Another win for fags.
Moderator: Jesus H Christ
Re: Another win for fags.
S, are they going to make a footnote in the textooks to make sure Tesla, George Washington Carver, Marie Curie, and everyone else noteworthy are denoted as "hetero"?
The Gay Rights Movement (which doesn't encompass all gays) doesn't want "equal rights," they want "extra rights."
The Gay Rights Movement (which doesn't encompass all gays) doesn't want "equal rights," they want "extra rights."
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
- DallasFanatic
- Nobody's Punk
- Posts: 2112
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 6:37 pm
- Location: Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Re: Another win for fags.
Exactly. I mean why can't my daughter read, "KC Scott invented the butt plug" instead of "KC Scott, a notorious homosexual in the Kansas City area and frequent visitor to mens' gym locker rooms, invented the butt plug."Sudden Sam wrote:Why is it necessary to describe what one does in bed...and to whom...in order to applaud one's contributions to society?
But thats California for you. I am getting that much closer to leaving this fucked up state.
- indyfrisco
- Pro Bonfire
- Posts: 11684
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 1:15 pm
Re: Another win for fags.
This.Dinsdale wrote:The Gay Rights Movement (which doesn't encompass all gays) doesn't want "equal rights," they want "extra rights."
I don't give a shit whose fudge they want to pack. If their contribution to society was less than someone else's but gets inclusion because of what they do behind closed doors while the straight person is exclded, that is wrong.
Goober McTuber wrote:One last post...
Re: Another win for fags.
I'm not even sure which rights they claim to not have.
Marriage?
I'm hetero, and I can't marry a man, either... sounds like we're equal in the eyes of the law.
Marriage?
I'm hetero, and I can't marry a man, either... sounds like we're equal in the eyes of the law.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
- indyfrisco
- Pro Bonfire
- Posts: 11684
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 1:15 pm
Re: Another win for fags.
I also like how they seem to want to differentiate within their own lifestyle choice group. It's "gay and lesbian" now. Like the "women's movement" here long ago. The bitches (or butches I should say) are not included in the "gay" population. No, they have to have their own separate distinction so they can, I guess like in America today, get more rights than the men in their chosen "demographic."
Goober McTuber wrote:One last post...
Re: Another win for fags.
Indeed, and why isn't Abe Lincoln included in the gay studies? He was after all a fudge packer. What's up? And for that matter, how about the most powerful man in the history of this country, J. Edgar Hoover? How about a course focusing on how repressing one's homosexuality renders one a total nut job? Like Senator "Wide Stance" and Gov Rick Perry?
Before God was, I am
Re: Another win for fags.
First, JSC, I'll state that I don't care one way or the other. If anyone's rights were being violated, I'd stand up for them.
Loving v. Virginia was a case ofcitizenship and the inherent rights that come with it (sup 14th), and isn't about marriage, per se.
The other cases are cases of "legislating from the bench." The SCOTUS never should have even heard the cases, unless someone can remind me which Amendment mentions "right to marry."
Wait... such an amendment doesn't exist -- but I do seem to recall one that says something like "if the Constitution doesn't ay the fed can oversee it, then they can't."
The SCOTUS' job is to say "yes" or "no" on the Constitutionality of a law/act/whatever -- it certainly isn't to invent new "rights" as they see fit. It's a flagrant violation of the separation of powers. I really don't think that's what the 9th had in mind, to let the SCOTUS decide which rights certain people had, but it definitely muddies the issue.
They can go ahead and toss out Roe v Wade while they're at it. Last I checked, the 14th defines citizenship as "born or naturalized," not "concieved." Therefore, it's neither the fed or SCOTUS business.
But that pesky 10th just gets in the way of the fedral power grab, so it's been declared null-and-void.
Loving v. Virginia was a case ofcitizenship and the inherent rights that come with it (sup 14th), and isn't about marriage, per se.
The other cases are cases of "legislating from the bench." The SCOTUS never should have even heard the cases, unless someone can remind me which Amendment mentions "right to marry."
Wait... such an amendment doesn't exist -- but I do seem to recall one that says something like "if the Constitution doesn't ay the fed can oversee it, then they can't."
The SCOTUS' job is to say "yes" or "no" on the Constitutionality of a law/act/whatever -- it certainly isn't to invent new "rights" as they see fit. It's a flagrant violation of the separation of powers. I really don't think that's what the 9th had in mind, to let the SCOTUS decide which rights certain people had, but it definitely muddies the issue.
They can go ahead and toss out Roe v Wade while they're at it. Last I checked, the 14th defines citizenship as "born or naturalized," not "concieved." Therefore, it's neither the fed or SCOTUS business.
But that pesky 10th just gets in the way of the fedral power grab, so it's been declared null-and-void.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
Re: Another win for fags.
And why is it that a disproportionate number of KKK types and neo-Nazis are closet gays? Isn't this worthy of study in our universities? How about a masters symposium on the career and character of Roy Cohn? Surely such a study would go far in revealing the galling vicious hypocrisy in anti-gay polemicists and legislators who are in fact closet homosexuals.
He's gay? Let's smear him...

As a bonus, here's Bachmann hiding at a gay rights rally--look, she's squatting behind the bushes...

He's gay? Let's smear him...

As a bonus, here's Bachmann hiding at a gay rights rally--look, she's squatting behind the bushes...

Before God was, I am
Re: Another win for fags.
Because he wasn't gay...LTS TRN 2 wrote:why isn't Abe Lincoln included in the gay studies?
Any other questions?
Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.
Re: Another win for fags.
It isn't necessary for the Constitution to mention a specific "right to marry" since the Constitution does not grant rights rather it limits the power of government to infringe upon fundamental rights.Dinsdale wrote:The other cases are cases of "legislating from the bench." The SCOTUS never should have even heard the cases, unless someone can remind me which Amendment mentions "right to marry."
The real question is whether or not government should be involved in subsidizing or incentivizing marriage at all. One can make an argument that heterosexual marriage should be incentivized because it produces more little taxpayers and that stable families promote social stability.
The opponents of gay marriage have been making all the wrong arguments.
Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.
- Screw_Michigan
- Angry Snowflake
- Posts: 21096
- Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:37 am
- Location: 20011
Re: Another win for fags.
Then they start running pride parades down the middle of those neighborhoods. I don't think "gentrified" means what you think it means.
Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.
Re: Another win for fags.
Exactly.Dinsdale wrote:The SCOTUS' job is to say "yes" or "no" on the Constitutionality of a law/act/whatever -- it certainly isn't to invent new "rights" as they see fit.
In a FREE society, gays never should have had the liberty to be married taken from them in the first place.
Find a church that will marry you -- and go for it if you want to.
But the government over-stepped their authority and decided to license marriages.
So they set the standard - man/woman.
It's a perfectly logic and rightful standard, yes, but one they ought not have been involved with in the first place.
Mix in lawyers, courts, media, the gay agenda - and the whole thing is now fucked to hell.
Btw, this new Californication law is wonderful.
Categorizing and studying historical figures based on their behavior is a stroke of genius.
Next semester - prominent nose-pickers in American history.
Re: Another win for fags.
Screw's right, I live at ground zero.
The fags pulled a market garden and parachuted into my neighbourhood. Set up a bridgehead and opened antique shops, delis, art galleries and drove out the bums. When they start making money, they know enough to go somewhere else to shake their dicks at each other.
The fags pulled a market garden and parachuted into my neighbourhood. Set up a bridgehead and opened antique shops, delis, art galleries and drove out the bums. When they start making money, they know enough to go somewhere else to shake their dicks at each other.
-
- 2014 JFFL Champion
- Posts: 4553
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:59 pm
Re: Another win for fags.
She probably thought she was safe from beatings by going with a white guy but that blockhead looks like asphyxiates her nightly.Jsc810 wrote:
![]()
Re: Another win for fags.
Dr_Phibes wrote:Screw's right, I live at ground zero.
The fags pulled a market garden and parachuted into my neighbourhood. Set up a bridgehead and opened antique shops, delis, art galleries and drove out the bums. When they start making money, they know enough to go somewhere else to shake their dicks at each other.
I'm at my home-away-from-home, which was a pretty nasty place before gentrification. Plenty of Rainbow Warriors moved on in.
And St Johns is still one of the great bastions of tweekers. (There's evidence to suggest the modern meth trade had roots in North Portland, with plenty of help from other parts of Oregon and NoCal.)
They haven't driven out the bums, just given them more bikes to steal (it's Portland -- you're not a "real gay" if you don't bike everywhere).
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
Re: Another win for fags.
poptart wrote:Categorizing and studying historical figures based on their behavior is a stroke of genius.
Next semester - prominent nose-pickers in American history.
No shit.
Should history books have footnotes that say shit like "Thomas Alva Edison enjoyed it when his wife took the strapon to him"?
Maybe I'm old fashioned/a real conservative, but what people do in their 4 walls is their business, regardless what gender the person they do it with is, or what tools are involved.
I only hope for the chilren of california's sake that KCScott never invents a world-changing device to beef up biceps... that could get disturbing in a hurry.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
Re: Another win for fags.
All the existing social services are still here aswell, so still a lot of reconnaissance missions from the bums. You'll never completely get them out.Dinsdale wrote: They haven't driven out the bums, just given them more bikes to steal (it's Portland -- you're not a "real gay" if you don't bike everywhere).
I don't know if it's a bad thing or not. Having a nearby framing gallery in case of emergencies beats bearded junkies screaming 'FUUUCCKKK!!' outside your window all night.
Re: Another win for fags.
mvscal wrote:It isn't necessary for the Constitution to mention a specific "right to marry" since the Constitution does not grant rights rather it limits the power of government to infringe upon fundamental rights.
I did mention that the 9th Amendment muddies things.
And I think that's what you were alluding to -- the supporters should be aguing a 9th Amendment case, wich seems like their only legal leg to stand on, on a federal level.
I'm surprised the Oregon Supreme Court hasn't OKed gay marriage (at the state level, where I feel this issue belongs) -- Oregon has a ridiculously high standard (in the state constitution) of feedom of expressionan(you can be naked anywhere, any time in Oregon, as long as you're not commiting the vague offense of "attempting to incite sexual arousal," and it's why we have such disproportionate numbers of adult businesses). One could construe that getting hitched is the ulyimate form of expression.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
- Shlomart Ben Yisrael
- Insha'Allah
- Posts: 19031
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 5:58 pm
- Location: filling molotovs
Re: Another win for fags.
Dr_Phibes wrote:...bearded junkies screaming 'FUUUCCKKK!!' outside your window all night.

rock rock to the planet rock ... don't stop
Felix wrote:you've become very bitter since you became jewish......
Kierland drop-kicking Wolftard wrote: Aren’t you part of the silent generation?
Why don’t you just STFU.
Re: Another win for fags.
No charge.Dinsdale wrote:(it's Portland -- you're not a "real gay" if you don't remove the seat on your bike).
Re: Another win for fags.
Ours isn't an either/or. We get tweekers and fags going through the recycling bins on garbage night -- the tweekers want the returnable bottles for the nickel, the fags want it to make mosaics and shit.Dr_Phibes wrote: I don't know if it's a bad thing or not. Having a nearby framing gallery in case of emergencies beats bearded junkies screaming 'FUUUCCKKK!!' outside your window all night.
Regardless, whatever they net from it, the gangbangers whack them over the head and take it.
This is a sweet hood.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
Re: Another win for fags.
Martyred wrote:Dr_Phibes wrote:...bearded junkies screaming 'FUUUCCKKK!!' outside your window all night.
Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life... unless you're armed with a plunger.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
- Screw_Michigan
- Angry Snowflake
- Posts: 21096
- Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:37 am
- Location: 20011
Re: Another win for fags.
Really? I just thought people did that to discourage stealing your bike. Whoops!R-Jack wrote:No charge.Dinsdale wrote:(it's Portland -- you're not a "real gay" if you don't remove the seat on your bike).
- Screw_Michigan
- Angry Snowflake
- Posts: 21096
- Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:37 am
- Location: 20011
Re: Another win for fags.
Gentrification is economics and class. People here get their panties bunched over race and it's just not the case.mvscal wrote:Then they start running pride parades down the middle of those neighborhoods. I don't think "gentrified" means what you think it means.
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will), but fags gentrify shitty neighborhoods by using their dual, professional incomes (with no kids to spend their money) to drive up rents and property values. Then the stores, restaurants and other shit move in. Nobody in DC really drives the fags out, but sometimes the super wealthy invade their 'hoods and it just becomes more expensive. See the 14th St NW corridor at U St here. 20 years ago you could get a 3 BR rowhouse for around $150k/200k because you would also have easy access to prostitutes and smack addicts. Now those are million dollar homes and that stretch, along with U St, are some of the trendiest, most expensive blocks in the District.
Re: Another win for fags.
Yeah...stay classy, fags.Screw_Michigan wrote:Gentrification is economics and class.

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.
Re: Another win for fags.
Screw_Michigan wrote:Really? I just thought people did that to discourage stealing your bike. Whoops!R-Jack wrote:No charge.Dinsdale wrote:(it's Portland -- you're not a "real gay" if you don't remove the seat on your bike).
Scewey's just been outted as a bike thief.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
- Bizzarofelice
- I wanna be a bear
- Posts: 10216
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:48 pm
Re: Another win for fags.
LTS TRN 2 wrote: As a bonus, here's Bachmann hiding at a gay rights rally--look, she's squatting behind the bushes...
really
why is my neighborhood on fire
- Bizzarofelice
- I wanna be a bear
- Posts: 10216
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:48 pm
Re: Another win for fags.
Screw_Michigan wrote:Fags gentrify blighted neighborhoods.
well actually there's a lot of gays and lesbians and same sex couples in my neighborhood and... uh...
why is my neighborhood on fire
Re: Another win for fags.
Screw_Michigan wrote:Gentrification is economics and class. People here get their panties bunched over race and it's just not the case.
In Portland (with its 6-7% blacks), it was pretty basic -- as the population exploded, the areas closest to the places with lots of employment (Downtown, the shipyards/ports) were the "hood," where most of the blacks lived (we have little-to-no "black neighborhoods," due to lack of blacks). As the money got better (this was always a very poor city forever, until the dotcom boom and population explosion) and the jobs increased and housing didn't keep up, people started buying up the areas closest to the jobs (Inner NE, St Johns).
Wasn't even a "trendy" thing (although that was a side effect), it was practicality.
Now the blacks have moved to outer SE, and the bullets flow like wine.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
Re: Another win for fags.
How dare you question it?Bizzarofelice wrote: really
It's very simple for a Congresswoman to sneak out and lurk in bushes surrounded by media... don't be such a skeptic.
After all these years, you should know by now that LTS' sources are beyond reproach.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
Re: Another win for fags.
"I want you to take this plunger and ram it up my ass. Will you do this, please, for a crippled Jew? I'm part Negro too but don't let that intimidate you. I won't resist."Martyred wrote:
Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.
- Bizzarofelice
- I wanna be a bear
- Posts: 10216
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:48 pm
Re: Another win for fags.
Dinsdale wrote:lurk in bushes
rack all Cinder's Crabs resets
why is my neighborhood on fire
Re: Another win for fags.
Yeah, explain this..mvscal wrote:Because he wasn't gay...LTS TRN 2 wrote:why isn't Abe Lincoln included in the gay studies?
Any other questions?
To argue his case that Lincoln (1809-1865) was gay, Tripp gathered biographical texts contemporary to Lincoln's time, private correspondence, and other books and documents culled from his database of more than 600 Lincoln-related texts, which now are housed at the Lincoln Institute in Springfield, Ill.
The L.A. Weekly also published Lincoln's poem about gay marriage. The poem, which he wrote when he was a teenager, may have been the most explicit of its kind for America in the 1800s. It reads:
"I will tell you a Joke about Jewel and Mary
It is neither a Joke nor a Story
For Rubin and Charles has married two girls
But Billy has married a boy
The girlies he had tried on every Side
But none could he get to agree
All was in vain he went home again
And since that is married to Natty
So Billy and Natty agreed very well
And mama's well pleased at the match
The egg it is laid but Natty's afraid
The Shell is So Soft that it never will hatch
But Betsy she said you Cursed bald head
My Suitor you never Can be
Beside your low crotch proclaims you a botch
And that never Can serve for me"
The book also includes affectionate correspondence between the former president and merchant Joshua Speed, with whom Lincoln shared a bed for four years from his late 20s to early 30s, and an account written by Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Chamberlain, a 19th century historian.
Chamberlain wrote that in Mrs. Lincoln's absence, the president would sleep, share nightshirts, and conduct an "intimacy" with David Derickson, who was captain of Lincoln's bodyguard Company K.
Additionally, the book contains descriptions of Lincoln from his stepmother, who said he "never took much interest in the girls," and poet Carl Sandburg, who wrote that both Speed and Lincoln possessed "a streak of lavender, and spots soft as May violets."
Jean Baker, professor of history at Goucher College and the author of "Mary Todd Lincoln: A Biography," told Discovery News, "I believe that Lincoln engaged in homosexual acts with several men, but this was an era before any understanding of the concept of self-identifying as an homosexual. The word was not even used during Lincoln's life."
As for Lincoln's wife, Baker believes she knew nothing of her husband's purported relationships with men.
"I think that his homosexuality was not noticed by either his wife, or many of his friends, which is one reason why we are only finding out about it today," Baker said.
Tripp was not the first to theorize about Lincoln's sexuality. Charles Shively, University of Massachusetts at Boston professor emeritus of American history, described what he viewed was a homosexual relationship between Lincoln and Speed in his book concerning the private life of poet and naturalist Walt Whitman, whom many researchers also believe was gay.
And don't forget Hoover and Perry and Cohn, etc.

Before God was, I am
Re: Another win for fags.
Dinsdale wrote:
This is a sweet hood.
Just biked the 2 blocks to the Gookmart for beer.
The Popo were cuffing and stuffing a gangbanger.
I pulled up just in time to hear them ask "So, you have no idea how the gang tattoo got on your neck?"
One cop dropped his crowd-control duty to compliment my hat (Ducks), and we just had a Will Lyles discussion.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
Re: Another win for fags.
Wait -- a career academic wrote something outrageous and unsupported to chase a grant?LTS TRN 2 wrote: Tripp was not the first to theorize about Lincoln's sexuality. Charles Shively, University of Massachusetts at Boston professor emeritus of American history, described what he viewed was a homosexual relationship between Lincoln and Speed in his book concerning the private life of poet and naturalist Walt Whitman, whom many researchers also believe was gay.
Maybe I should get a grant to write a book with outrageous accusations about his book.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
Re: Another win for fags.
Of course she didn't because there weren't any.LTS TRN 2 wrote:As for Lincoln's wife, Baker believes she knew nothing of her husband's purported relationships with men.
Oh, OK. So some hack 150 years later pretends to know the man better than the people who actually knew him best. Well who gives a fuck about facts as long as it advances the fag agenda, right?"I think that his homosexuality was not noticed by either his wife, or many of his friends
Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.
Re: Another win for fags.
mvscal wrote:Well who gives a fuck about facts as long as it advances the academic's lust for recognition agenda, right?
Fixed
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
Re: Another win for fags.
No, that really isn't enough to account for a systematic hatchet job. There is an agenda at work beyond simple attention whoring.Dinsdale wrote:mvscal wrote:Well who gives a fuck about facts as long as it advances the academic's lust for recognition agenda, right?
Fixed
Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.
Re: Another win for fags.
A systematic hatchet job and agenda that belongs to a belief system: identity politics. It's the 'new left' and your phobias helped create it. The working class was abandoned in favour of gay rights, wheelchair ramps and blaming big meanie religious types. Welcome to LTS world.