T1B

Diego in Seattle wrote:So Smackaholic & mvscunt don't want gay boy scout leaders, but would rather have the boys led by hetero leaders like Josh or Steve Powell. Got it.

Hey diego, gay scout leaders are weird. Ive met some, they try to come across as normal, but its no use. Each and every day they are secretly dreaming and salivating on these young scouts.
SHIT, its a well known psychological fact that these gay scout leaders fantasize about young dick at least 27 times an hour. Read the literature on this topic.

Very few gay men have lasting relationships. Its ALL sex based with them. Its the elephant in the room. No one will admit it, cause its not politically correct to do so. BUT, everyone knows how weird and emotionally disturbed the gay community is. AND, they are the most intolerant fucks ive ever seen as well.

Diego in Seattle wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:Bullshit. Link?

Boys are ~25%-33% of sexual assault victims and perps are well over 95% male so do the math, cupcake. Faggots and dykes are far more likely to be child sex offenders than normal people.

Deal with it.

97.4% of all stats are made up.

Having trouble understanding the word "link," slappy?

actually, Diego is full of shit. Stats are REAL, they are not made up. For example, black men make up 6.8 percent of the total population, YET, they committ some 48 percent of all violent crimes. THIS is from the FBI national statistics. According to Diego, its a lie.

Same thing with the gay population, gay fucks are less than 8 percent of the total population, YET, they are out there like Jerry Sandusky, diddling everything they can get their hands on.

Its the ELEPHANT in the room. No one wants to talk about it or admit it even, due to the fact that its not "politically correct", YET, everyone knows that gays are emotionally disturbed, and have been since the dawn of mankind.

Jsc wrote:I recommend you reading about Jesus before condemning others because of who they love.

I don't condemn anyone and if I did, my condemnation would carry no weight anyway.
People in rejection of Christ are absolutely in condemnation, however.


Jesus (who IS God) never said that His intention in Genesis 2:24 had changed and He certainly never gave license to homosexual marriage.
Read Matthew 19.
He spoke of what was God-established in the beginning.
Man's separation from God is what ushered in all manner of deviations.

If you look at the instances where homosexuality are spoke of in the Bible, the recurring theme is that the activity is a symptom which follows from people who have gone off to live apart from God.
It is a symptom which comes when people go into idol worship - which is what naturally occurs for humans (who are spiritual beings with spiritual hunger) when they attempt to live apart from their Creator.

Man-man can find someone to "marry" them if they like, but it will never be recognized as such by God.
And they will never be one flesh.

jiminphilly wrote:

War Wagon wrote:what do you want me to say...?

... I have a daughter, too.

That's a start. Just so I understand, you have no problem with the notion that when your daughter was 14, 15 years old, you thought it perfectly acceptable for middle-aged men to be having lustful thoughts about her.

What are you, the THOUGHT police? This isnt "Minority Report" with Tom Cruise. Stop talking about people's thoughts, and just worry about the Jerry Sandusky's of the world. You freak. There are plenty of gay men who want to actually diddle young boys. AND yet, you want to talk about THOUGHTS??? geez.

Lets talk about the actual gay freaks who are actually out there molesting for years, even decades.
That will keep you so busy, you wont have time to go after "thoughts".

Bizzarofelice wrote:

do you consider the eating of oysters to be moral and the eating of snails to be immoral?

Oh shit, is that Jamie Lee Curtis' father? He was bi-sexual, no wonder she has man-like features. Nice tits and body, but very man like face. I always felt she was a butter face.

Diego in Seattle wrote:So Pastortart wants to argue from the angle that sexuality is a choice.....

So please tell us, Poptard...where in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution that rights & privileges are based on gender or sexuality? Where does it say that heteroes shall be given full rights & gay/lesbians shall not? Where is that choice established as the criteria for rights?

Did I give my take as to how the gov ought to handle marriage?

I must have missed it.


I was poking a little fun at Dinsdale earlier for saying this his was the true conservative position, and I think he produced a silly take by saying it.
It just depends on how we choose to define the term, anyway.

But I agree with him on the issue.

I don't care if two people find someone to "marry" them.
It's not my business.
I don't think the government should be involved in marriage at all.

I DO think a state should have the right to outlaw sodomy, however.
And as I noted earlier, it WAS a FELONY everywhere in America up until 1962.
For almost 200 years of our republic, it was right up (or down) there in the same category as pedophelia.

Some here should probably think that over.

trev wrote:No, I think sex with a child is not the same as 2 consenting adults. AT ALL. One is a crime, one is not.

Well, then how do you account for Mohammed the holy prophet of Islam? according to the Koran, he had sex with girls as young as 7 and 8 yrs of age. And today, he is the most holy and most high, Worrishipped by over a billion muslims the world over.

bradhusker wrote:

trev wrote:No, I think sex with a child is not the same as 2 consenting adults. AT ALL. One is a crime, one is not.

Well, then how do you account for Mohammed the holy prophet of Islam?

At least Jesus was poo pushing with other consenting adult males. It's a FACT, brad. Jesus enjoyed the snug fit of a male penis in his rectum. Extensive studies have been done on the subject that have conclusively proven that dudes who hang out with a bunch of other dudes in the desert are gay faggots.

THINK about it. Spread...err turn the other cheek? Love your fellow man? Christianity is all about gay butt love. Why do you think so many gay perverts are clergymen? They KNOW the real deal.

Are YOU a "good Christian," brad?

mvscal wrote:
Both you and Raskin are dumb as fuck. There is nothing in this world as stupid as a lawyer who doesn't have the faintest idea of what Law is. Every single law on the books is nothing more and nothing less than legislated morality. There is no law without morality and there is no morality without long standing social mores.

Historically, our laws have been founded on Judeo-Christian teachings and traditions.

Morality isn't the monopoly and wasn't passed down on the coattails of a supernatural metaphor, religious distress reflects human distress. The concepts are not the exclusive realm of 'Judeo-Christian' teaching.

mvscal wrote:

bradhusker wrote:

trev wrote:No, I think sex with a child is not the same as 2 consenting adults. AT ALL. One is a crime, one is not.

Well, then how do you account for Mohammed the holy prophet of Islam?

At least Jesus was poo pushing with other consenting adult males. It's a FACT, brad. Jesus enjoyed the snug fit of a male penis in his rectum. Extensive studies have been done on the subject that have conclusively proven that dudes who hang out with a bunch of other dudes in the desert are gay faggots.

THINK about it. Spread...err turn the other cheek? Love your fellow man? Christianity is all about gay butt love. Why do you think so many gay perverts are clergymen? They KNOW the real deal.

Are YOU a "good Christian," brad?

There is just one problem with your post mvscal. You made it up out ur ass. My post was actually taken out of the historical text of Islam.
No where in the historical account of Christ, is there ANY documents of the filth you reported.

SO, this begs the question? Why make shit up? Are you a rabble rouser? An instigator?

brad wrote:SHIT, its a well known psychological fact that these gay scout leaders fantasize about young dick at least 27 times an hour. Read the literature on this topic.

I'll go ahead and speak for all of us and say no thanks, brad.

But you go right ahead and keep reading up on young dick.

We'll be content with reading the stats you continue to post.

brad wrote:the elephant in the room.

poptart wrote:

brad wrote:SHIT, its a well known psychological fact that these gay scout leaders fantasize about young dick at least 27 times an hour. Read the literature on this topic.

I'll go ahead and speak for all of us and say no thanks, brad.

But you go right ahead and keep reading up on young dick.

We'll be content with reading the stats you continue to post.

brad wrote:the elephant in the room.

Thanks for posting the Rosie pic pop. she really personifies the "elephant" in any size room. I also love the way Donald Trump stood up to her and bitch slapped her silly. To think that a lying fat greasy diesal dyke, actually thought she could go "toe to toe" with a Titan of business like THE DONALD?
BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Donald beat her to a pulp,. and made her look absolutely stupid and fringe. I love how lunatic radical fringe lefty liberals try to portray themselves as mainstream.
Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O donnell, and the rest of the msnbc crew are ALL lunatic leftists who fit this bill.

Yeah, Trump starting at :50 is hilarious.


bwaaaa....

jiminphilly wrote:

smackaholic wrote:

jiminphilly wrote:Do you have a daughter?

yup. 20 year old.

what of it?

Besides coming across as a pedo, as a father you might want to consider that your daughter was 15 once and how would you feel if a guy your age was having nut-busting thoughts about her?

My daughter is an attractive young lady. Takes after her momma. Therefore, I am certain many old perverts guys my age, as well as younger and older guys have looked at her with impure thoughts. And I am fine with that because I understand that most men are, shall we say, "good heteros", meaning they can look and maybe even have a thought or two, but not act on that thought. If they were to act on that thought, well, I'd just have to fukking kill them.

Why is this simple shit hard to understand?

trev wrote: But, many sex crimes are commited by hetero men. If they go after a boy, it doesn't make them gay, it makes them very messed up. Am I right?

It can't be the popov, you are that stupid.

Let's examine the above sentence.

If a man goes after a boy, he sure the fukk is gay, by definition. He is other things too and the worst punishment possible ain't good enough.

War Wagon wrote:

jiminphilly wrote:Just so I understand, you have no problem with the notion that when your daughter was 14, 15 years old, you thought it perfectly acceptable for middle-aged men to be having lustful thoughts about her.

ah... the equivalency test. How droll.

jim, I have way more to be concerned about than what people may be thinking.

My daughter is 24, about to get her masters degree in sports management next week. I wish you good luck in raising your daughter but try not to get too verklempt over what somebody may be thinking.

gets it^^^^^^

jim,

congrats on being a daddy to a little girl. someday, it will seem like tomorrow, she won't be little anymore. and guess what, dudes will notice this. it's kinda how we roll...well, most of us (s'up M2).

get over it.

you won't be much of a father sitting in the big house cause you had to kill every dude that started looking at her when she grew some breastusus.

good luck with the whole going through puberty mom/daughter cage matches btw. they're a hoot! fortunately, i'm more or less done with that.

as for the question you raised about at what age is it OK to think things, well, you really haven't much say in it. when they start looking like women, normal men will start seeing them as such. as i said, it's how we're fukking wired. being civilized folk, we are able to control our actions, but those fukking thoughts are kinda elusive that way.

smackaholic wrote:
My daughter is an attractive young lady. Takes after her momma. Therefore, I am certain many old perverts guys my age, as well as younger and older guys have looked at her with impure thoughts. And I am fine with that because I understand that most men are, shall we say, "good heteros", meaning they can look and maybe even have a thought or two, but not act on that thought. If they were to act on that thought, well, I'd just have to fukking kill them.

Why is this simple shit hard to understand?

And what if your beautiful daughter came home tomorrow with a female partner? You would love her just the same and accept both of them. Correct?

I's still love her. She'd still be in my life, but, I'd be damn dissapointed and sad for her as she would not have a normal happy life. She would not meet a good man and have kids with him. She might have a fun time and buy a nice B&B with her wife, but, it just wouldn't be the same.

If you think otherwise, you are disillusioned.

smackaholic wrote: If you think otherwise, you are disillusioned.

Bullshit.

If the partner was a bull dyke you'd blame her for ruining your baby girl, and prolly cuff her, take her to NYC and sell her as a sex slave.

If the partner was hot you'd ask her to move in and so you could try to hit on it.

Jsc810 wrote:I know a lesbian couple who have been happily together for 40+ years, with kids and grandkids and the whole thing. Sure, they would like to be married, but they have been determined to not let other people's bigotry affect them or their family.

Considering that about half of marriages end in divorce, I think that's pretty good for them. So to think that a gay couple can't have a happy family is simply wrong.

A gay couple can have a happy family. What a gay couple can't do is make a baby together.

I am not saying they aren't happy or that their adopting and raising kids who would otherwise have no parents is not a very noble thing. I am saying that if they used a sperm donor to have a kid, I think it is wrong, because they have decided to bring a kid into the world who will never have a father. Kids ought to at least have a chance of having a good mother and father. A mother and a uhhh, aunt, I guess, ain't the same thing.

Mikey wrote:
If the partner was hot you'd ask her to move in and so you could try to hit on it.

Or at least watch while they got down.

Jsc810 wrote:

smackaholic wrote:A gay couple can have a happy family. What a gay couple can't do is make a baby together.

They can make a baby together in the same way as many heterosexual couples do so. There is in vitro fertilization, the use of sperm donors, adoption, and so on.

Yes, they can. I am for them adopting kids that are difficult to place in traditional families since two mommies is better than none. but, in the case of kids that could go to a family with a mom and a dad, those kids should have that opportunity

You're not trying to say that because they cannot produce a child the way most heterosexual couples do, that they should not be able to get married, are you? If so, you'll also prevent a lot of heterosexual couples.

nope, i'm not. i think they should have the ability to form legal unions. i could really give two shits if you call it marriage or whatever.

And surely you're not saying that it is necessary to have a mother and a father. I'm an example of someone who never saw his father, or any member of his family. In the Prop 8 trial, this argument was raised and shown to be flawed.

certainly it is not necessary, but, it is beneficial. you never knew your dad, but, i suspect that you wish it had been different. my own father is pretty much a POS. i have nothing to do with him today. he didn't do shit to help my mom financially. i sure the fukk do wish that weren't the case. so, what i am saying is that every kid ought to have a great father. not having had one only strengthens my conviction that that should be the case. you have daughters. do you think they look to you as nothing more than a financial support system?

Jsc810 wrote:

smackaholic wrote:A gay couple can have a happy family. What a gay couple can't do is make a baby together.

They can make a baby together in the same way as many heterosexual couples do so. There is in vitro fertilization, the use of sperm donors, adoption, and so on.

You're not trying to say that because they cannot produce a child the way most heterosexual couples do, that they should not be able to get married, are you? If so, you'll also prevent a lot of heterosexual couples.

And surely you're not saying that it is necessary to have a mother and a father. I'm an example of someone who never saw his father, or any member of his family. In the Prop 8 trial, this argument was raised and shown to be flawed.

Science says so. To be gay is "abnormal", according to science. If you take 1 million men and 1 million women, roughly about 6 to 7 percent would be gay. And according to science, this is "abnormal". It has nothing to do with religion, THIS IS SCIENCE.

And, YES, the ultimate "healthy" situation is to have both a mother and a father. ONLY creepy weird psychologists who are way to the left, disagree. But who cares what they say, they're fringe.

I love how leftists use science all the time to bash conservatives, EXCEPT when it calls homosexual behavior "abnormal".

Abnormal means not of the norm. Or you can call it creepy weird and sick behavior.
Are there lesbians who stayed together for 40 years? probably. The vast majority however, are lonely and suicidal.
Same thing with gay men. Are there a few examples of long term relationships? SURE. BUT AGAIN, the vast majority are degenerate emotionally disturbed freaks.

redheads are abnormal.

should they have fewer rights than non-firecrotchs?

bradhusker wrote: Science says so. To be gay is "abnormal", according to science. If you take 1 million men and 1 million women, roughly about 6 to 7 percent would be gay. And according to science, this is "abnormal". It has nothing to do with religion, THIS IS SCIENCE.

You're such an ingoramus it's almost funny.

Only 3% to 4% of the US population has red hair. Does SCIENCE define them as abnormal, creepy, weird and sick?
How about left handers (about 10%)
90% of the population has outies. Are people with innies abnormal?

Damn...Bace beat me to the punch.

Bizzarofelice wrote:redheads are abnormal.

should they have fewer rights than non-firecrotchs?

When did I say that they should have fewer rights? NEVER. I publically said many many times in here that civil unions and domestic partnerships should have EXACTLY the same rights as marriage.

ONLY the definiton of marriage should ramain the same as it has. Just the definitoion. Just like the definition of "redhead" means a girl with red hair. not blonde, not bald, not brunette, RED!!!

Marriage means one man one woman, nothing else. WE ARE TALKING DEFINITION OF A WORD.

WHY DID YOU BRING UP "RIGHTS"??? Is it because I am kicking your ASS in the definition arguement?

We are NOT changing the definition of redhead, ARE WE MORON?

Mikey wrote:

bradhusker wrote: Science says so. To be gay is "abnormal", according to science. If you take 1 million men and 1 million women, roughly about 6 to 7 percent would be gay. And according to science, this is "abnormal". It has nothing to do with religion, THIS IS SCIENCE.

You're such an ingoramus it's almost funny.

Only 3% to 4% of the US population has red hair. Does SCIENCE define them as abnormal, creepy, weird and sick?
How about left handers (about 10%)
90% of the population has outies. Are people with innies abnormal?

Damn...Bace beat me to the punch.

Mikey, you are so clueless its almost funny. ABNORMAL and NORMAL are terms used in SCIENCE you sick moron. It implies that when only a small amount of the population is gay, its simply not the norm.

ARE YOU HURT by science? Does science bother you? You seem to be really defensive here?

bradhusker wrote:ARE YOU HURT by science? Does science bother you? You seem to be really defensive here?

Interesting take, brad, being that SCIENCE signs Mikey's paycheck.

Mods, could we PLEEZE take the trash out?!

bradhusker wrote: ONLY the definiton of marriage should ramain the same as it has. Just the definitoion.

plenty of churches willing to perform a "marriage" between two gays or two lesbos. a marriage by definition.

are those churches wrong and your church is right?

The pastor leading the ceremony is obviously very confused, Bace.

If a pastor is so blatantly confused about something as clear and fundamental as marriage, I would conclude that he's probably not a guy who sincere sheep should be following.

Jsc810 wrote:Clear and fundamental?

You say that when your Bible has multiple versions of marriage? Wow.

Yes, but there's still no evidence of Biblical bone-smuggling.

smackaholic wrote:my own father is pretty much a POS.

Yeah, and your daughter's own father is a fucking moron. Sounds like a family tree that should dropped and chopped for firewood.

poptart wrote:The pastor leading the ceremony is obviously very confused, Bace.

If a pastor is so blatantly confused about something as clear and fundamental as marriage, I would conclude that he's probably not a guy who sincere sheep should be following.

yet they do. plenty of churches accept it. sounds like yours doesn't. is your church better than theirs?

smackaholic wrote:They shouldn't be denied any of those, but, there are certain positions where I just don't fukking want them. Boy scout leader is one. If you can't figure out why, you are a seriously stupid motherfukker.

Word. Sick and tired of reading about all these out-of-closet liberal fags banging kiddies. It's never the married unassuming conservative guy with glasses and a bad comb over.

Personally, I think children should ONLY be mentored by members of the clergy. Specifically, members of the Catholic priesthood. I'll go a step further and say all of these mentoring moments should take place inside padlocked sheds with no windows deep in the hinterlands. What could possibly go wrong?

Jsc810 wrote:Clear and fundamental?

You say that when your Bible has multiple versions of marriage? Wow.

First, in that chart you posted, there is NO homosexual marriage shown.

Second, within the Bible, we see multiple versions of marriage, yes.
This is what man, in his perversion following the Genesis 3 event, has done.

God, however, gave us ONE version of marriage - in Genesis 2:24.

Read Matthew 19.
The Pharisess were questioning Jesus and he verified the standard which was God-given in Genesis 2:24.
One man, one woman, for life.

Bace wrote:yet they do. plenty of churches accept it. sounds like yours doesn't. is your church better than theirs?

What does a church have to do with it?
It's a given pastor's decision to perform homosexual marriage ceremonies.

If I was a pastor in a given denomination, and the high-ups within the denomination declared that we MUST perform homosexual marriages, I would simply leave the denomination.

poptart wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:Clear and fundamental?

You say that when your Bible has multiple versions of marriage? Wow.

First, in that chart you posted, there is NO homosexual marriage shown.

Second, within the Bible, we see multiple versions of marriage, yes.
This is what man, in his perversion following the Genesis 3 event, has done.

God, however, gave us ONE version of marriage - in Genesis 2:24.

Read Matthew 19.
The Pharisess were questioning Jesus and he verified the standard which was God-given in Genesis 2:24.
One man, one woman, for life.

Bace wrote:yet they do. plenty of churches accept it. sounds like yours doesn't. is your church better than theirs?

What does a church have to do with it?
It's a given pastor's decision to perform homosexual marriage ceremonies.

If I was a pastor in a given denomination, and the high-ups within the denomination declared that we MUST perform homosexual marriages, I would simply leave the denomination.

Would all the marriages from that gay allowing church be null and void because they allow gays and dykes to marry?

Bace wrote:Would all the marriages from that gay allowing church be null and void because they allow gays and dykes to marry?

Null and void says who?

I don't understand your question.


Jsc, God gave one marriage standard.
Man, in his perversion, has invented many others - and we see them in the Bible.
Just because we see something within the Bible doesn't mean it is of the standard which God established for us.

It should be noted, also, that there are MANY horrendous perversions of man shown throughout the Bible, and yet we don't see an example of man going so far as to think that he should actually marry another man.

That is just how far off the cliff current humanity is.

Jsc wrote:But merely because your religion prohibits same sex marriages does not mean that you get to impose that policy on the rest of us.

poptart wrote: I don't care if two people find someone to "marry" them.
It's not my business.
I don't think the government should be involved in marriage at all.

poptart wrote:

Bace wrote:Would all the marriages from that gay allowing church be null and void because they allow gays and dykes to marry?

Null and void says who?

I don't understand your question.

some people interpret the same scripture a different way than you. are all weddings, whether they be dull or fabulous, performed in their churches to be considered marriages or are they some lesser civil unions?

Papa Willie wrote:

trev wrote:

smackaholic wrote:
My daughter is an attractive young lady. Takes after her momma. Therefore, I am certain many old perverts guys my age, as well as younger and older guys have looked at her with impure thoughts. And I am fine with that because I understand that most men are, shall we say, "good heteros", meaning they can look and maybe even have a thought or two, but not act on that thought. If they were to act on that thought, well, I'd just have to fukking kill them.

Why is this simple shit hard to understand?

And what if your beautiful daughter came home tomorrow with a female partner? You would love her just the same and accept both of them. Correct?

But do you WANT your kid to be gay?

Does anybody in here WANT your kid to be gay?

I don't think anybody WANTs their kid to be gay.

It would be pretty cool if smackaholic's was, though.