get by in life with such poor reading skills?

Civil rights are a serious issue. Deal with it.




Who deprived whom of any civil rights in this story?

Answer the question

[ConHog]

Civil rights are a serious issue. Deal with it.

You are correct, civil rights are important, I am glad DollyWood exercised theirs in this instance.

[KartRacerBoy]

Wow. That's big typeface.

[ConHog]

I personally wouldn't touch your ugly mother, you twit. Really, how do you get by in life with such poor reading skills?



Was attacking some guy's mom really necessary? I mean maybe you don't have any respect for your own mother and so wouldn't care if other posters trashed her; but that's offensive to me, and I'm a pretty offensive guy myself.

[J.T]

Wow. That's big typeface.

Who deprived whom of any civil rights in this story?

Answer the question, you dishonest sack of shit.

Either tell us who deprived whom of any civil rights or stop babbling on about civil rights. Either tell us what statute says DW can't have a dress code or stfu about the Law.

[ConHog]

Who deprived whom of any civil rights in this story?

Answer the question, you dishonest sack of shit.

Either tell us who deprived whom of any civil rights or stop babbling on about civil rights. Either tell us what statute says DW can't have a dress code or stfu about the Law.

The correct answer is Kartfag, and his fellow queers are the ones who would like to deprive DollyWood, and any other organization which doesn't cater to them, of THEIR civil rights.


That's what it boils down to, They want gay rights > everyone else's rights. That is what irks me the most when they compare their silly little quest to the fight of the blacks in the 60s . MLK Jr didn't want his rights at the expense of others. He wanted to be equal. But today that's not good enough. No today gays and others want special treatment.

Makes me want to puke.

[KartRacerBoy]

Was attacking some guy's mom really necessary? I mean maybe you don't have any respect for your own mother and so wouldn't care if other posters trashed her; but that's offensive to me, and I'm a pretty offensive guy myself.

Yup. I trashed JT's mom after he called me a motherfucker and I simply said his ugly mom wasn't on my list of moms to fuck today. Actually, his ugly mom probably won't ever make the list, but that's ok since I'm sure JT gives her enough action.

[logroller]

Civil rights are a serious issue. Deal with it.

Sure they are. Unfortunately, so many of the ways we have dealt with civil rights have caused even more serious issues to arise. We've got a few threads here, stating much of the same points, so I hesitate to mention each point multiple times; but...

Marriage, the concept behind traditional marriage I mean, ended long ago and we are now experiencing the fallout. Divorce, IMO, has lead to far more destructive public behavior than gay marriage will. What I have a problem with is the nontraditional marriage definition where it's just people in love. I''ve been in love multiple times, but I've been married once. Marriage isn't about love, it's about commitment to a set of shared values with shared benefits and rewards, ie "for better"; but also "for worse". It demonstrates the plague of modern society that is consumed with happiness, rather than hard work and sacrifice-- as that's what makes a marriage, not love! Can gays do this? maybe; as much as any husband and wife can or does-- which, sadly, most dont! I'm with conhog, I have no problem with gays getting married, but don't tell EVERY marriage is the same, because they're not--- and more and more fail b/c of legislative liberalization.

[KartRacerBoy]

The correct answer is Kartfag, and his fellow queers are the ones who would like to deprive DollyWood, and any other organization which doesn't cater to them, of THEIR civil rights.


That's what it boils down to, They want gay rights > everyone else's rights. That is what irks me the most when they compare their silly little quest to the fight of the blacks in the 60s . MLK Jr didn't want his rights at the expense of others. He wanted to be equal. But today that's not good enough. No today gays and others want special treatment.

Makes me want to puke.

Dear god you're as dumb as JT, ConHog. Hateful little sumbitch, too. None too intelligent, either.

[logroller]

Ironically, we're talking about CIVIL rights, yet civility seems in short supply!:lame2:

[Thunderknuckles]

Can't believe this thing is 8 pages long. Private businesses have had dress codes as far back as I can remember. No need to bring up civil rights and law because if that had any bearing then dress code policies would have been abolished long ago. The only reason why this is a story at all is because homosexuals were involved and anytime someone tells them they can't do something, they believe they have been discriminated against or had their rights infringed upon. Anyone with children in their low to mid teens knows all about the homosexual mentality in this regard.

[J.T]

MLK Jr didn't want his rights at the expense of others.
Yes, he did. MLK was a huge proponent of AA and the inversion, not the abolition, of the systematic and systemic discrimination and inequality of the time.

He was also a socialist.

[O]ne day we must ask the question, <q>Why are there forty million poor people in America?</q> And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy
-Martin Luther King Jr


He also supported racial quotas and opposed hiring the most qualified firefighters (http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-29/politics/supreme.court.discrimination_1_promotional-exams-white-firefighters-test-results?_s=PM:POLITICS)



If a city has a 30% Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30% of the jobs in any particular company


No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries…Yet a price can be placed on unpaid wages. The ancient common law has always provided a remedy for the appropriation of a the labor of one human being by another. This law should be made to apply for American Negroes. The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein9.html

[ConHog]

Yes, he did. MLK was a huge proponent of AA and the inversion, not the abolition, of the systematic and systemic discrimination and inequality of the time.

He was also a socialist.

[O]ne day we must ask the question, <q>Why are there forty million poor people in America?</q> And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy
-Martin Luther King Jr



He also supported racial quotas and opposed hiring the most qualified firefighters (http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-29/politics/supreme.court.discrimination_1_promotional-exams-white-firefighters-test-results?_s=PM:POLITICS)



If a city has a 30% Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30% of the jobs in any particular company


No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries…Yet a price can be placed on unpaid wages. The ancient common law has always provided a remedy for the appropriation of a the labor of one human being by another. This law should be made to apply for American Negroes. The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein9.html



I said nothing about socialism vs capitalism. I said that Jr was FOR equality of the races, and he absolutely was.


Can't believe this thing is 8 pages long. Private businesses have had dress codes as far back as I can remember. No need to bring up civil rights and law because if that had any bearing then dress code policies would have been abolished long ago. The only reason why this is a story at all is because homosexuals were involved and anytime someone tells them they can't do something, they believe they have been discriminated against or had their rights infringed upon. Anyone with children in their low to mid teens knows all about the homosexual mentality in this regard.

So you're saying gays (some of them) are child like and throw temper tantrums when they don't get their own way?


We agree.

[logroller]

Yes, he did. MLK was a huge proponent of AA and the inversion, not the abolition, of the systematic and systemic discrimination and inequality of the time.

He was also a socialist.

[O]ne day we must ask the question, <q>Why are there forty million poor people in America?</q> And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy
-Martin Luther King Jr


He also supported racial quotas and opposed hiring the most qualified firefighters (http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-29/politics/supreme.court.discrimination_1_promotional-exams-white-firefighters-test-results?_s=PM:POLITICS)



If a city has a 30% Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30% of the jobs in any particular company


No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries…Yet a price can be placed on unpaid wages. The ancient common law has always provided a remedy for the appropriation of a the labor of one human being by another. This law should be made to apply for American Negroes. The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein9.html


Why / how do you differentiate between systemic and systematic discrimination? dont they go hand in hand?

The firefighter case is a classic example of AA; but embracing diversity doesn't mean advancing the minority bar none (ie quotas)-- it means it can and should be considered in addition to other qualities. As per the DW case, ignoring the very intent of DW policy (ie non-offensive environment) and allowing the minority lgbt cause to be advanced is a disservice.
The rest sounds like a call for reparations--40 acres and mule. Africans, systematically, took eachother as slaves, as did early western civilizations. Many, if not most African countries continue to experience violent oppression by those of their same race. So calls to advance the minority b/c of some damage inflicted upon them are as stereotypical as they are hypocritical. When blacks stop calling each other nigga this or that and gays and lesbians stop classifying themselves as butch, stag, bears, twinks and the like-- maybe then they'll see the differential treatment they receive is furthered most by their own actions. many of them behave differently towards each other, yet demand they be treated the same. I'm not gonna say I treat them idfferently b/c of what they do in the bedroom, so long as I'm not forced to. I don't find marriage gay, and I find that T-shirt demeaning, insulting and offensive to my traditional views on marriage. I'll deal with though, I don't need govt protecting me from it, but understand the way I deal with it may very well involve rejection of those who insult my values-- including turning their t-shirt inside out. So they need to deal that!

[KartRacerBoy]

The correct answer is Kartfag, and his fellow queers are the ones who would like to deprive DollyWood, and any other organization which doesn't cater to them, of THEIR civil rights.


That's what it boils down to, They want gay rights > everyone else's rights. That is what irks me the most when they compare their silly little quest to the fight of the blacks in the 60s . MLK Jr didn't want his rights at the expense of others. He wanted to be equal. But today that's not good enough. No today gays and others want special treatment.

Makes me want to puke.

And the bold text outs you for what your really are. Not that the rest of your post doesn't give a strong hint, but the bold crap tells everyone how you feel about gay people.

I'm glad you're out of the military. You aren't smart enough to adapt with the repeal of of don't ask, don't tell. Nor would I want a bigot like you wearing a uniform.

[logroller]

And the bold text outs you for what your really are. Not that the rest of your post doesn't give a strong hint, but the bold crap tells everyone how you feel about gay people.

I'm glad you're out of the military. You aren't smart enough to adapt with the repeal of of don't ask, don't tell. Nor would I want a bigot like you wearing a uniform.

"Lighten up Francis, " "We're not homosexual, but we ARE willing to learn." :laugh:


http://youtu.be/_L82jlR-37k

[KartRacerBoy]

:laugh:

[ConHog]

And the bold text outs you for what your really are. Not that the rest of your post doesn't give a strong hint, but the bold crap tells everyone how you feel about gay people.

I'm glad you're out of the military. You aren't smart enough to adapt with the repeal of of don't ask, don't tell. Nor would I want a bigot like you wearing a uniform.



What I really am huh? Yes I'm an asshole who will push your buttons. Big deal.

As for yout stupid contention about me and gays and specifically about me and gays in the military. Perhaps you missed earlier in the thread where I told that my children's godfather is gay, served in the military with me , I knew he was gay for the last 6 years that we were in together. I ignored it and never reported him. Why? Because he is a good soldier , and an even better man and his homosexuality doesn't affect his ability to serve at all.

Oh btw I support allowing gays to openly serve in the military, and I support allowing gays to marry. You can ask anyone who knows me from another board about that. My opinions on these subjects were pretty well known.


And you're still a poo pusher. :laugh2:

[KartRacerBoy]

What I really am huh? Yes I'm an asshole who will push your buttons. Big deal.

As for yout stupid contention about me and gays and specifically about me and gays in the military. Perhaps you missed earlier in the thread where I told that my children's godfather is gay, served in the military with me , I knew he was gay for the last 6 years that we were in together. I ignored it and never reported him. Why? Because he is a good soldier , and an even better man and his homosexuality doesn't affect his ability to serve at all.

Oh btw I support allowing gays to openly serve in the military, and I support allowing gays to marry. You can ask anyone who knows me from another board about that. My opinions on these subjects were pretty well known.


And you're still a poo pusher. :laugh2:


I suspect that if you are willing to use being gay as a derogatory comment, you're a homophobe. The beauty of free speech is that folks like you generally "out" yourselves.

You're just a jerk without much capacity for thought.

[J.T]

I said nothing about socialism vs capitalism. I said that Jr was FOR equality of the races, and he absolutely was.

No, he wasn't. Read what he wrote and spoke to his own people. He didn't want equality any more than the Jacksons and Sharptons of today.

[ConHog]

I suspect that if you are willing to use being gay as a derogatory comment, you're a homophobe. The beauty of free speech is that folks like you generally "out" yourselves.

You're just a jerk without much capacity for thought.


Homophobe is such a stupid word. I'm not scared of gays. I don't even care what they do with or to each other.

How dumb, if I called someone a fat ass would you next call me a fataphobe?

[ConHog]

No, he wasn't. Read what he wrote and spoke to his own people. He didn't want equality any more than the Jacksons and Sharptons of today.



I've read his words, we disagree. I think he was NOTHING like Jackson and Sharpton.

[J.T]

Why / how do you differentiate between systemic and systematic discrimination?

Because I, unlike you, am literate.

: of, relating to, or common to a system: as affecting the body generally





http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/systemic


presented or formulated as a coherent body of ideas or principles <systematic thought> 3
a : methodical in procedure or plan systematic approach> systematic scholar> b : marked by thoroughness and regularity <systematic



http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/systematic?show=0&t=1311967468



dont they go hand in hand?
oft, but not necessarily


it means it can and should be considered
Why should I consider your race when hiring you and base my decision (discriminate) based upon your race?

Seeing as you are now defending the very definition of racism, you are dismissed.


I suspect that if you are willing to use being gay as a derogatory comment, you're a homophobe. The beauty of free speech is that folks like you generally "out" yourselves.

You're just a jerk without much capacity for thought.

Damn, you still in the closet or somethin'? You are one high-strung faggot. Seriously, girl, take a chill pill and calm the fuck down. It's okay that you're a cocksucking little twink. We won't hate you for it here. We'll sure as fuck make fun of your fruity little ass for it, but we won't hate ya for it or let any of those big, mean, scary homophobes hurt ya.
:beer:

[jimnyc]

I suspect that if you are willing to use being gay as a derogatory comment, you're a homophobe. The beauty of free speech is that folks like you generally "out" yourselves.

You're just a jerk without much capacity for thought.

I detest homosexual activity and generally use various slurs to describe the queers. Can you tell me how this somehow makes me "afraid" of them?

[KartRacerBoy]

I detest homosexual activity and generally use various slurs to describe the queers. Can you tell me how this somehow makes me "afraid" of them?

You use those slurs becz you're insecure. Either that or you're just a hateful jerk. Or both. You think gays are looking at you as a piece of candy, apparently, and it scares you to death. You're just not secure in your own skin so you feel "threatened." Sad really, but hate usually comes from fear.

The irony of this is of course that men have acted this way towards women forever, objectifying them. When they think the shoe is on the other foot (whether it actually is or not), men like you object like babies.


Homophobe is such a stupid word. I'm not scared of gays. I don't even care what they do with or to each other.

How dumb, if I called someone a fat ass would you next call me a fataphobe?

Certain slurs are a little more hateful than others. So if you called someone a "nigger," I'd be pretty sure you were a racist. The word "fag" and the way you utter it is a lot like that. Decent people just don't do or say certain things.

[ConHog]

You use those slurs becz you're insecure. Either that or you're just a hateful jerk. Or both. You think gays are looking at you as a piece of candy, apparently, and it scares you to death. You're just not secure in your own skin so you feel "threatened." Sad really, but hate usually comes from fear.

The irony of this is of course that men have acted this way towards women forever, objectifying them. When they think the shoe is on the other foot (whether it actually is or not), men like you object like babies.

Oh for the love of God. I am fact AM eye candy, to women and homosexuals alike, in fact straight men would go gay for me. I don't mind, it's part of the burden of being me. I get no madder at a homosexual for staring at my sculpted ass than I do at a woman for staring at my rock hard abs. Which is to say not at all.

Further, I am equally disgusted by lesbian activity and call them names to, I know that they have NO interest in me, well I mean I COULD turn them straight if I wished, but that's another topic. So please explain to me how it is that I make fun of gays and lesbians but I make fun of the gays because I'm afraid they want my ass. What is your theory of why I make fun of lesbians?


Poo pusher.

[KartRacerBoy]

Damn, you still in the closet or somethin'? You are one high-strung faggot. Seriously, girl, take a chill pill and calm the fuck down. It's okay that you're a cocksucking little twink. We won't hate you for it here. We'll sure as fuck make fun of your fruity little ass for it, but we won't hate ya for it or let any of those big, mean, scary homophobes hurt ya.
:beer:




What a nice person you must be in person.

[ConHog]

Certain slurs are a little more hateful than others. So if you called someone a "nigger," I'd be pretty sure you were a racist. The word "fag" and the way you utter it is a lot like that. Decent people just don't do or say certain things.



Niggers and fags call each other niggers and fags all the time. In fact homosexuals often call straight people fags as a slur. So IF they are so offensive then why do you use them yourselves?

BTW nice try at once again equating your disgusting sexual habits with a person's skin color.

PS - Would calling someone a nigger fag be considered the worst insult ever?

[LuvRPgrl]

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.

But if the federal govt gets involved they can set a standard, and there wouldnt be differences from state to state. I mean, what if you are in one state that allows smoking in restaurants, then you go into the neighboring state and you llite up, you can get a huge fine and maybe not even know it.

[ConHog]

But if the federal govt gets involved they can set a standard, and there wouldnt be differences from state to state. I mean, what if you are in one state that allows smoking in restaurants, then you go into the neighboring state and you llite up, you can get a huge fine and maybe not even know it.


That's easy. The standard should be the owner of the restaurant gets to decide for him damn self if he wants to allow smokers to smoke in his restaurant. If he does then those who don't wish to eat around smokers can not patronize his business. If he does not then those who wish to smoke while eating can likewise choose to abide by HIS wishes or not patronize his business.

What's next on the agenda?

[jimnyc]

You use those slurs becz you're insecure. Either that or you're just a hateful jerk. Or both. You think gays are looking at you as a piece of candy, apparently, and it scares you to death. You're just not secure in your own skin so you feel "threatened." Sad really, but hate usually comes from fear.

The irony of this is of course that men have acted this way towards women forever, objectifying them. When they think the shoe is on the other foot (whether it actually is or not), men like you object like babies.

You can call me a hateful jerk all you like, but that's much different than implying I am afraid of queers. I don't have an ounce of fear about the queer folk, only disgust at them and their actions. You and your ilk have made "homophobe" a household name when probably 99% of those labeled such have no fear towards the queers. It's just another way of immediately vilifying someone who disagrees with you.

[ConHog]

You can call me a hateful jerk all you like, but that's much different than implying I am afraid of queers. I don't have an ounce of fear about the queer folk, only disgust at them and their actions. You and your ilk have made "homophobe" a household name when probably 99% of those labeled such have no fear towards the queers. It's just another way of immediately vilifying someone who disagrees with you.



Exactly, it's no different than calling someone an Islamaphobe. No one is afraid of cowardly pussies who kill unarmed people.......

[jimnyc]

Exactly, it's no different than calling someone an Islamaphobe. No one is afraid of cowardly pussies who kill unarmed people.......

Yep, I've been called that one quite a bit too. Debate long enough and you'll think you need to be institutionalized with all of the phobias you have!! :laugh2:

[J.T]

But if the federal govt gets involved they can set a standard, and there wouldnt be differences from state to state. I mean, what if you are in one state that allows smoking in restaurants, then you go into the neighboring state and you llite up, you can get a huge fine and maybe not even know it.

...

Do I call Poe's law on this or not? Please tell me that was satire.

[ConHog]

So here is what I learned from this thread in summary.

JT and KartRacer are in love. JT has not yet publicly declared his homosexuality though and this angers Kart because he wants to get married.

[Gunny]

And the bold text outs you for what your really are. Not that the rest of your post doesn't give a strong hint, but the bold crap tells everyone how you feel about gay people.

I'm glad you're out of the military. You aren't smart enough to adapt with the repeal of of don't ask, don't tell. Nor would I want a bigot like you wearing a uniform.

Got news for you ... the vast majority of the military isn't going to adapt to tolerating a bunch of fags in their midst. You can sit in denial all you want, and dream your delusional dreams all you want, but the fact remains. You and your ilk trying to force it on those that have no choice but obey orders is the act of cowards. Same as the rest of your nonsensical, progressive, wannabe intellectual crap-ola.

[KartRacerBoy]

You can call me a hateful jerk all you like, but that's much different than implying I am afraid of queers. I don't have an ounce of fear about the queer folk, only disgust at them and their actions. You and your ilk have made "homophobe" a household name when probably 99% of those labeled such have no fear towards the queers. It's just another way of immediately vilifying someone who disagrees with you.

Proud of your hate but too macho to be threatened. :lol:

[Gunny]

Proud of your hate but too macho to be threatened. :lol:

Typical leftwing, nonsensical ad hominem.

[LuvRPgrl]

That's easy. The standard should be the owner of the restaurant gets to decide for him damn self if he wants to allow smokers to smoke in his restaurant. If he does then those who don't wish to eat around smokers can not patronize his business. If he does not then those who wish to smoke while eating can likewise choose to abide by HIS wishes or not patronize his business.

What's next on the agenda?

and so why shouldnt parents get to decide what school their kids go to? I mean, if I OWN anything, its my kids.

You dont want the govt telling me that its wrong to not allow purple shirts in my restaurant, but its ok to force my kids to go to a school that can tell them they cant wear a tshirt that says Jesus is truth.
And dont give me that crap about private schools. A MAJORITY of families dont have that option, not to mention, why should I have to pay twice for my kids education just so they can have what should be constitutionaly available to them anyways.

[ConHog]

and so why shouldnt parents get to decide what school their kids go to? I mean, if I OWN anything, its my kids.

You dont want the govt telling me that its wrong to not allow purple shirts in my restaurant, but its ok to force my kids to go to a school that can tell them they cant wear a tshirt that says Jesus is truth.
And dont give me that crap about private schools. A MAJORITY of families dont have that option, not to mention, why should I have to pay twice for my kids education just so they can have what should be constitutionaly available to them anyways.



Your kid can wear a t shirt that says Jesus is truth to ANY public school. I support that. Children have limited free speech at school of course, but such a t shirt would not be in violation of said limits.

[KartRacerBoy]

Typical leftwing, nonsensical ad hominem.

Don't feel too bad. It's offset by your typical rightwing hatred of things not like you. And the other likeminded bigots on the forum like you. Seems you're type is the clear majority on this site. Kinda of sad for American society, but there you go.

[LuvRPgrl]

You use those slurs becz you're insecure. Either that or you're just a hateful jerk. Or both. .

YA know, in the Philippines, homos are readily accepted in society, they have no problems when they go in public and its obvious they are fags. Yet the filipino people still thinks its a disgusting act, sinful, harmful, etc etc etc.

But they certainly arent AFRAID of them, they are very accepting of them.


Your kid can wear a t shirt that says Jesus is truth to ANY public school. I support that. Children have limited free speech at school of course, but such a t shirt would not be in violation of said limits.

Thats not the point at all. You dont want the feds interferring in our privately run businesses, cuz its NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS, but you think its fine for them to dictate to parents how their kids should get educated. A little, errr, a lot hypocritical.

Do you believe the feds dont have the right to dictate to business owners what their dress code should be? Or are you opposed to it because it will harm the business owners bottom line?

[ConHog]

Don't feel too bad. It's offset by your typical rightwing hatred of things not like you. And the other likeminded bigots on the forum like you. Seems you're type is the clear majority on this site. Kinda of sad for American society, but there you go.



You think it's sad that Americans have the freedom of speech to make fun of those they don't like? I celebrate that freedom. I have bled for that freedom. I'm a Christian go ahead and bash me, it's your right.


Thats not the point at all. You dont want the feds interferring in our privately run businesses, cuz its NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS, but you think its fine for them to dictate to parents how their kids should get educated. A little, errr, a lot hypocritical.

Do you believe the feds dont have the right to dictate to business owners what their dress code should be? Or are you opposed to it because it will harm the business owners bottom line?



Umm , yes I believe the government has a vested interest in making sure you educate your children. Not educating them is akin to child abuse. Do you think the government should care if you are be4ating your children?

[LuvRPgrl]

Umm , yes I believe the government has a vested interest in making sure you educate your children. Not educating them is akin to child abuse. Do you think the government should care if you are be4ating your children?

You didnt answer my question.
Where do the feds get the authority to intervene in education, but not in businesses.

[ConHog]

You didnt answer my question.
Where do the feds get the authority to intervene in education, but not in businesses.



I DID answer your question. NOT educating your children is child abuse. The government is indeed supposed to protect those who can't protect themselves. NO ONE is being abused when a private business refuses to do business with them.

[KartRacerBoy]

You think it's sad that Americans have the freedom of speech to make fun of those they don't like? I celebrate that freedom. I have bled for that freedom. I'm a Christian go ahead and bash me, it's your right.

Folks that point out how Christian they are or how heroic they are usually the least of both. The ones that truly are don't feel the need to point it out or parade it around.

[ConHog]

Folks that point out how Christian they are or how heroic they are usually the least of both. The ones that truly are don't feel the need to point it out or parade it around.


I have merely stated that I am a Christian and have served. I didn't claim that I am holier than anyone nor a hero.

Poo pusher.

[KartRacerBoy]

I have merely stated that I am a Christian and have served. I didn't claim that I am holier than anyone nor a hero.

Poo pusher.

You should've bled more for your country. Lots more. And your hero/god act is pretty lame since to be either you have to be a decent person. I truly hope your child's godfather has some of what makes christianity good in him since you are the sort that gives any religious believer a bad name.

[ConHog]

You should've bled more for your country. Lots more. And your hero/god act is pretty lame since to be either you have to be a decent person. I truly hope your child's godfather has some of what makes christianity good in him since you are the sort that gives any religious believer a bad name.



That's fucking lame.

[KartRacerBoy]

That's fucking lame.

Did I push your buttons, Mr. Hero/Christian/Asshat? :clap:

[ConHog]

Did I push your buttons, Mr. Hero/Christian/Asshat? :clap:


I said it was lame, not upsetting. I told you I don't give a shit what you say about me, and I meant it. Doesn't mean I won't comment on it though. Lamo poo pusher. Actually I suspect that you are the pushee, so from now on I won't call you poo pusher.

[Missileman]

That's fucking lame.

Yep...totally uncalled for.

[ConHog]

Yep...totally uncalled for.



Eh, who gives a shit what someone who was too cowardly to ever grab a pack thinks?

[J.T]

Got news for you ... the vast majority of the military isn't going to adapt to tolerating a bunch of fags in their midst.
Like they haven't been there this whole time?

Are you saying the majority of our military is a bunch of insecure little closet cases?


if I OWN anything, its my kids.


Children are property now?



Your kid can wear a t shirt that says Jesus is truth to ANY public school

Not necessarily. Some public schools have uniforms.

[LuvRPgrl]

Umm , yes I believe the government has a vested interest in making sure you educate your children. Not educating them is akin to child abuse. Do you think the government should care if you are be4ating your children?

Now your sounding like a left wingnut. If the FEDS cant do it, nobody can. WRONG. The education our kids has been getting is worse and worse as the years go by, coincidently so has the amount of interference from the feds. Im not saying its all their fault, but it is part of it.

The more power the feds get on this issue, the harder it is for us to rectify what the liberals are doing. Im much more concerned about my kids going to a school that is going to have gay education month, than some bitch wearing a tshirt that says something offensive

[LuvRPgrl]

I DID answer your question. NOT educating your children is child abuse. The government is indeed supposed to protect those who can't protect themselves. NO ONE is being abused when a private business refuses to do business with them.

Stopping child abuse, (which by itself is a bogus claim, like kids were being abused severly when the feds werent in volved in our educational systems)
.....But AGAIN, where in the COTUS does it give the feds the authority, even if your bogus arguement is true, to stop child abuse. YOU TOTALLY SOUND LIKE A LIBERAL ON THIS TOPIC


you should've bled more for your country. Lots more. And your hero/god act is pretty lame since to be either you have to be a decent person. I truly hope your child's godfather has some of what makes christianity good in him since you are the sort that gives any religious believer a bad name.

you should shut up

[fj1200]

Got news for you ... the vast majority of the military isn't going to adapt to tolerating a bunch of fags in their midst. You can sit in denial all you want, and dream your delusional dreams all you want, but the fact remains. You and your ilk trying to force it on those that have no choice but obey orders is the act of cowards. Same as the rest of your nonsensical, progressive, wannabe intellectual crap-ola.

Homosexuals can't be patriots?

[Gunny]

Like they haven't been there this whole time?

Are you saying the majority of our military is a bunch of insecure little closet cases?

This argument is O-L-D.

I don't care that they are there. That isn't the point at all. But then you either already know that, or someone else is completely fooled by how smart she thinks you are. She's STILL trying to sell THAT one around here.

Fact is, in the military situation, I want Marines. I don't want GAY Marines. This is just another example of gays wanting special treatment. ANYTHING that comes BEFORE "Marine" means I don't want you, and few people in leadership positions are going to. Yet they want to be identified by their aberrant behavior first and foremost. They want to be able to throw their sexual behavior in everyone else's faces.

This isn't about being a Marine, Soldier, Airman or Sailor. This is just another example of the flaming PC droolers out their attempting to use the military as its social experimentation ground, as it always has, because they have a captive audience and can force their bullshit down the military's throats.

I notice too, the further away you get from a sardine can called Ship's berthing, or a two-man tent or fighting hole in the field, the more military personnel don't care.

I'm not sharing a fighting hole with a fag. No way. I don't trust their judgment. Simple as that. They don't even know where to stick their dicks. They can take their lifestyle and go celebrate it at home, but not on MY time.

[J.T]

I'm not sharing a fighting hole with a fag. No way. I don't trust their judgment.

Really? You really want to go there? You really want to get into people's judgement and calls in battle and what happens if they make a less than perfect decision in a really shitty situation? You, of all people, really want to go there? Do you really need me to point out on this board why you really don't want to go there, or can we move right along as though you didn't just say something that stupid?


Simple as that. They don't even know where to stick their dicks.

Sure they do. In their pants. If you're worrying about where your or anyone else's dick goes in the middle of a firefight, then you're going to get your men killed. Maybe you should instead focus on doing your fucking job and not worry about dick, pussy, ass, or your or anyone's sexuality when it's time to be a fucking Marine and do what you're trained to. I'm sure you know what happens when people are too busy worrying about shit that doesn't matter and fail to do their job.


They can take their lifestyle and go celebrate it at home, but not on MY time.

And you can do the same. I don't care if you like pussy, ass, asians, white girls, black chicks, rockabilly, rap, comic books, or fucking cosplay. How about our troops focus on doing their job?

[Gunny]

Really? You really want to go there? You really want to get into people's judgement and calls in battle and what happens if they make a less than perfect decision in a really shitty situation? You, of all people, really want to go there? Do you really need me to point out on this board why you really don't want to go there, or can we move right along as though you didn't just say something that stupid?


Sure they do. In their pants. If you're worrying about where your or anyone else's dick goes in the middle of a firefight, then you're going to get your men killed. Maybe you should instead focus on doing your fucking job and not worry about dick, pussy, ass, or your or anyone's sexuality when it's time to be a fucking Marine and do what you're trained to. I'm sure you know what happens when people are too busy worrying about shit that doesn't matter and fail to do their job.


And you can do the same. I don't care if you like pussy, ass, asians, white girls, black chicks, rockabilly, rap, comic books, or fucking cosplay. How about our troops focus on doing their job?

You can try and point out anything you please. Won't amount to nothing more than one of your baseless accusations.

And yes, I of all people CAN and WILL question the judgment of others under those circumstances. I got paid to do it with YOUR tax dollars. Feel smarter now, or do you need a nice soothing ointment for whichever orifice hurts you the most?

The rest of your crap is a red herring. Where someone's dick goes in a firefight was never at issue.

How about our troops focus on doing their jobs is just typical dishonesty from the pro-homo crowd. Bigger-picture-wise, it's typical of the progressive intellectual-wannabe mindset as a whole. Let's hold the troops to a higher standard than Christ himself could meet. No personality or individual thought allowed if it doesn't meet the progressive agenda of propping up the lame at the expense of the majority.

You keep arguing the same old shit and you keep losing. Been going on for years. Give yourself a rest.

[fj1200]

Fact is, in the military situation, I want Marines. I don't want GAY Marines. This is just another example of gays wanting special treatment. ANYTHING that comes BEFORE "Marine" means I don't want you, and few people in leadership positions are going to. Yet they want to be identified by their aberrant behavior first and foremost. They want to be able to throw their sexual behavior in everyone else's faces.

What is special about them wanting to serve without having to be dishonest? I'm pretty sure that they don't want to be defined by their "behavior" either.

[Gunny]

What is special about them wanting to serve without having to be dishonest? I'm pretty sure that they don't want to be defined by their "behavior" either.

I disagree. Those that want to serve and not be defined by their behavior always have, and do serve.

Those are not the people making the noise who exactly DO wish to be identified by their behavior. They want to put in your face. If not, to what purpose more new exclusive legislation just for a behavior?

What's next? "I was discriminated against and didn't get promoted because I am gay". Don't say it won't happen. I watched it happen time and again with both women and blacks who were put over Marines more qualified than they were simply because they cried discrimination.

Then what? Separate berthing/quarters for gays and hetero's? Let's spend billions we don't have altering our living spaces solely to cater to the aberrant minority.

It's BS.

[Shadow]

Amazing. It's ok when people are asked to remove or turn an American flag shirt inside out - but don't ask the queers! It's ok to remove Christmas trees and other religious icons so as not to offend the filthy muslims, but don't ask the queers!

I say "too fucking bad". If you don't like their policy, and you don't want to reverse your shirt - then boycott their establishment and go elsewhere.

Why should this place be "more inclusive"?



http://news.yahoo.com/gay-couple-asked-reverse-shirt-dollywood-200120079.html

I love how assholes with an agenda always want to break the rules to "teach us a lesson" somehow. The only thing I ever get from these stupid stories is how annoying these assholes have gotten over the years.

You would think dress codes were unheard of or something. If you have ever gone to school or held a job you have been subjected to a dress code...which includes no potentially offensive,political,sexual or religious views. Hell...I've been sent home for wearing inappropriate shoes to work. They just need to learn that the world doesn't revolve around them and their stupid little whims.

Maybe they can get together with that other dumbass who was in the news recently...the one who had to call a camera crew to bitch and moan because Walmart threw her out of the store for being dumb enough to try and shop in a string bikini. And they can have a big pat each other on the back pity party. Boo Hoo.

[J.T]

Where someone's dick goes in a firefight was never at issue.

That was your entire premise. You were scared that they'd want to flirt with you during combat and you'd be too busy giving into your secret desires to effectively engage the enemy and you'd get more of your men killed.


No personality or individual thought allowed

Says the guy who's scared of the diversity of human sexuality and can't bear to work around someone different than himself :slap:

Men with more room to speak than you, who're recognized for their bravery, aren't afraid of having someone in their unit who bitches that the camo makes their ass look fat.

Face it: you're the old gunny who can't stand to see niggers and wearing green

Kelley, who is secretary of the Massachusetts Department of Veteran’s Services, a naval officer and a Medal of Honor recipient in Vietnam, had followed coverage of testimony on the ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy last week before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
‘No matter how I look at the issue,’ Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the committee, ‘I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. . . . Allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do.’
Shortly after Mike Mullen spoke his mind, Kelley sent his friend an e-mail congratulating him for articulating the view Kelley has held for more than 20 years.
‘Admiral Mullen was honest enough to say that he’d served with homosexuals since 1968,’ Kelley said. ‘It was the same for me, when I was commanding a ship more than 25 years ago. There was no secret about who was gay . . . and it didn’t matter. What mattered was that they were good sailors, trustworthy and reliable people you could depend upon.’
Like so many others, Kelley believes the resistance to scuttling ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ falls largely along generational lines. The older the soldier, the harder to let go of outdated stereotypes and caricatures that don’t apply.
‘You hear this nonsense about gays threatening unit cohesion,’ Kelley said. ‘The real threat to that kind of cohesion, that sense of family, is when people are forced to acknowledge a lie. You have to be able to trust the soldier precisely for who he or she may be. That’s the only way cohesion takes place. It’s called integrity.’


http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/02/07/medal-of-honor-recipient-gays-should-serve/

I'll listen to the medal of honour winner over some old reactionary on this one

:slap:



Then what? Separate berthing/quarters for gays and hetero's? Let's spend billions we don't have altering our living spaces solely to cater to the aberrant minority.

It's BS.

Actually, that'd be catering to homophobic reactionaries like you who'd suddenly start acting like scared little prison bitches when it was time to take a shower after you found out the guy who saved saved your life yesterday happens to be a homosexual.

[jimnyc]

I'll listen to the medal of honour winner over some old reactionary on this one

He deserves the medal and a ton of gratitude - but why would his take on the situation be any better or more valid than another soldier? I would think the soldier that spends the most amount of time with other soldiers, and deals the most with other soldiers, would likely amass the most amount of "intel" on the situation.

[jimnyc]

Actually, that'd be catering to homophobic reactionaries like you who'd suddenly start acting like scared little prison bitches when it was time to take a shower after you found out the guy who saved saved your life yesterday happens to be a homosexual.

What a load of shit. Your sentence could very well have read "that'd be catering to reactionaries like you, who got scared when you found out you were showering next to a homosexual". But of course like a true emotional liberal, you add a bunch of made up shit to a sentence to make your argument sound better than it is. It's lame.

[ConHog]

I disagree. Those that want to serve and not be defined by their behavior always have, and do serve.

Those are not the people making the noise who exactly DO wish to be identified by their behavior. They want to put in your face. If not, to what purpose more new exclusive legislation just for a behavior?

What's next? "I was discriminated against and didn't get promoted because I am gay". Don't say it won't happen. I watched it happen time and again with both women and blacks who were put over Marines more qualified than they were simply because they cried discrimination.

Then what? Separate berthing/quarters for gays and hetero's? Let's spend billions we don't have altering our living spaces solely to cater to the aberrant minority.

It's BS.

This is exactly right. My friend NEVER told anyone he was gay, never asked to be allowed to be openly gay, and never complained. He was found out because another member just happened to see him on a date with some guy. The issue was discussed and dismissed because the guy never once made being gay an issue, so why would we have? I was in the proverbial foxhole with him, and trusted him 100% because even though he was doing something I think is wrong, He wasn't bashing us over the head with it and trying to remind us that he was just as a good of a solider as a gay man as we were as straight men. He didn't have to, we KNEW he was a good soldier, and didn't include the gay part.


What a load of shit. Your sentence could very well have read "that'd be catering to reactionaries like you, who got scared when you found out you were showering next to a homosexual". But of course like a true emotional liberal, you add a bunch of made up shit to a sentence to make your argument sound better than it is. It's lame.




If a rule against posting lame shit were imposed , we'd never hear from JT again. Book that.

[LuvRPgrl]

Children are property now?.
Children are the most valuable property we have.





Not necessarily. Some public schools have uniforms.

so what, not all of them do.

GUNNY POSTED: Fact is, in the military situation, I want Marines. I don't want GAY Marines. This is just another example of gays wanting special treatment. ANYTHING that comes BEFORE "Marine" means I don't want you, and few people in leadership positions are going to. Yet they want to be identified by their aberrant behavior first and foremost. They want to be able to throw their sexual behavior in everyone else's faces.

Poo pusher JT responded with :

Really? You really want to go there? You really want to get into people's judgement and calls in battle and what happens if they make a less than perfect decision in a really shitty situation? You, of all people, really want to go there? Do you really need me to point out on this board why you really don't want to go there, or can we move right along as though you didn't just say something that stupid?


Sure they do. In their pants. If you're worrying about where your or anyone else's dick goes in the middle of a firefight, then you're going to get your men killed. Maybe you should instead focus on doing your fucking job and not worry about dick, pussy, ass, or your or anyone's sexuality when it's time to be a fucking Marine and do what you're trained to. I'm sure you know what happens when people are too busy worrying about shit that doesn't matter and fail to do their job.


And you can do the same. I don't care if you like pussy, ass, asians, white girls, black chicks, rockabilly, rap, comic books, or fucking cosplay. How about our troops focus on doing their job?

I see you totally ignored the part of Gunny's post that is in bold above.

[ConHog]

GUNNY POSTED: Fact is, in the military situation, I want Marines. I don't want GAY Marines. This is just another example of gays wanting special treatment. ANYTHING that comes BEFORE "Marine" means I don't want you, and few people in leadership positions are going to. Yet they want to be identified by their aberrant behavior first and foremost. They want to be able to throw their sexual behavior in everyone else's faces.

Poo pusher JT responded with :


I see you totally ignored the part of Gunny's post that is in bold above.



JT ignored it because it didn't fit his agenda.

[J.T]

Children are the most valuable property we have.

Interesting... human beings as property...

Of course, I assume you support my right to do with my property whatever I wish...

I ignored nothing. I just think Gunny needs to stop focusing on where other guys put their dicks be a marine, not a straight marine.

[ConHog]

I ignored nothing. I just think Gunny needs to stop focusing on where other guys put their dicks be a marine, not a straight marine.



No sir, Gunny was merely making the same point we have ALL been making in this thread. NO ONE cares what a man who happens to be gay does, but we do care when that man has to put GAY in front of everything else and shove it in our goddamned faces. Ask Gunny if he wants a guy who identifies himself as a Thieving Marine serving alongside of him? Well, there are undobtedly Marines who steal. There always have been, always will be, what a fucking outrage that Gunny doesn't want people who identify themselves as thieving Marines serving alongside him.

I would even go so far as to say that without a doubt Gunny has served alongside gays and didn't know it, nor care. But the gays who are happy with the reality of no one thinking about their homosexuality aren't even concerned with this stupid debate anyway. They are just doing their jobs and wishing the rest of you would shut up.

[J.T]

Yes, homosexuals are all thieves :rolleyes:

Gunny wants lying marines. He wants to force his fellow marines to be liars if they wish to defend their country. His entire spiel is bullshit.

Your last claim is also bullshit. Good soldiers have been outed against their will and booted out after serving their country as good soldiers because boys like Gunny are scared.

[ConHog]

Yes, homosexuals are all thieves :rolleyes:

Gunny wants lying marines. He wants to force his fellow marines to be liars if they wish to defend their country. His entire spiel is bullshit.

Your last claim is also bullshit. Good soldiers have been outed against their will and booted out after serving their country as good soldiers because boys like Gunny are scared.

He wants to force them to lie? Hmmm, IF Gunny is for lining up Marines and asking them point blank "are you gay" then kicking them out if they answer in the affirmative, that is news to me, and I would disagree with him.

Ane, no doubt that prior to DADT soldiers who were found to be gay were discharged from the military. However we could argue about whether they were GOOD soldiers, since what they were doing was in DIRECT violation of standing orders at THAT time. Orders have of course since changed.

[LuvRPgrl]

Yes, homosexuals are all thieves :rolleyes:

Gunny wants lying marines. He wants to force his fellow marines to be liars if they wish to defend their country. His entire spiel is bullshit.

Your last claim is also bullshit. Good soldiers have been outed against their will and booted out after serving their country as good soldiers because boys like Gunny are scared.

Hahahahha, OHHHHHHHHH, I get it now. Your only goal here is to piss people off. Hate to tell ya, won't work with me boy.
......Calling posters names, how original. So, you think its wrong to call homos fags, but its ok for you to call Gunny a "boy", when you don't even know one way or the other.
.......And you did ignore that part I quoted. Whenever someone starts a sentence with "I Just" means the rest is bullshit.
.....And as for your claim that homos are the best marines, its pure crap too. You have no way of knowing who they are, lots of them, Im sure, are hiding in the closet very well.

Looks like KARTRACER BOY dissappeared as quickly as he/she came on board. One down, one to go. :)

[KartRacerBoy]

Still here but perhaps not for long. It must be fun to be on a site where everyone agrees and tries to shout out anyone who disagrees. Never a new thought to violate the tiny space between the ears.

Is this a site founded by RW, pretend christian nuts for RW, pretend christian nuts?

[ConHog]

Still here but perhaps not for long. It must be fun to be on a site where everyone agrees and tries to shout out anyone who disagrees. Never a new thought to violate the tiny space between the ears.

Is this a site founded by RW, pretend christian nuts for RW, pretend christian nuts?



Are you capable of making a post that does not contain an insult to someone?

[KartRacerBoy]

Are you capable of making a post that does not contain an insult to someone?

Much more capable than you. But I respond to like with like.

Pot. Kettle. The apparent nature of this inane folks on this site come to mind.

[LuvRPgrl]

Still here but perhaps not for long. It must be fun to be on a site where everyone agrees and tries to shout out anyone who disagrees. Never a new thought to violate the tiny space between the ears.

Is this a site founded by RW, pretend christian nuts for RW, pretend christian nuts?

OH HOOOOOOOOOOOOO, apparently you need to go back and look at some threads where MissleMan and I disagreed about many things

On top of that, all you liberal are more than welcome here, nobody will kick you out for being a Dem or a liberal, unlike the Democratic Underground board.

[KartRacerBoy]

OH HOOOOOOOOOOOOO, apparently you need to go back and look at some threads where MissleMan and I disagreed about many things

On top of that, all you liberal are more than welcome here, nobody will kick you out for being a Dem or a liberal, unlike the Democratic Underground board.

Really? If so, why celebrate if you think you have driven me away as your previous post did?

Ban me? I doubt it. This board tolerates A LOT. But there does seem to be a lot of screaming here. I've obviously responded in kind, but this board is like 3 yr olds unrestrained by civilization and given automatic weapons to boot.

[J.T]

Dollywood is a private enterprise, right?

Give me one good reason they can't enforce a dresscode without regards to whether you or I might agree with it...

KrackRacer never did address that...

[ConHog]

KrackRacer never did address that...



Seems to be Kart's MO. Avoid any questions which are uncomfortable for your opinions.

[fj1200]

I disagree. Those that want to serve and not be defined by their behavior always have, and do serve.

Those are not the people making the noise who exactly DO wish to be identified by their behavior. They want to put in your face. If not, to what purpose more new exclusive legislation just for a behavior?

The ones forcing them to put GAY in front of Marine is those who want to keep/kick them out. Besides forcing them to keep secrets is like forcing them to lie. Personally I don't like the idea that only straights can fight for our country without holding something back.


What's next? "I was discriminated against and didn't get promoted because I am gay". Don't say it won't happen. I watched it happen time and again with both women and blacks who were put over Marines more qualified than they were simply because they cried discrimination.

Then what? Separate berthing/quarters for gays and hetero's? Let's spend billions we don't have altering our living spaces solely to cater to the aberrant minority.

It's BS.

That first part sounds like a bureaucracy problem. The second sounds reactionary, do other countries have separate quarters?

[KartRacerBoy]

tIf by MO you mean I've already responded multiple times but you have a reading comprehension difficulty, then yes. I can even tell you what the post number was where I responded and you still go on whinging. Why should I respond to the same question multiple times when you can even read the answer once?

[fj1200]

KrackRacer never did address that...


Seems to be Kart's MO. Avoid any questions which are uncomfortable for your opinions.

:rolleyes: Probably because he never made that statement or argument.


Looks like KARTRACER BOY dissappeared as quickly as he/she came on board. One down, one to go. :)

The board would be the worse for it. Ask for dissenting opinion and then drive away any that might have one; great policy.

[ConHog]

The ones forcing them to put GAY in front of Marine is those who want to keep/kick them out. Besides forcing them to keep secrets is like forcing them to lie. Personally I don't like the idea that only straights can fight for our country without holding something back.



That first part sounds like a bureaucracy problem. The second sounds reactionary, do other countries have separate quarters?


Sir, if a Marine, or a a sailor or a whatever, doesn't put his gay agenda above his job then he is not a gay anything. He's just that thing. It's no different than looking at a black politician who is just being a politician and then looking at another black politician who pushes a black agenda before all else. They are not the same, and one is welcome in my world, and the other is not.

I'm not asking either guy to lie about being black, or gay. I'm just asking that they don't shove it in my face and make it clear that they are first and foremost for the black/gay agenda.

[LuvRPgrl]

Really? If so, why celebrate if you think you have driven me away as your previous post did?

Ban me? I doubt it. This board tolerates A LOT. But there does seem to be a lot of screaming here. I've obviously responded in kind, but this board is like 3 yr olds unrestrained by civilization and given automatic weapons to boot.

I celebrated? ha, hardly. The "one down, one to go " comment wasnt meant for youi, but another poster I was trying to put in the same inflamatory category as you. I know that may be above your head.


The board would be the worse for it. Ask for dissenting opinion and then drive away any that might have one; great policy.

It was an observation and a joke.
If you know me, you would know that Im the last person here who would think driving away someone is a good idea.
But I must say, his tit for tat endless postings with others does get old, AND IM NOT SAIING ITS ONLY HIS DOING.

As a matter of fact, I would prefer if Tuba, Psycho, and gabby had more allies here, but I WOULD BE EXTREMELY HAPPY IF THEY KEPT THE POSTS ON TOPIC, INSTEAD OF PERSONAL INSULTS.

The point here is not to see who is the most clever, or to try and piss someone off, but to debate issues of our times.

[KartRacerBoy]

I celebrated? ha, hardly. The "one down, one to go " comment wasnt meant for youi, but another poster I was trying to put in the same inflamatory category as you. I know that may be above your head.

You are full of shit. You said KRB is gone. One gone and one to go.

If you can't acknowledge simple reality like that, how can anyone have any discussion with you?

I say again. You are a farm sized pile of ibullshit. And one of those kids that lies to your face when caught in the act, but at least the kid doesn't pretend they are an adult.

[Shadow]

Really? If so, why celebrate if you think you have driven me away as your previous post did?

Ban me? I doubt it. This board tolerates A LOT. But there does seem to be a lot of screaming here. I've obviously responded in kind, but this board is like 3 yr olds unrestrained by civilization and given automatic weapons to boot.

Stop whining Mr hypocrite.. speaking of 3 year olds. Your very first post to me was an over dramatic bitch... complete with an insult,and I had never posted in response to you before. Get off of your high horse and put your big boy pants on.



Oh goodie...another."do as I say...not as I do". Lib. Typical. :cuckoo:

[LuvRPgrl]

You are full of shit. You said KRB is gone. One gone and one to go.

If you can't acknowledge simple reality like that, how can anyone have any discussion with you?

I say again. You are a farm sized pile of ibullshit. And one of those kids that lies to your face when caught in the act, but at least the kid doesn't pretend they are an adult.

Believe what you want.

Oh hey, I got an idea !!!!!!!!!!

How about ACTUALLY DEBATING ABOUT A REAL TOPIC OTHER THAN THE SIZE OF THE DICK IN YOUR MOUTH.

[KartRacerBoy]

Believe what you want.

Oh hey, I got an idea !!!!!!!!!!

How about ACTUALLY DEBATING ABOUT A REAL TOPIC OTHER THAN THE SIZE OF THE DICK IN YOUR MOUTH.

Can we debate about the size of your fist up your own ass? Cz that has to be a monster.

[LuvRPgrl]

Can we debate about the size of your fist up your own ass? Cz that has to be a monster.

sure, why not.
It actually is kinda uncomfortable to my hemmoroids.
What would you like to know?
Size,
owner
how many fingers it has???
I love you too.

[J.T]

2284

[ConHog]

Can we debate about the size of your fist up your own ass? Cz that has to be a monster.


You are one nasty vulgar disgusting dude. And you wonder why gays have the stereotype that they do? Really?

[fj1200]

Sir, if a Marine, or a a sailor or a whatever, doesn't put his gay agenda above his job then he is not a gay anything. He's just that thing. It's no different than looking at a black politician who is just being a politician and then looking at another black politician who pushes a black agenda before all else. They are not the same, and one is welcome in my world, and the other is not.

I'm not asking either guy to lie about being black, or gay. I'm just asking that they don't shove it in my face and make it clear that they are first and foremost for the black/gay agenda.

I would guess that most who want to join up want just the same thing, not to be THE gay marine or shove anything in anyone's face. I'm sure your friend would fit just that category, others should have the same opportunity.

[ConHog]

I would guess that most who want to join up want just the same thing, not to be THE gay marine or shove anything in anyone's face. I'm sure your friend would fit just that category, others should have the same opportunity.



Exactly my point. Most DO fit in that category. They are welcome. SOME do NOT fit in that category, they are not welcome.

[fj1200]

It was an observation and a joke.
If you know me, you would know that Im the last person here who would think driving away someone is a good idea.
But I must say, his tit for tat endless postings with others does get old, AND IM NOT SAIING ITS ONLY HIS DOING.

As a matter of fact, I would prefer if Tuba, Psycho, and gabby had more allies here, but I WOULD BE EXTREMELY HAPPY IF THEY KEPT THE POSTS ON TOPIC, INSTEAD OF PERSONAL INSULTS.

The point here is not to see who is the most clever, or to try and piss someone off, but to debate issues of our times.

You can't be saying that he isn't fitting right into the style of some here, I would like for everyone to tone it down a few notches and the overwhelming rightward tilt makes it an upward battle for any lib that wanders in. Frankly I'm surprised that KRB joined, damn happy, but surprised. :laugh:


Exactly my point. Most DO fit in that category. They are welcome. SOME do NOT fit in that category, they are not welcome.

Then... you... support the new policy?

[ConHog]

Then... you... support the new policy?



Since before it was announced. WHo gives a shit if they are gay, long as they keep it to themselves.

Here I'll really blow your mind. I also support allowing gays to find a church that will marry them.

[fj1200]

Since before it was announced. WHo gives a shit if they are gay, long as they keep it to themselves.

Here I'll really blow your mind. I also support allowing gays to find a church that will marry them.

I must have missed something somewhere along the way then.

BTW, mind = not blown. :laugh: I feel the same way.

[J.T]

Since before it was announced. WHo gives a shit if they are gay, long as they keep it to themselves.
.
Exactly. Stop kicking out gay soldiers because someone else outs them.

Good to know you support getting rid of DADT.

[ConHog]

Exactly. Stop kicking out gay soldiers because someone else outs them.

Good to know you support getting rid of DADT.



Proves you do nothing but troll without even reading posts if you didn't already know that about me from the other board.

[Shadow]

You can't be saying that he isn't fitting right into the style of some here, I would like for everyone to tone it down a few notches and the overwhelming rightward tilt makes it an upward battle for any lib that wanders in. Frankly I'm surprised that KRB joined, damn happy, but surprised. :laugh:

Please. Of course dipshit joined the board. He has an agenda...and probably no one to fight with at his previous home. :rolleyes:

[ConHog]

Please. Of course dipshit joined the board. He has an agenda...and probably no one to fight with at his previous home. :rolleyes:




I'd be SHOCKED if he wasn't an idiot plant from you know where. He sure posts like one.

[KartRacerBoy]

Proves you do nothing but troll without even reading posts if you didn't already know that about me from the other board.

You should really buy a dictionary and look up "irony." :laugh:

[LuvRPgrl]

I must have missed something somewhere along the way then.

BTW, mind = not blown. :laugh: I feel the same way.

You guys dont understand what the purpose of marriage is, do you?

[KartRacerBoy]

You are one nasty vulgar disgusting dude. And you wonder why gays have the stereotype that they do? Really?

But you like the image of Luvrgrl talking about a dick in the mouth?

And once again, from a guy who posts that he wants to push buttons, you bitching about something like this is just rich.

[ConHog]

You guys dont understand what the purpose of marriage is, do you?



Marriage = a religeous ceremony that entitles two people to legally take half of the other person's shit if they ever get tired of that person.

I'm cool with some church marrying fags, as long as it isn't MY church doing so.

[LuvRPgrl]

Marriage = a religeous ceremony that entitles two people to legally take half of the other person's shit if they ever get tired of that person.

I'm cool with some church marrying fags, as long as it isn't MY church doing so.

Thats what a marriage IS, not its PURPOSE

[ConHog]

Thats what a marriage IS, not its PURPOSE

My point is it is a religeous ceremony. I don't want people telling me what my religeon can define as marriage , and so I won't do so towards another religeon. It honestly affects me not at all if some other church wants to call marriage a union of two gays. Or ten lesbians, or whatever.

This world would be MUCH better off if the whole world would stop worrying about everyone else.

[J.T]

My point is it is a religeous ceremony.
Religion was recognized as a civic matter long before it took on its current religious form. The Bishop of Antioch didn't try to get the Church involved in marriage as it existed until the year 110 C.E.


I don't want people telling me what my religeon can define as marriage
Nobody's doing any such thing. What we are doing is saying that your church can't dictate what civic unions and contracts the State will recognize just because you think homosexuality, race mixing, or marrying outside the church is 'sin'.

I say we do it like Rome. Marriage is a personal matter between the parties involved- no reason for the State to be involved or for any religious entities to be involved unless the parties marrying wish for the blessing of the temple/church/whatever.

[ConHog]

Religion was recognized as a civic matter long before it took on its current religious form. The Bishop of Antioch didn't try to get the Church involved in marriage as it existed until the year 110 C.E.

Nobody's doing any such thing. What we are doing is saying that your church can't dictate what civic unions and contracts the State will recognize just because you think homosexuality, race mixing, or marrying outside the church is 'sin'.

I say we do it like Rome. Marriage is a personal matter between the parties involved- no reason for the State to be involved or for any religious entities to be involved unless the parties marrying wish for the blessing of the temple/church/whatever.



Once again you are reading whatever you want into posts. I am FOR allowing churches to "marry" gays if they wish, and FOR the government getting out of marriage entirely, be it gay or straight marriages.

[LuvRPgrl]

Religion was recognized as a civic matter long before it took on its current religious form. The Bishop of Antioch didn't try to get the Church involved in marriage as it existed until the year 110 C.E.

Nobody's doing any such thing. What we are doing is saying that your church can't dictate what civic unions and contracts the State will recognize just because you think homosexuality, race mixing, or marrying outside the church is 'sin'.

I say we do it like Rome. Marriage is a personal matter between the parties involved- no reason for the State to be involved or for any religious entities to be involved unless the parties marrying wish for the blessing of the temple/church/whatever.

The state has a vested interest in the institution

[ConHog]

The state has a vested interest in the institution

They shouldn't. Where in the COTUS is marriage mentioned? Contract law can take care of everything that marriage now covers as far as the state is concerned.

[J.T]

The state has a vested interest in the institution

And how is that? In pre-Christian Rome, marriage was between the parties involved without any need for a piece of parchment from the State- and the State did just fine.

Wait, let me guess, you think it has something to do with 'traditional family' and what you think it was?

http://www.amazon.com/Way-We-Never-Were-Nostalgia/dp/0465090974

[ConHog]

And how is that? In pre-Christian Rome, marriage was between the parties involved without any need for a piece of parchment from the State- and the State did just fine.

Wait, let me guess, you think it has something to do with 'traditional family' and what you think it was?

http://www.amazon.com/Way-We-Never-Were-Nostalgia/dp/0465090974



Well, pre Christian Rome also threw people to the lions for entertainment to, so let's not use them as some sort of model.

[Wind Song]

On the gay subject - the queer marriages in NY now...

Queers say they are normal, and should be allowed to be married and receive "equal rights". "They are no different than you and I".

If 2 women love one another, and they are normal and just like everyone else - why are they wearing a dress and one wearing a tuxedo? This is what I have seen from tons of pictures here in NY. Is it supposed to be normal when one thinks and/or acts like the man?

Apparently, you haven't seen the front page cartoon on the New Yorker? It's cute. It shows two women in wedding gowns walking across the Brooklyn Bridge.

[fj1200]

Please. Of course dipshit joined the board. He has an agenda...and probably no one to fight with at his previous home. :rolleyes:

No Agenda from you? Count me SHOCKED.


I'd be SHOCKED if he wasn't an idiot plant from you know where. He sure posts like one.

You two have no clue in the matter.


The state has a vested interest in the institution

I would say had.

[Shadow]

No Agenda from you? Count me SHOCKED.



You two have no clue in the matter.

Like what?

[Gunny]

The ones forcing them to put GAY in front of Marine is those who want to keep/kick them out. Besides forcing them to keep secrets is like forcing them to lie. Personally I don't like the idea that only straights can fight for our country without holding something back.



That first part sounds like a bureaucracy problem. The second sounds reactionary, do other countries have separate quarters?

No one's forcing them to do squat. The gay agenda proponents are demanding it as a "RIGHT". The gays that already do serve are there to server, not be gay. The gays that want "Gay" in front of every other descriptor are there to be gay.

Attempting to dismiss something as a bureaucracy problem is just trying to sweep a REAL issue that affects REAL lives under the rug.

[KartRacerBoy]

No one's forcing them to do squat. The gay agenda proponents are demanding it as a "RIGHT". The gays that already do serve are there to server, not be gay. The gays that want "Gay" in front of every other descriptor are there to be gay.

Attempting to dismiss something as a bureaucracy problem is just trying to sweep a REAL issue that affects REAL lives under the rug.


If under DADT, gay soldiers wouldn't be allow to have gay sex (which is of course is what defines them being gay), I'd be ok with it if heterosexual service members weren't allowed to have hetero sex. What could be more fair?

[ConHog]

If under DADT, gay soldiers wouldn't be allow to have gay sex (which is of course is what defines them being gay), I'd be ok with it if heterosexual service members weren't allowed to have hetero sex. What could be more fair?


Hey dumb dumb, technically gay sex is not forbidden by the UCMJ. Sodomy however is (unless that's changed since I've been out) and that goes for gays or straights. You're right, fair is fair.

[Gunny]

If under DADT, gay soldiers wouldn't be allow to have gay sex (which is of course is what defines them being gay), I'd be ok with it if heterosexual service members weren't allowed to have hetero sex. What could be more fair?

We'll just skip past the part where you are attempting to place and unnatural act on par with a natural one.

The military ALREADY tells military personnel and where they can and cannot have sex. Simple as that.

[KartRacerBoy]

We'll just skip past the part where you are attempting to place and unnatural act on par with a natural one.

The military ALREADY tells military personnel and where they can and cannot have sex. Simple as that.

So if heterosexuals soldiers have anal sex offbase, you would be ok with kicking them out of the military?

But my real point was that if when gay soldiers are there to serve and you have no problem with that, what does "there to serve" mean? If you think they should be kicked out for having open gay sex (ie, they don't hide their sexual preference) under DADT, then if "serving" means "not practicing gay sex," wouldn't it be just as fair to require heterosexuals to "just serve" by not having heterosexual sex? If not, why should one "just serve" by being abstinent and the other have all the whoopee they can manage?

[fj1200]

No one's forcing them to do squat. The gay agenda proponents are demanding it as a "RIGHT". The gays that already do serve are there to server, not be gay. The gays that want "Gay" in front of every other descriptor are there to be gay.

You're forcing them to lie. You're forcing that descriptor to be there. You treat them like second class citizens.


Attempting to dismiss something as a bureaucracy problem is just trying to sweep a REAL issue that affects REAL lives under the rug.

It would be easier to get rid of all the uppity women and minorities I suppose than to deal with change.

[ConHog]

You're forcing them to lie. You're forcing that descriptor to be there. You treat them like second class citizens.



It would be easier to get rid of all the uppity women and minorities I suppose than to deal with change.


Stop being so dramatic. Under DADT , NO ONE is forcing ANYONE to lie. The only way a person is separated from the military is if they admit to a superior officer that they are gay. There is no penalty for not admitting it to anyone. No superior officer may ask.

[KartRacerBoy]

Stop being so dramatic. Under DADT , NO ONE is forcing ANYONE to lie. The only way a person is separated from the military is if they admit to a superior officer that they are gay. There is no penalty for not admitting it to anyone. No superior officer may ask.

That is the stated policy. There have been many tales of gay service peolple being "outted" by other military. I suspect it depends on the commander and the dynamics of the individuals in the unit what would happen in that situation. The great thing about the elimination of DADT is that such situations would disappear if gay people were allowed to serve openly in the US military. I am sure that there will still be problems since assholes are asshole (gay or straight), but other nations' militaries have managed to make this transition with little problem, so I hope it will be the same the US military.

[ConHog]

That is the stated policy. There have been many tales of gay service peolple being "outted" by other military. I suspect it depends on the commander and the dynamics of the individuals in the unit what would happen in that situation. The great thing about the elimination of DADT is that such situations would disappear if gay people were allowed to serve openly in the US military. I am sure that there will still be problems since assholes are asshole (gay or straight), but other nations' militaries have managed to make this transition with little problem, so I hope it will be the same the US military.

I don't care about your stupid stories. THe military operates under WRITTEN guidelines. Have officers asked if subordinates are gay since the policy was enacted? No doubt that they have. BUT that isn't enough to get someone kicked out. People aren't getting kicked out unless they volunteer to someone that they are gay.

Now I don't know about you, but I don't generally wander around my work place discussing sex at all, so I have little sympathy for those that get in trouble for doing so.

[KartRacerBoy]

I don't care about your stupid stories. THe military operates under WRITTEN guidelines. Have officers asked if subordinates are gay since the policy was enacted? No doubt that they have. BUT that isn't enough to get someone kicked out. People aren't getting kicked out unless they volunteer to someone that they are gay.

Now I don't know about you, but I don't generally wander around my work place discussing sex at all, so I have little sympathy for those that get in trouble for doing so.

You seem to have an apprehension that if there is a policy, regulation, or a law, it is always folllowed. There have been reports in the news of DADT as a policy being violated by commanders who don't like gays in the military. I have no doubt that some commanders have done so. I have no idea how many have done so, but there are claims that people have been kicked out despite violation of higher ups of the DADT rules.

On the other hand, I'm sure there have been gay activists in the military who wanted to violate DADT just to push it along in the courts. They should understand the consequences of doing so. If they lose, that's the risk they took. If they won, hooray for them. But they still took a risk.

It will be great to see that become a non issue.

[fj1200]

Stop being so dramatic. Under DADT , NO ONE is forcing ANYONE to lie. The only way a person is separated from the military is if they admit to a superior officer that they are gay. There is no penalty for not admitting it to anyone. No superior officer may ask.

No, unless forcing a soldier to constantly wonder if he/she will be found out is lying. If you support ending DADT why are you so adamantly opposed to gay soldiers?

[ConHog]

No, unless forcing a soldier to constantly wonder if he/she will be found out is lying. If you support ending DADT why are you so adamantly opposed to gay soldiers?


You're being stupid, I understand that is nothing unusual for you. I am not opposed to gay soldiers. I AM opposed to gays who feel the need to tell the whole world they are gay. Just shut the fuck up, you don't see me prancing around in crotchless panties telling the world I love pussy do you?

[KartRacerBoy]

No, unless forcing a soldier to constantly wonder if he/she will be found out is lying. If you support ending DADT why are you so adamantly opposed to gay soldiers?

It is a mystery.

I do have a buddy who is gay and his "gayness" is entirely dependent on the company. My wife is in civic theatre a lot and when that crowd is around, Tom is "flame on." He will also hold his partner's hand and actually be affectionate like hererosexual couples do. These folks all know Tom is gay. But Tom's family is, oddly, ultra catholic. In that crowd, Tom is much more conservative. Affection with his partner of 16 years is taboo.

I bet DADT is a lot like that. It must be sad having to hide who you are, not even able to show affection to your love.


You're being stupid, I understand that is nothing unusual for you. I am not opposed to gay soldiers. I AM opposed to gays who feel the need to tell the whole world they are gay. Just shut the fuck up, you don't see me prancing around in crotchless panties telling the world I love pussy do you?

Read my post 256.

How would you like to hide your "Heteroness" every time you were out in public? No touching. No hand holding. No kissing. No words of affection. What heterosexual would put up with that?

No one is asking that you approve of french kissing in public, but you seem to think ANY hint that folks are gay displayed in public is obscene. It's not.

[fj1200]

You're being stupid, I understand that is nothing unusual for you. I am not opposed to gay soldiers. I AM opposed to gays who feel the need to tell the whole world they are gay. Just shut the fuck up, you don't see me prancing around in crotchless panties telling the world I love pussy do you?

So you have no problem with the policy, your friend, etc. but you're going to throw stereotypes out there which are a small percentage of the population so you can keep them in line? or just away from you?

BTW, why would you being wearing crotchless panties? And I'm being stupid. :rolleyes: Here, I'll blow your mind; I'm opposed to gays who join the military, or any workplace for that matter, who feel the need to constantly flame their gayness to the world. If that's against the code they should be punished for it, straights who do the same thing too.


How would you like to hide your "Heteroness" every time you were out in public? No touching. No hand holding. No kissing. No words of affection. What heterosexual would put up with that?

In my neighborhood we have countless gay, mostly lesbian, couples and it seems most of them have kids; only once have I seen a public display of affection at the park, pool, etc. and that happened to be a nanny, 20ish, and her friend. Nobody is throwing their gayness out there just for the sake of it.

[J.T]

We'll just skip past the part where you are attempting to place and unnatural act on par with a natural one.


Unnatural? :lol:



A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Bruce_Bagemihl) shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Primates) to gut worms (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Acanthocephala), and is well documented for 500 of them

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals


The only way a person is separated from the military is if they admit to a superior officer that they are gay.

Why do you lie?


A decorated sergeant and Arabic language specialist was dismissed from the U.S. Army under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, though he says he never told his superiors he was gay and his accuser was never identified.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205869,00.html

[darin]

If the "couple" weren't gay, would this even be an issue to the 'homosexualphiles' in this board?

[Gunny]

So if heterosexuals soldiers have anal sex offbase, you would be ok with kicking them out of the military?

But my real point was that if when gay soldiers are there to serve and you have no problem with that, what does "there to serve" mean? If you think they should be kicked out for having open gay sex (ie, they don't hide their sexual preference) under DADT, then if "serving" means "not practicing gay sex," wouldn't it be just as fair to require heterosexuals to "just serve" by not having heterosexual sex? If not, why should one "just serve" by being abstinent and the other have all the whoopee they can manage?

Pay attention much? Or are you too busy trying to neg rep your way into a "win"? I've made my stance rather clear. Any reason to ask rhetorical questions besides just liking to hear your fingertips click on the keyboard (aka running your suck just to hear your tongue rattle against the roof of your mouth)?

You people that want to force YOUR screwy idealism down everyone else's throats have major issues. One, refusing to address the reality of the situation. 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.

Your tyranny of the minority idealism doesn't belong in the real world. The military is about teamwork, cohesion and trust. A fag disrupts that and I'd get rid of one as fast as someone that can't shoot. Or do you have a problem with THAT as well? Let's let all non-shooters stay in rifle companies anyway?

Why don't you just get it over with and go join AQ or Hamas or Hezbollah? That would at least be honest.


You're forcing them to lie. You're forcing that descriptor to be there. You treat them like second class citizens.



It would be easier to get rid of all the uppity women and minorities I suppose than to deal with change.

BS. I'm not forcing anyone to lie. No one goes around calling Marines "black Marines, gay Marines, blond Marines, et al" .... they are Marines. You can't get your way around the fact that these people want to be identified by their sexual behavior FIRST.

Nah. It would be MUCH easier to quit trying to fix shit that ain't broke and try concentrating on what IS broke.


Stop being so dramatic. Under DADT , NO ONE is forcing ANYONE to lie. The only way a person is separated from the military is if they admit to a superior officer that they are gay. There is no penalty for not admitting it to anyone. No superior officer may ask.

That is actually incorrect. You cannot legally be separated for admitting you are gay. That's the part these enablers can't quite grasp.

Engaging in homosexual acts, and or admitting to it can get you separated under the UCMJ.


No, unless forcing a soldier to constantly wonder if he/she will be found out is lying. If you support ending DADT why are you so adamantly opposed to gay soldiers?

Simple. DADT applies to ALL.

Quite simply, no one wants a fag in the locker room. Seems the biggest proponents of putting them there are for the most part the ones that don't have to live in that world. Why is THAT, I wonder .....


Unnatural? :lol:



https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals



Why do you lie?


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205869,00.html

Try some honest biology. Animals cannot be homosexual for the simple fact they cannot CHOOSE to commit natural or unnatural acts, no matter what dumb wiki source you want to try and pull out.

[fj1200]

BS. I'm not forcing anyone to lie. No one goes around calling Marines "black Marines, gay Marines, blond Marines, et al" .... they are Marines. You can't get your way around the fact that these people want to be identified by their sexual behavior FIRST.

Whatever, I guess you just want everyone to know that all Marines are simply "Straight Marines."

[ConHog]

Whatever, I guess you just want everyone to know that all Marines are simply "Straight Marines."

No, he wants everyone to know that Marines, are first and foremost MARINES. Not gay marines, not straight marines, not white marines, not black marines, not latino american Marines. Just plain old Marines.


Why you can't grok that is beyond me.

Although I suspect you can, you just want to argue

[fj1200]

No, he wants everyone to know that Marines, are first and foremost MARINES. Not gay marines, not straight marines, not white marines, not black marines, not latino american Marines. Just plain old Marines.


Why you can't grok that is beyond me.

Although I suspect you can, you just want to argue

That's exactly what I want but he suggests that any Marine who is gay is a "gay Marine."

[J.T]

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
So half of the Marines are homophobic closet cases?


Why don't you just get it over with and go join AQ or Hamas or Hezbollah? That would at least be honest.

Interesting... I'm pretty sure AQ would actually be with you when it comes to the homophobia thing.



Try some honest biology. Animals cannot be homosexual for the simple fact they cannot CHOOSE to commit natural or unnatural acts, no matter what dumb wiki source you want to try and pull out.
Fail. Did you choose to be heterosexual? Do you have homosexual urges that you struggle with and must work to avoid acting upon?

Actually, that would explain a few things...

And your 'unnatural' line of bullshit was already debunked. That which occurs in nature is natural by definition. You know what's 'unnatural'? Marriage, religion, and wearing clothing. Care to try again?
Here, read this and become less ignorant.

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

[ConHog]

So half of the Marines are homophobic closet cases?


Interesting... I'm pretty sure AQ would actually be with you when it comes to the homophobia thing.


Fail. Did you choose to be heterosexual? Do you have homosexual urges that you struggle with and must work to avoid acting upon?

Actually, that would explain a few things...

And your 'unnatural' line of bullshit was already debunked. That which occurs in nature is natural by definition. You know what's 'unnatural'? Marriage, religion, and wearing clothing. Care to try again?
Here, read this and become less ignorant.

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




YOU may be no more evolved than an ape and so what comes natural to them comes natural to you, but humans in general do NOT do what is natural to the rest of the animal kingdom. Many animals naturally eat their own feces. Do you partake? Many species are natural born predators who kill on a daily basis. Etc, etc.

[J.T]

humans in general do NOT do what is natural to the rest of the animal kingdom.

Oh? They don't eat, sleep, mate, compete for mates, seek shelter from hailstorms, invest in and protect their young...?

Many species are natural born predators who kill on a daily basis.

And only two kinds of animals are known to kill for fun (humans and dolphins) and two are known to wage war (humans and ants). Humans slaughter animals en masse, they hunt and kill for fun, and they even use technology (video games) to satiate their bloodlust and desire to kill without having to risk injury or leave the home. Or maybe you meant killing their own young (http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/prabort2.html)?

[KartRacerBoy]

No, he wants everyone to know that Marines, are first and foremost MARINES. Not gay marines, not straight marines, not white marines, not black marines, not latino american Marines. Just plain old Marines.


Why you can't grok that is beyond me.

Although I suspect you can, you just want to argue

Nice Heinlein reference but rather ironic that it's used this context. :laugh:

[jimnyc]

So half of the Marines are homophobic closet cases?

Show me where Gunny stated that the Marines were afraid of queers. Why do you and so many other ignorant people continue to claim people have phobias of queers but can't seem to present ANY proof whatsoever? Is it perhaps because you get to call someone a fancy looking name that vilifies the person you're speaking to, even if the term doesn't apply in 99% of the cases it is used?

[J.T]

Show me where Gunny stated that the Marines were afraid of queers.

Post 233


Why do you and so many other ignorant people continue to claim people have phobias of queers but can't seem to present ANY proof whatsoever?
Gunny said half his men were scared of homos and go running for their pitchforks and torches, cowering and shivering as they gather together a mob to chase out these evil creatures which live somewhere out there, hoping the evil HomoSexuals won't come for them in the middle of the night, draining of their souls and semen like some mythical demon preying on sexually repressed and confused Marines unable to their jive secret sexual desires with the hypermasculine mythos they have been taught they must embrace.




Trombley: "Good dump, Sergeant?"
Colbert: "Excellent. Sh*t my brains out. Not too hard, not too runny."
Trombley: "Sucks when it's runny and you have to wipe 50 times."
Colbert: "That's not what I'm talking about. If it's too hard or too soft, something's not right. You might have a problem that affects combat readiness."
Person: "And it should be a little bit acid, Trombley. Burn your *sshole a little when it comes out."
Colbert: "Maybe on your little b*tch *sshole, Ray. From all the c*ck that's been stuffed up it."
Espera: "Man! We Marines are so homoerotic. That's all we talk about! You ever realize how homoerotic this whole thing is?"

[ConHog]

Post 233

Gunny said half his men were scared of homos and go running for their pitchforks and torches, cowering and shivering as they gather together a mob to chase out these evil creatures which live somewhere out there, hoping the evil HomoSexuals won't come for them in the middle of the night, draining of their souls and semen like some mythical demon preying on sexually repressed and confused Marines unable to their jive secret sexual desires with the hypermasculine mythos they have been taught they must embrace.



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

[fj1200]

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

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

Good satire though.

[ConHog]

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

Good satire though.



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.

[fj1200]

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.

So I should have added "or not smart enough to tell the difference between a human being and a cockroach"? Great analogy. :rolleyes:

[ConHog]

So I should have added "or not smart enough to tell the difference between a human being and a cockroach"? Great analogy. :rolleyes:



Oh Lawd help me. Are you really trying to twist my post around to one of me comparing gays to cockroaches?

[jimnyc]

Oh Lawd help me. Are you really trying to twist my post around to one of me comparing gays to cockroaches?

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.

[KartRacerBoy]

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.

I'd guess homosexuals wouldn't have any glee in rooming with you.

[fj1200]

Oh Lawd help me. Are you really trying to twist my post around to one of me comparing gays to cockroaches?

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