(06-01-2012, 10:38 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
I don't look at it like you do. I don't see them as a minority, I see them as people in love wanting the same benefits a man & woman are allowed when they marry. I think they should be allowed everything a traditional couple are allowed. I've never seen them as freaks of nature or think that what they do is ungodly.
I don't look at them like a minority either but that is what they are trying to do is have themselves declared a minority.
Equality is one thing, elevated equality based on sexual preference is another.
I'm thinking you're stuck on one little aspect of this conversation Duchess, there is a larger picture in the midst of this debate.
No one is asking for special rights. Pursuit of happiness, remember? No one is asking you to approve of any thing or make any kind of special allowances, and if it weren't for busybodies like you dick they wouldn't need any laws made to allow them to live their own fucking lives without being hectored and hindered.
They're asking you to mind your own business. And since have yet to come up with a single credible or viable reason why you have the right to interfere with things that don't concern you, perhaps you should. So far you've been beaten on every front dick. Are you punch drunk or just that stubbornly stupid? Don't answer; we already know.
(06-01-2012, 11:09 AM)Donovan Wrote: [ -> ]No one is asking for special rights. Pursuit of happiness, remember? No one is asking you to approve of any thing or make any kind of special allowances, and if it weren't for busybodies like you dick they wouldn't need any laws made to allow them to live their own fucking lives without being hectored and hindered.
They're asking you to mind your own business. And since have yet to come up with a single credible or viable reason why you have the right to interfere with things that don't concern you, perhaps you should. So far you've been beaten on every front dick. Are you punch drunk or just that stubbornly stupid? Don't answer; we already know.
Do I have to post the info for you to be honest?
stop being a lying asshole.
So far all you've done is namecall. You can't answer any of the questions put to you so you resort to personal attack in hopes of distracting the issue. Suck it up dick. You lost. Move on the another issue or just admit you have no legit reason for opposing this besides "hating fags."
And yes, you DO have to post info. So so any time, we've been waiting.
our comics collectors, Ninja and Maggot, will want this collectible--->
![[Image: green-lantern-gay-660.jpg]](http://global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Entertainment/green-lantern-gay-660.jpg)
more:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/dc...z1wXkARBFK
One of DC Comics oldest heroes is super-coming out.
The original Green Lantern - a DC Comics mainstay for the past 70 years - will be revealed to be a gay man in next week's issue of "Earth 2."
Alan Scott - formerly a married father of two who first appeared in 1940 - tips readers off to his sexuality early on in the comic when he gives his boyfriend a welcome home kiss.
"He's very much the character he was. He's still the pinnacle of bravery and idealism. He's also gay," "Earth 2" writer James Robinson told The Post.
Oh brother. Way to man up, DC. If you were gonna turn a golden age Icon gay, why not go with the one who everyone already suspected: you know, the guy who lives alone with an aging manservant and a succession of teen boys in shortpants and elf shoes? Who "adopts" needy orphans but never seems to adopt any girls? Who has been a rich bachelor with expensive tastes in fine art? You know, the guy whose name "Bruce" is almost a cliche gay name? Yeah, DC: that guy.
(06-01-2012, 01:02 PM)Donovan Wrote: [ -> ]So far all you've done is namecall. You can't answer any of the questions put to you so you resort to personal attack in hopes of distracting the issue. Suck it up dick. You lost. Move on the another issue or just admit you have no legit reason for opposing this besides "hating fags."
And yes, you DO have to post info. So so any time, we've been waiting.
Here your link you lying piece of shit. If you want the bill numbers let me know.
One of the things about lying pieces of shit like you is they seldom do any research and when presented with facts they try to deflect the conversation to something else.
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1992-11...ity-claims
I don't hate fags I just won't support them.
They go against my personal moral code, that won't be changing anytime soon.
I do hate lying pieces of shit though, a liar will steal from you and a theif will lie to you.
(06-01-2012, 01:37 PM)IMaDick Wrote: [ -> ] (06-01-2012, 01:02 PM)Donovan Wrote: [ -> ]So far all you've done is namecall. You can't answer any of the questions put to you so you resort to personal attack in hopes of distracting the issue. Suck it up dick. You lost. Move on the another issue or just admit you have no legit reason for opposing this besides "hating fags."
And yes, you DO have to post info. So so any time, we've been waiting.
Here your link you lying piece of shit. If you want the bill numbers let me know.
One of the things about lying pieces of shit like you is they seldom do any research and when presented with facts they try to deflect the conversation to something else.
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1992-11...ity-claims
I don't hate fags I just won't support them.
They go against my personal moral code, that won't be changing anytime soon.
I do hate lying pieces of shit though, a liar will steal from you and a theif will lie to you.
This is your proof? A twenty year old letter to the editor from some anonymous internet crank, bitching about the agenda of "newly elected Bill Clinton"?
Seriously dude, you're not even trying now. It's getting sad. Stop making me hit you. Stay down. It's over.
(06-01-2012, 07:05 PM)Donovan Wrote: [ -> ] (06-01-2012, 01:37 PM)IMaDick Wrote: [ -> ] (06-01-2012, 01:02 PM)Donovan Wrote: [ -> ]So far all you've done is namecall. You can't answer any of the questions put to you so you resort to personal attack in hopes of distracting the issue. Suck it up dick. You lost. Move on the another issue or just admit you have no legit reason for opposing this besides "hating fags."
And yes, you DO have to post info. So so any time, we've been waiting.
Here your link you lying piece of shit. If you want the bill numbers let me know.
One of the things about lying pieces of shit like you is they seldom do any research and when presented with facts they try to deflect the conversation to something else.
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1992-11...ity-claims
I don't hate fags I just won't support them.
They go against my personal moral code, that won't be changing anytime soon.
I do hate lying pieces of shit though, a liar will steal from you and a theif will lie to you.
This is your proof? A twenty year old letter to the editor from some anonymous internet crank, bitching about the agenda of "newly elected Bill Clinton"?
Seriously dude, you're not even trying now. It's getting sad. Stop making me hit you. Stay down. It's over.
Like I said do you want the bill numbers?
If you think the agenda has changed then you have swallowed one too many loads.
Every one of those bleating bastards would have a tremendous issue with anyone trying to tell them how to live their life. I don't doubt that at all.[/i][/size]
Our forefather Harry is lighting his pipe, Paul is pisst his robe hem is out, when suddenly John stands and while tossing back his gray wig, says, "hey dudes, i'm tired of pretending... the guy i bought my wagon from and i have been in a committed relationship for years blah blah ... we'd really like to legally marry". Would they have responded with "we don't give a shit what u do John in your own stable and as long as you dont coerce or give the wagon guy political favors ". Or couldnt it be possible they were good kind people who just would have found it shocking
Either response should be understandable...the ones who find it shocking/disturbing shouldnt be thought of as haters...
(06-02-2012, 03:05 AM)IMaDick Wrote: [ -> ] (06-01-2012, 07:05 PM)Donovan Wrote: [ -> ] (06-01-2012, 01:37 PM)IMaDick Wrote: [ -> ] (06-01-2012, 01:02 PM)Donovan Wrote: [ -> ]So far all you've done is namecall. You can't answer any of the questions put to you so you resort to personal attack in hopes of distracting the issue. Suck it up dick. You lost. Move on the another issue or just admit you have no legit reason for opposing this besides "hating fags."
And yes, you DO have to post info. So so any time, we've been waiting.
Here your link you lying piece of shit. If you want the bill numbers let me know.
One of the things about lying pieces of shit like you is they seldom do any research and when presented with facts they try to deflect the conversation to something else.
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1992-11...ity-claims
I don't hate fags I just won't support them.
They go against my personal moral code, that won't be changing anytime soon.
I do hate lying pieces of shit though, a liar will steal from you and a theif will lie to you.
This is your proof? A twenty year old letter to the editor from some anonymous internet crank, bitching about the agenda of "newly elected Bill Clinton"?
Seriously dude, you're not even trying now. It's getting sad. Stop making me hit you. Stay down. It's over.
Like I said do you want the bill numbers?
If you think the agenda has changed then you have swallowed one too many loads.
If you don't stop imagining other people having gay sex encounters, that viagra-fueled boner is never going to go away. I heard that's dangerous after a few hours. Might want to notify your doctor.
(05-31-2012, 09:28 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ] (05-31-2012, 09:24 AM)IMaDick Wrote: [ -> ]homo by choice and a fucking disappointment to your mom.
Bullshit. A big, fat pile of crap.
You don't get to choose what your sexuality is. Thank Christ most parents don't feel as you do & still love their children regardless of their sexuality.
I still can't believe how many religious folk walk around spitting out ignorant crap like "lifestyle choice" or other indications of homosexuals starting out as "normal" then "choosing" to be gay. It's stupid because it's obvious that we all get involuntary attractions to people. No one says to themselves, when a hottie passes, "wait ... still thinking and choosing ... OK, I decided that I'll find myself attracted to that. I'm so glad I made a good choice." That's why you don't have to have sex to know or be your orientation - it's all about involuntary sexual attraction.
If there is an invisible celestial super dude that made people, he most certainly made a consistent percentage be gay, and on purpose. Deal with it, crusty relics.
(06-03-2012, 08:02 AM)Middle Finger Wrote: [ -> ]I still can't believe how many religious folk walk around spitting out ignorant crap like "lifestyle choice" or other indications of homosexuals starting out as "normal" then "choosing" to be gay. It's stupid because it's obvious that we all get involuntary attractions to people. No one says to themselves, when a hottie passes, "wait ... still thinking and choosing ... OK, I decided that I'll find myself attracted to that. I'm so glad I made a good choice." That's why you don't have to have sex to know or be your orientation - it's all about involuntary sexual attraction.
If there is an invisible celestial super dude that made people, he most certainly made a consistent percentage be gay, and on purpose. Deal with it, crusty relics.
So after having posted this master piece of bullshit, do you think that gays shoud be given minority status?
(06-03-2012, 12:04 PM)IMaDick Wrote: [ -> ]do you think that gays shoud be given minority status?
If you look at society as a whole they fit the definition of minority.
(06-03-2012, 12:10 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ] (06-03-2012, 12:04 PM)IMaDick Wrote: [ -> ]do you think that gays shoud be given minority status?
If you look at society as a whole they fit the definition of minority.
Go ahead and break it down for me Duchess.
Can I cut & paste? I really just feel like being a slug today. I don't even want to think too much.
Here ya go, honey. I'm not normally a fan of cut & paste and usually prefer to use my own words but this is as much as I'm inclined to give right now.
Sociologist Louis Wirth defined a minority group as "a group of people who, because of their physical or cultural characteristics, are singled out from the others in the society in which they live for differential and unequal treatment, and who therefore regard themselves as objects of collective discrimination."
Like zombies,vampires,and baptists.
where and how do you draw the line?
I didn't post that in order to imply I think they should be seen as a minority. I don't think they should. I see that, in a sense, as a cop out. I don't think they should go to extremes to set themselves apart, it seems kind of defeating to me.
![[Image: ain-t-love-grand.gif]](http://i976.photobucket.com/albums/ae245/zerospheres/ain-t-love-grand.gif)