T1B

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."

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?

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."

But thats California for you. I am getting that much closer to leaving this fucked up state.

Dinsdale wrote:The Gay Rights Movement (which doesn't encompass all gays) doesn't want "equal rights," they want "extra rights."

This.

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.

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.

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."

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?

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.

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...

LTS TRN 2 wrote:why isn't Abe Lincoln included in the gay studies?

Because he wasn't gay...

Any other questions?

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."

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.

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.

Fags gentrify blighted neighborhoods.

Then they start running pride parades down the middle of those neighborhoods. I don't think "gentrified" means what you think it means.

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.

Exactly.

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.

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.

Jsc810 wrote:

She probably thought she was safe from beatings by going with a white guy but that blockhead looks like asphyxiates her nightly.

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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

Dr_Phibes wrote:...bearded junkies screaming 'FUUUCCKKK!!' outside your window all night.

Dinsdale wrote:(it's Portland -- you're not a "real gay" if you don't remove the seat on your bike).

No charge.

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.

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.

Regardless, whatever they net from it, the gangbangers whack them over the head and take it.

This is a sweet hood.

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.

R-Jack wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:(it's Portland -- you're not a "real gay" if you don't remove the seat on your bike).

No charge.

Really? I just thought people did that to discourage stealing your bike. Whoops!

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.

Gentrification is economics and class. People here get their panties bunched over race and it's just not the case.

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.

Screw_Michigan wrote:Gentrification is economics and class.

Yeah...stay classy, fags.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

R-Jack wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:(it's Portland -- you're not a "real gay" if you don't remove the seat on your bike).

No charge.

Really? I just thought people did that to discourage stealing your bike. Whoops!

Scewey's just been outted as a bike thief.

LTS TRN 2 wrote: As a bonus, here's Bachmann hiding at a gay rights rally--look, she's squatting behind the bushes...

really

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...

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.

Bizzarofelice wrote: really

How dare you question it?

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.

Martyred wrote:

"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."

Dinsdale wrote:lurk in bushes

rack all Cinder's Crabs resets

mvscal wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:why isn't Abe Lincoln included in the gay studies?

Because he wasn't gay...

Any other questions?

Yeah, explain this..

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.

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.

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.

Wait -- a career academic wrote something outrageous and unsupported to chase a grant?

Maybe I should get a grant to write a book with outrageous accusations about his book.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:As for Lincoln's wife, Baker believes she knew nothing of her husband's purported relationships with men.

Of course she didn't because there weren't any.

"I think that his homosexuality was not noticed by either his wife, or many of his friends

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?

mvscal wrote:Well who gives a fuck about facts as long as it advances the academic's lust for recognition agenda, right?

Fixed

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

No, that really isn't enough to account for a systematic hatchet job. There is an agenda at work beyond simple attention whoring.

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.