T1B

Not to make light of the chosen lifestyle, but is it a brain disease like alcoholism? I know VALVENIS used the very tired and offensive homosmack jargon like the following: butt-pirate, rump ranger, full-on butt-slamming flaming homo and other offensive terms.

After you reply I'll tell you why I ask.

TIA

Well since you're an attorney and have a family member that's gay, why did they reclassify it?

Interesting. Now, I have another closely related question. Subject being gay rights and marriage. I'm told the reason that gay couples can't get legally recognized is because of health insurance costs and benefits in case a "partner" would get hospitalized and waste tax payer dollars. Is that true?

Atomic Punk wrote:but is it a brain disease like alcoholism

Your rampant alcoholism is not a disease. Just because your daddy made you dress in women's clothes and used to beat/rape you, doesn't mean your pickled brain is diseased. Much like your odd choices in attire, getting all ass-plastered on 17 wobbly pops is a choice you make to cope with the abuse. PTSD and morally repugnant? Maybe. But not diseased.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:

Atomic Punk wrote:but is it a brain disease like alcoholism

Your rampant alcoholism is not a disease. Just because your daddy made you dress in women's clothes and used to beat/rape you, doesn't mean your pickled brain is diseased. Much like your odd choices in attire, getting all ass-plastered on 17 wobbly pops is a choice you make to cope with the abuse. PTSD and morally repugnant? Maybe. But not diseased.

I'm asking Jsc a serious question and YOU of all people chime in defensive on a discussion about homosexuality. You see Jsc is educated and you aren't. You get defensive and chime in when others give a legit take on how many push-ups they really can do versus your bragging and lying how many YOU can really do.

Now I respect those that work out here and have completed the P90X program and am set to start again Monday.

Atomic Punk wrote:Not to make light of the chosen lifestyle, but is it a brain disease like alcoholism? I know VALVENIS used the very tired and offensive homosmack jargon like the following: butt-pirate, rump ranger, full-on butt-slamming flaming homo and other offensive terms.

After you reply I'll tell you why I ask.

TIA

Atomic Punk wrote:Well since you're an attorney and have a family member that's gay, why did they reclassify it?

Atomic Punk wrote:Interesting. Now, I have another closely related question. Subject being gay rights and marriage. I'm told the reason that gay couples can't get legally recognized is because of health insurance costs and benefits in case a "partner" would get hospitalized and waste tax payer dollars. Is that true?

Looks to me like Atomic Panties is about to come prancing out of the closet.

Yeah, this is going to end well for At Least I'm Not Him.

Ah the atomic punk is just back from a booze cruise, and look what is foremost on his mind.

He's asking a serious question if it's ok for him to come out as a corn hole artist, receiver style.

Now what kind of cruise did you say that was?

What I wanted to know is...........what the fuck is the point of this thread? Not the point of the subject matter. This thread.

Yeah, yeah, I get that AP wanted a lawyer's opinion about gay rights and healthcare. I'm not even going to go the obvious route one would with Anatomically Perplexed and the subject matter. I want to know what's with the cryptic bullshit of "answer this for me and I'll tell you why" "reply to me so I can give you the reason I asked". Just start a fucking thread about gay marriage and how it relates to healthcare or PM jsc if you don't want to deal with the obvious pile on.

Get to the point in your first post instead of acting like some pseudo-elusive faggot. The subject matter is strong enough to merit its own dialogue, or at least interesting enough to want to read mvscal's take.

Jsc810 wrote:different than

AARRRRRGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!

That's twice in a day...

Stop it.


Similar TO...

Different FROM


OK, I feel better now. Just a grammatical pet peeve of mine.

Okay, thanks for the explanation (in all seriousness due to some lesbian friend I know that strips for food and used the word "consortium" as she wears a ring for her g/f... no lie) ... but I also need to address those here that discount what you've said due to the nature of this board.

Now I've outed a few confirmed homosexuals on THIS board that hopefully understand their legal rights and I really feel sorry for ucunt not being able to legally conduct sodomy for life with KC Scott. Pretty sad the SCOUS doesn't let them ass-tag each other and perforate each others colons due to "free will" (Rush song) as they lustfully yearn for freedom to really express their hidden emotions due to fear of not being accepted in society or this board.

Thanks bro!

Atomic Punk wrote:Now I've outed a few confirmed homosexuals on THIS board

One jumps to mind very quickly.

Atomic Punk wrote:lesbian friend I know that strips for food and used the word "consortium" as she wears a ring for her g/f... no lie

The insane train wreck that is your life extends to your circle of fliends as well? I speak for the board when I say I am just shocked.

Jsc810 wrote: My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right.

R-Jack wrote:I speak for the board when I say I am just shocked.

Well, if you are married to a farm animal you shouldn't be throwing stones in a glass hay storage house. But that's just my opinion.

I was wanting to ask if those men with high-pitched voices and/or lisps are genetically programed to lust after other men, but you had to ruin this thread with another shitty response. It's okay. Take your time and then admit you got married to cover up what your inner sinful lusts are telling you.

Why are you so defensive? What are you hiding?

@Jsc, since we have so many that like to converse with other males here, I thought Prop 8 was defeated.

Atomic Punk wrote:I was wanting to ask if those men with high-pitched voices and/or lisps are genetically programed to lust after other men

This is what you're thinking about on a Thursday morning?

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.

Atomic Punk wrote:I'm asking Jsc a serious question and YOU of all people chime in defensive on a discussion about homosexuality.

I chimed in about your alcoholism. I don't you don't read too often, but you can read, right?

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:I don't you don't read too often, but you can read, right?

I read a lot, but I'm still struggling with this sentence.

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.

Ummm.... so you ask the 'dog killer' multiple questions about gays because you're concerned about jobs in America and think gays are going to want to hit it harder so they won't have to work due to a health care initiative ?

am I actually following this correctly ?

Goober McTuber wrote:

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:I don't know you don't read too often, but you can read, right?

I read a lot, but I'm still struggling with this sentence.

I guess I don't proofread my responses often enough either.

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 not a smart person.

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.

Naturally. That's because so many of their membership are Anal Interlopers themselves

M2 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.

Ummm.... so you ask the 'dog killer' multiple questions about gays because you're concerned about jobs in America and think gays are going to want to hit it harder so they won't have to work due to a health care initiative ?

am I actually following this correctly ?

Not unless you've also pounded down a quart of vodka today.

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.

Cuda wrote:

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.

Naturally. That's because so many of their membership are Anal Interlopers themselves

But how many of them are colored, Cuda?

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.

How many liquor stores did you close down before this started to look like a rational line of thinking?

White Cock wrote:

Cuda wrote:

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.

Naturally. That's because so many of their membership are Anal Interlopers themselves

But how many of them are colored, Cuda?

Only the ones who mop up the jizz in their meeting rooms

Jsc810 wrote: Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.

A simple counter argument is the following: Anal copulation = zero population.

Jsc810 wrote:

88 wrote:Do you deny that the word "marriage" has, for years and years in California and most other states, been defined a legal relationship between one man and one woman?

You did not answer my question.

No, I do not deny that marriage has been defined in that way.

So what? It remains constitutionally flawed.

Really? And who's constitution would that be, Jsc? Latvia's?

Fortunately, Scalia disagrees with you when he opines that (the states have) "chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new “constitutional right” by a Court that is impatient of democratic change."

Seventy per cent of the electorate in Missouri decided the question democratically in 2004. What part of "it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best" do you struggle with?

Jsc810 wrote:The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Feel 'free' to blow your brains out, shyster.

Only a bunch of a weapons-grade fuckpuddles like Whitey, JSC and 88 could divert attention away from another AP self-inflicted pileon.

Gimme a break Bl0w, I'm still on my "Booze Cruise" out at sea near Cabo using VPN to log onto this bitch.

Screw_Michigan wrote:...another AP self-inflicted pileon.

AP showed up and asked for some clear, legalistic definitions and his presentation was focused (whether his agree with him or not) and well defined.

Some offered rational analysis...others just knee-jerked a "You're a fag" response.


'BODE AP.

Ahhh, since my eyesight is hazy now, I missed out on the lack of a pancake on top Screwball's shitty avatard.

MgBl0w, please accept my sincere apologies for saying something "mean" and not giving the proper recognition to not a confirmed homosexual but a confirmed idiot that has a thing for an old man called Goober. I hope you accept this apology Bl0w in light of the idiots that can't smack their way out of a wet paper bag.

Jsc810 wrote:If 70% of the voters in Missouri passed a law declaring Christianity to be the official religion of the state, would that be ok?

Typical horseshit dripping from your piehole but to answer your idiotic posturing... that question would never make it on the ballot in any state.

Or are there fundamental rights that individuals have that no law can impinge upon?

Is suicide against the law? I want you to have that right, even if it is unlawful.

Please, break the law.

Screw_Michigan wrote:Only a bunch of a weapons-grade fuckpuddles like Whitey, JSC and 88 could divert attention away from another AP self-inflicted pileon.

We drew straws for latrine duty and R-Jack got the short one this week. We'll make sure you get it next week since you seem to thrive on that sorta' thing.

Jsc810 wrote:You didn't answer the question.

Because the question is horseshit, a non-starter, that was made abundantly clear.

Jsc810 wrote:That the voters approved it is the extent of your analysis? If 70% of the voters in Missouri passed a law declaring Christianity to be the official religion of the state, would that be ok?

Or are there fundamental rights that individuals have that no law can impinge upon?

That doesn't have jackshit to do with fundamental rights. The 1st amendment specifically prohibits the establishment of religion.

The fact remains that these imaginary rights conjured from the due process clause of the 14th amendment are on very thin legal ice and are subject to change at any time.

Jsc810 wrote:At the Prop 8 trial, the supporters of the prohibition of same sex marriage tried to justify it. They failed.

A faggot judge ruled that a constitutional amendment was unconstitutional. Which is, of course, laughable.