Jsc, serious question about homosexuals

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sun Sep 18, 2011 11:52 pm

The ability to make good music via simplicity is more impressive, imo. The "less is more" concept applies to music as it does many things. Watching some asshat wildly scale a guitar is sort of like watching a magician. You go, "Oh, neat," but don't need to experience that a second time.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 11:59 pm

A "serious" thread about homosexuality segued into a discussion of the Rolling Stones...

'nuff said.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:02 am

I'm going to remind everyone that AP kicked this whole thing off.

BODE = AP

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:32 am

Toddowen wrote:From now on, i leave you to fend off the 'gay ' accusations on your own.

I'm not the one sticking up for one of the folks behind this.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 2:18 am

Dinsdale wrote:the Rolling Stones...

were too far ahead of their time.

1964, are you kidding me?

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 5:09 am

Dins knows music, and he and I share similar tastes regarding some of those more "complex" artists, so I feel relatively safe in assuming that he'll agree this isn't really a typical three-chord effort...

Is it still simple? On some level, yes, it is. It's certainly nothing that will cause Return to Forever or the Mahavishnu Orchestra any sleepless nights, but it's also far from the norm for the Stones, and it's a beautiful piece of music.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 3:04 pm

War Wagon wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:the Rolling Stones...
were too far ahead of their time.

1964, are you kidding me?

Uhm... hundreds of bands were churning out 3 chord mumbling for 10 years before that.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 4:59 pm

I'm not reading all of this...but I am getting a chuckle out of AP's need to pose serious questions about homosexuals. We knew he was gay-curious...the only question now is whether he can find a gay partner who is basement-curious.

Python · Post by **Python** » Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:06 pm

9th Circuit?

BBBWWWAAAHHHAAA!!!

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Tue Feb 07, 2012 8:02 pm

Nice..a thread about faggots that is a year and a half old and has seven pages. Knock yourselves out.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Tue Feb 07, 2012 8:30 pm

Derron wrote:Nice..a thread about faggots that is a year and a half old and has seven pages. Knock yourselves out.

math not your best subject, is it, Duh?

DC Smackmaster · Post by **DC Smackmaster** » Tue Feb 07, 2012 8:50 pm

Holy Fuck...i gotta Rack Psufan for that basement curious blast! Still laughing.

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Tue Feb 07, 2012 8:53 pm

smackaholic wrote:
Derron wrote:Nice..a thread about faggots that is a year and a half old and has seven pages. Knock yourselves out.
math not your best subject, is it, Duh?

My bad. Let me restate ..a thread 6 months old about faggots and it is 7 pages long. Knock yourselves out.

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:22 pm

Jsc810 wrote:
Derron, the reason the thread was bumped is because today the 9th Circuit affirmed the decision of the trial court in the Prop 8 case, it is a significant development.

Only if you are a faggot.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Wed Feb 08, 2012 12:58 am

Van wrote:Dins knows music.

Lost me.

I eagerly await his next "3 chord" keyword blast.

Oh, and as to the topic of the thread, I'm sure Jsc can't wait to perform a gay marriage ceremony or 6 before his next scheduled colonoscopy or gastric bypass.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Wed Feb 08, 2012 1:20 am

I hope Prop 8 comes back.

And then the people can vote on a "No Fat Chicks" amendment to the constitution.
And then the people can vote to move all spics to Alaska.
And then the people can vote to have all people with acne medically infertile so they can't make zitty kids.
And then the people can vote to take all rights away from ugly freaks with cleft pallattes.

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Feb 08, 2012 1:42 am

Bace, why do you want to ruin Dins's traditional Friday night 'scavenger hunt'?

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Feb 08, 2012 7:51 pm

Bizzarofelice wrote:I hope Prop 8 comes back.

And then the people can vote on a "No Fat Chicks" amendment to the constitution.
And then the people can vote to move all spics to Alaska.
And then the people can vote to have all people with acne medically infertile so they can't make zitty kids.
And then the people can vote to take all rights away from ugly freaks with cleft pallattes.

Solid point. That's why we have a "represtative republic" rather than unadulterated democracy -- "democracy," in its pure form, is mob rule.

And I'll go ahead and RACK Derron -- quintessential U&L Conservative, aka "true conservative" -- doesn't effect him, so he don't give a fuck about gay marriage.

For myself, I couldn't care less. The People of my state (which possibly has the highest % of homos in the country, or is right up there) voted down a measure permitting it, but in line with my "mob rule" comment, I'll wait until the supporters can make a solid 9th Amendment case for it (which will eventually happen -- dawn of a new era, but as mentioned many times earlier, I really couldn't give a fuck, doesn't effect me, and to each their own. Living in a free country involves accepting some things you don't approve of). In fact, I think it supports freedom, in that it allows people greater control of their estate/heirs, and whatnot. Dictating policy based on which gender you share genitalia with seems rather intrusive to me, since that ain't none of my business (and I'd just as soon not have anyone make it my business).

Terry in Crapchester · Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:43 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
Atomic Punk wrote:No MgBl0W. My underlying concern is that jobs won't be created if ObaMao healthcare goes into effect and the males here that want to hook-up with the other males here will be a further drain on our economy. No employer is going to hire confirmed homosexual men if it passes. The implication is that unemployment will increase as the fags here will feel free to go against nature and be a drain on the health care system.
you are a very strange individual.

Ya think?

I had that much figured out long before I ever opened this thread.

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:50 pm

A nice little topic for 88 and Jsc to debate

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 1:16 am

88 wrote:
Bizzarofelice wrote:I hope Prop 8 comes back.

And then the people can vote on a "No Fat Chicks" amendment to the constitution.
In the words of Jsc810, I'll just leave this here.

I don't get it. Your point is fucking moot, yo. The topic here is gay marriage. You wanna talk about happy meals, start a new thread.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 2:14 am

I'm sure bradhusker has a lot to say about serious homosexuality. He has studied it up close and in depth for over thirty years now. You can be sure that he knows all the ins and outs in precise, clinical detail.

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Sat May 05, 2012 2:45 pm

Jsc810 wrote:It used to be classified as a mental disorder, but in the 1970s both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association changed that.

Jsc, Question for ya. Could it be concluded, that if a majority of the governing bodies of both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association were homosexual, that their changing stance was somehow biased and corrupt?

Sounds reasonable to any objective party, dont ya think?

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Sat May 05, 2012 6:52 pm

bradhusker wrote: Could it be concluded, that if a majority of the governing bodies of both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association were homosexual, that their changing stance was somehow biased and corrupt?

Do you mean the governing bodies were making out with governing bodies of the same sex in city park bathrooms, or that the people constituting those governing bodies were gay?

Sounds reasonable to any objective party, dont ya think?

shit logic. its like saying white people can't be involved in a scientific study involving black people and Andy Capp Hot Fries.

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Sun May 06, 2012 12:03 pm

Bizzarofelice wrote:
bradhusker wrote: Could it be concluded, that if a majority of the governing bodies of both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association were homosexual, that their changing stance was somehow biased and corrupt?
Do you mean the governing bodies were making out with governing bodies of the same sex in city park bathrooms, or that the people constituting those governing bodies were gay?

Sounds reasonable to any objective party, dont ya think?
shit logic. its like saying white people can't be involved in a scientific study involving black people and Andy Capp Hot Fries.

Bizz, you mean like scientists who are "bought and paid for" in the global warming" debate?
You know, the left wing scientists who say that its "settled" science that man is responsible. "settled" as in NO DEBATE. Except for the fact that there are a growing number of scientists who say otherwise.

We live in a society today, where even a once respected journalist like Dan Rather, allowed phoney documents to be used as his lead source. He was forced to retire in shame. The internet is FULL of bullshit facts put out daily by left wing groups with their own agendas.

The fact that you put your entire trust in these studies, is very telling about you. Decades ago, respected doctors told us to drink decaf coffee instead of regular, we'd live longer. NOW, the opposite is true.

ARE you a gullable fuck?

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Tue May 08, 2012 6:11 pm

Just an FYI:

(CNN) - As people in North Carolina vote on a controversial referendum that would constitutionally ban same sex marriages, a new national poll indicates that half of the public supports legalizing such unions.

According to a Gallup survey released Tuesday, 50 percent of Americans say that same sex marriages should be recognized as legal, with 48 percent saying such marriages should not be legal.

The 50 percent support for same sex marriages is down slightly from 53 percent from Gallup polling last year, which was the first year dating to 1996 that a majority supported legalizing same sex marriages.

The poll's release comes two days after Vice President Joe Biden said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he was "absolutely comfortable" with the idea of same-gender unions.

The vice president added, however, that it's the president, not him, who sets the administration's policy.

President Barack Obama, who once opposed same-sex marriage, says he supports civil unions for same sex couples, and has taken the official position that his views on the issue are "evolving."

Forty-seven percent of people questioned in a Pew Research Center poll conducted last month said they favored allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry, with 43 percent opposed. An ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted in March indicated that 52 percent supported legal same sex marriages, with 43 percent opposed. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll also conducted in March indicated 49 percent in support of legal same sex marriage and 40 percent opposed. And according to a CNN/ORC International poll conducted last autumn, 53 percent backed legalized same sex marriages, with 46 percent opposed.

All of these surveys indicated building support for legal same sex marriages over the past decade.

Like the other polls, the new Gallup survey indicates a partisan divide on the issue, with almost two-thirds of Democrats and 57 percent of independents but just 22 percent of Republicans supporting legalizing same-sex marriages.

According to the Gallup poll, there's also a divide along religious lines, with Catholics, by a 51 percent - 47 percent margin, in support of legal same sex marriages but Protestants, by a 59 percent -38 percent margin, opposed. The survey also indicates that the more frequently a person attends religious services, the less likely that person is to support legalizing same sex marriages.

The Gallup poll was conducted May 3-6, with 1,024 adults nationwide questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Tue May 08, 2012 6:21 pm

Jsc810 wrote:Just an FYI:

Fundamental constitutional rights are not subject to a popular vote.

Maybe not, but the people who have the power to make changes to those constitutions are.

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Tue May 08, 2012 8:41 pm

Jsc810 wrote:If North Carolina amended its constitution to prohibit interracial marriages, do you think it would be enforceable?

All such laws are in their last dying gasps, and if it does pass today, then history will view it much like it does this event:

Jsc, history will NEVER view the gay marriage debate with civil rights struggles for blacks in the sixties. For you to equate the two is absolutely ridiculous and without merit.

Liberals use science, ONLY when it suits their cause. WHEN it goes against them, they run from it like the plague.
Science says that the anus of humans is designed for "exit only". And since anal sex is the center piece of the gay lifestyle, science calls this, "abnormal" and against natural laws.

NOW, let me just preface this by saying, what two people do in private, is their business entirely.
THAT being said, science is indeed on my side on this issue.

The female vagina was designed to be the warm and loving acceptor for the male penis. Science calls this "normal" in any case study. Vaginal sex is the "center piece" of normal sex. ACCORDING to scientific fact.

NOTICE that I DO NOT mention religion once. I DONT HAVE TO. I am frimly planted in the corner of science on this one.

What say you?

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Tue May 08, 2012 8:47 pm

What liberals cant run and hide from is the scientific case studies on this one. The human anus was designed as "an exit only" orrifice. So, when gay males engage in anal sex, its 'abnormal" according to scientific case studies.

You can argue all you want. But, according to science, the "center piece" of gay love, is abnormal.
LIKE IT OR NOT, you cant argue with science.

This is why I want civil unions with all the EXACT same rights that everyone else has. HOWEVER, the meaning and definition of the word, "marriage" should stay. one man one woman.

When you argue against that, even though you know that civil unions will have the same rights?
I call you emotionally disturbed.

It shows me that you dont care about the rights being the same, BUT, you have a personal vendetta against anyone who dis-agrees with you.

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue May 08, 2012 9:57 pm

Stop posting your silly takes twice. You do this every fucking time. Reading your childish drivel once is bad enough. Knock it off.

Oh, and...

The female vagina was designed to be the warm and loving acceptor for the male penis.

Would this be as opposed to the male vagina and the female penis?

Seriously, shleprock, what world do you live in where it's necessary to label the vagina as female and the penis as male?

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Tue May 08, 2012 10:03 pm

Van wrote:Seriously, shleprock, what world do you live in where it's necessary to label the vagina as female and the penis as male?

Uhm... the Troll World?

Jesus fucking Christ on a stick... why respond to someone who purposely posts drivel and is the most obvious pile on troll of all-time?

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Tue May 08, 2012 10:12 pm

I do not understand why it MUST be marriage. If civil unions can provide the same financial/tax/estate planning benefits, what's the problem? Regarding science, I also find it strange that what was long treated as a mental health issue can suddenly become normal just because a couple groups of "scientists" waved a magic wand and made it so. I'd like to see the years of scientific study that went into that decision. Conversely isn't it odd that in recent years, every behavioral problem under the sun now has its own label. PMDD, OCD, PMS, ADD, ADHD, AAB, BPD, BD, BED, MPD, DID, GID, GAD, GAS, IED, MED, NPD, OCPD, ODD, and so on, and so forth. Maybe some day they will be considered normal too.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Wed May 09, 2012 12:40 am

KC Scott wrote:
Wolfman wrote:IED...... Maybe some day they will be considered normal too.
Quite common in third world countries, as is religous extremism

Well palyed, my man....well palyed.

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Wed May 09, 2012 12:14 pm

Van wrote:Stop posting your silly takes twice. You do this every fucking time. Reading your childish drivel once is bad enough. Knock it off.

Oh, and...

The female vagina was designed to be the warm and loving acceptor for the male penis.
Would this be as opposed to the male vagina and the female penis?

Seriously, shleprock, what world do you live in where it's necessary to label the vagina as female and the penis as male?

The world where liberals think an anus is a vagina, that world.

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Wed May 09, 2012 12:18 pm

Python wrote:9th Circuit?

BBBWWWAAAHHHAAA!!!

I'll second that, BBBWUAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHA, most of, if not all of the robes on the 9th circuit view the male anus as a fully functional vagina. BBUWAAAHAHA.

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Wed May 09, 2012 12:27 pm

I see the voters in NC have "spoken" and stood up for marriage as it has been known to most people until recently. On another note, I'm still trying to figure out how "bi-sexual" fits into this whole psychodrama. Do they want to marry both a man and a woman?? And is that caused by genetics or is it learned ?? I suspect that imprinting has a lot to do with any type of sexual deviancy. It is a powerful form of learning in our lives. FYI: learning does not require conscious action.

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Wed May 09, 2012 12:30 pm

Mikey wrote:
Van wrote:Hey, Pop.

Anyway, no, Jsc didn't originally mention the Scriptures. He merely posted...

Jsc wrote:He supposedly said that he would return within the lifetimes of those living at the time he did.
You followed that up with, "No, He didn't say that."

Jsc qualified his comment with the use of "supposedly." You? It was as if you were passing on a firsthand recollection of dude's conversations!
You didn't know? Pops WAS there. In fact,

He was 'round when Jesus Christ
Had his moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate
Washed his hands and sealed his fate

He stuck around St. Petersburg
When he saw it was a time for a change
Killed the Czar and his ministers
Anastasia screamed in vain

He rode a tank
Held a general's rank
When the Blitzkrieg raged
And the bodies stank

woo who

Hey mikey? Actually, those lyrics show why the Stones were DUMB on scripture. The Devil would NOT have wanted Pilate to wash his hands and let Jesus be put to death. WHY? That was GOD's master plan, for HIS SON to be sacrificed for the sins of mankind. The Devil would have been hell-bent against that, pardon the pun.

The stones were too stupid to figure that out when they wrote those lyrics. The devil wouldnt have wanted Jesus put to death, due to the fact that its THE DEATH of Jesus, which would ultimately save us all from the DEVIL. "By his stripes, we will be saved" Obviously, Mick was too strung out on drugs to notice the stupidity of his lyrics.

Instead, Mick should have done what Plant and Page did with "stairway". Which was to sell their souls to the beastmaster. In return, the lyrics to "stairway" came to Plant on a warm summer eve, in an enchanted forrest back in 71'

The devil would have actually wanted Pilate to step in and save Jesus from the blood-thirsty JEWS of the time.
That way, there is no sacrifice, and no redemption from sin, and the devil would have millions of souls to torture in hell.

Sorry Mick, GOOD SONG, I actually like it, BUT, you blew it on the lyrics there buddy boy, sorry to have to logically point out your mistake.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Wed May 09, 2012 12:39 pm

KC Scott wrote:
Wolfman wrote:IED...... Maybe some day they will be considered normal too.
Quite common in third world countries, as is religous extremism

Looks like a sex toy....

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Wed May 09, 2012 12:40 pm

mvscal wrote:I'm sure bradhusker has a lot to say about serious homosexuality. He has studied it up close and in depth for over thirty years now. You can be sure that he knows all the ins and outs in precise, clinical detail.

I only know what science says about the topic. AND this is hard science folks. FIRST, according to hard science, homosexual behavior is abnormal, and SECOND, the anus is not a vagina. NOR was it meant to be. FUCK religion, lets just keep focused on hard science here folks, shall we?

Take out your microscopes, dust them off, and study the anus up close and personal with 1 million times magnification. I PROMISE you, you will learn what science has been saying all along, the anus was specifically designed for "exit only" purposes.

Who is the group who penned, "SCIENCE, he blinded me with SCIENCE". Thats my intention here fellas, Im going to blind all of you with sheer SCIENCE!!!

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Wed May 09, 2012 12:44 pm

Wolfman wrote:I see the voters in NC have "spoken" and stood up for marriage as it has been known to most people until recently. On another note, I'm still trying to figure out how "bi-sexual" fits into this whole psychodrama. Do they want to marry both a man and a woman?? And is that caused by genetics or is it learned ?? I suspect that imprinting has a lot to do with any type of sexual deviancy. It is a powerful form of learning in our lives. FYI: learning does not require conscious action.

WELL SAID. The definition of marriage is one man one woman, period. NOW, that said, whats wrong with civil unions which afford the exact same rights?