T1B

Liberal...??

Uh, so, I don't really care if you are lesbian or gay. As a matter of fact, you could be a very good person and be gay. Or you could be a pedofile, conservative, white male and I hate you. No, I don't feel like "I'm not there yet." I am still for you to get off your ass an not depend on the government to take care of you.

trev wrote:Liberal...??

Uh, so, I don't really care if you are lesbian or gay. As a matter of fact, you could be a very good person and be gay. Or you could be a pedofile, conservative, white male and I hate you. No, I don't feel like "I'm not there yet." I am still for you to get off your ass an not depend on the government to take care of you.

liberal is a political group.

homophobia is an approach to an issue. got nothing to do with party affiliation.

I know, right?

Except, in general, libs are pro-gay and conservatives are like against all that gay stuff.

trev wrote:Liberal...??

Uh, so, I don't really care if you are lesbian or gay. As a matter of fact, you could be a very good person and be gay. Or you could be a pedofile, conservative, white male and I hate you. No, I don't feel like "I'm not there yet." I am still for you to get off your ass an not depend on the government to take care of you.

You're welcome...

trev wrote: libs are pro-gay and conservatives are like against all that gay stuff.

One more drink... and you're over the fence

OK. Thank you. It's still so early for you. To be so high...........

trev wrote:OK. Thank you. It's still so early for you. To be so high...........

You're welcome... and is that a verse from a country song or self-reflection ?

Looks like we have another "passed out" victim from southern California....



Good times...







Unit 2 sucks...

I don't think "conservative" means what you think it means.

To a conservative (like myself) a persons home is their castle, and they're free to do whatever they please in it with other consenting adults, including buggery.

Not sure how "radically religious" became confused with "conservative," since the "religious right" is an EXTREMELY liberal sect.

Turn off the stupid news channels, and crack a dictionary sometime.

The Fillmore... says hi





Good times...








Unit 2 sucks...

Dinsdale wrote:To a conservative (like myself) a persons home is their castle, and they're free to do whatever they please in it with other consenting adults, including buggery.

I'm not sure if Dinsdale just came out of the closet there.
I'll leave it to The Deciders.

:wink:


Actually, "buggery" was universally NOT allowed anywhere in America (not even the privacy of one's own home) - up until the latter part of the 20th Century, when the Supreme Court became, you know, oh so wise.

In fact, sodomy was a FELONY in every state up until 1962.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law ... ted_States

So you might re-think your "I'm the real conservative" perspective on this one, Dins.

Unless you want to declare that beginning with the founding of the nation ---> and for 200 years, the conservative point of view was kept locked up, only to be unleashed by judges in the last 40 years.

Yeah, sure, that sounds very likely.

haha

Dan Savage may have some things he can speak with genuine knowledge about (maybe, I dunno), but the Bible sure isn't one of those things.

In that three+ minute clip, he embarassed himself completely, and virtually any first year Bible student would recognize it.

Believers in Christ are not bound by the laws given in the Old Testament. duh



Why aren't we stoning sluts?... blah blah blah...

LOL


What a loudmouth dumbass he is.

I am libertarian/conservative.

I thing anyone should be able to do pretty much anything with other consenting adults.

Where I differ with libs is that I think it is fukked up to make me accept it as normal and pass laws forcing me to treat them as normal, because, well, they're not fukking normal. Even if they were, I still have the freedom to associate with whom I please for whatever fukked up reason I pick.

If a private group like the boyscouts wants to say they will not allow gays to be scout leaders, that should be their be decision.

Out of the closet gays should not be allowed to serve in the military for reasons that are blatantly obvious to anyone who has ever served. For that matter, women's roles in the military should be limited for practical reasons.

smackaholic wrote:
Out of the closet gays should not be allowed to serve in the military for reasons that are blatantly obvious to anyone who has ever served. For that matter, women's roles in the military should be limited for practical reasons.

So, the military should be an "all-boys-club" of deeply closeted pillow-biters...


Yeah, that's not a deeply latent homosexual fantasy at all...

Jsc810 wrote:

poptart wrote:Believers in Christ are not bound by the laws given in the Old Testament. duh

Right. We ignore the bullshit in the Bible.

Nice leap...

A Bible believer's recognition that homosexuality is not desirable is not based just on Old Testament Law.

The recognition begins early in Genesis and goes right on through into the New Testament.


Rather than "ignoring bullshit in the Bible," I prefer to ignore those like Dan Savage who make bullshit up about the Bible.

You can do whatever you want.

What a fucking mess you all are...

Dinsdale wrote:I don't think "conservative" means what you think it means.

To a conservative (like myself) a persons home is their castle, and they're free to do whatever they please in it with other consenting adults, including buggery.

Not sure how "radically religious" became confused with "conservative," since the "religious right" is an EXTREMELY liberal sect.

Turn off the stupid news channels, and crack a dictionary sometime.

Okay, if you want to play that game . . .

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservative?s=t

con·serv·a·tive [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] Show IPA
adjective
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.

3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.

4. (often initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.

5. (initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.

6. having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.

7. Mathematics . (of a vector or vector function) having curl equal to zero; irrotational; lamellar.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal?s=t

lib·er·al [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Show IPA
adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.

4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.

8. open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.

10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.

11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.

12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.

13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.

Okay, with that framework in mind, show me exactly how the Religious Right is "liberal" in any sense. Meanwhile, definition 1 of "conservative" would tend to fit them, or at least their perceptions of themselves, particularly with respect to homosexuality. You see, they remember a day when homosexuality "didn't exist." Of course, it did, but back then (again according to the Religious Right), homosexuals knew their place, which was "in the closet." It most certainly didn't involve any type of demand for equal rights. And of course, their opposition to said equal rights puts them quite squarely against defitions 1, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of "liberal."

To be fair to you, you're espousing the Goldwater brand of conservatism, whereas Poptart is espousing the Reagan brand of conservatism. But in case you missed the memo, it was the Reagan brand that won out.

smackaholic wrote:Where I differ with libs is that I think it is fukked up to make me accept it as normal and pass laws forcing me to treat them as normal, because, well, they're not fukking normal. Even if they were, I still have the freedom to associate with whom I please for whatever fukked up reason I pick.

The problem with that is that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the states from passing any laws that would abridge the "privileges and immunities" of its citizens. That includes homosexuals. Put another way, no one really gives two shits whether you wish to socialize with homosexuals. But you can't deny them employment, housing, etc. on that basis.

Out of the closet gays should not be allowed to serve in the military for reasons that are blatantly obvious to anyone who has ever served.

I suspect a similar argument was raised against integration of the military when Truman decided to integrate the troops. Of course, time and history proved that Truman was right.

Let me help you out here...

M2 wrote:What a fucking mess you all are...

This is the essence of World Jewry...

...to debase all non-Jews with every form of impurity (drugs, homosexuality, depravity of spirit...etc..) so that we may break communion with God, His Son, The Holy Spirit.
From there, we are to accept our roles as animals and in their eyes, serve their needs as animals serve human beings...without want of recompense or even mercy.



BTW ~ this is not poptart

Martyred wrote:

smackaholic wrote:
Out of the closet gays should not be allowed to serve in the military for reasons that are blatantly obvious to anyone who has ever served. For that matter, women's roles in the military should be limited for practical reasons.

So, the military should be an "all-boys-club" of deeply closeted pillow-biters...


Yeah, that's not a deeply latent homosexual fantasy at all...

Smackaholic's Navy - rum, buggery and the lash.

Mikey wrote:
Smackaholic's Navy - rum, buggery and the lash.

That's a bit of an outdated notion.
It'll probably be guys like mv running across a battlefield in cut-off jean shorts and shirtless, squirting their "enemies" with super-soakers filled with banana daquiris.

:o

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

smackaholic wrote:Where I differ with libs is that I think it is fukked up to make me accept it as normal and pass laws forcing me to treat them as normal, because, well, they're not fukking normal. Even if they were, I still have the freedom to associate with whom I please for whatever fukked up reason I pick.

The problem with that is that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the states from passing any laws that would abridge the "privileges and immunities" of its citizens. That includes homosexuals. Put another way, no one really gives two shits whether you wish to socialize with homosexuals. But you can't deny them employment, housing, etc. on that basis.

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.

Out of the closet gays should not be allowed to serve in the military for reasons that are blatantly obvious to anyone who has ever served.

I suspect a similar argument was raised against integration of the military when Truman decided to integrate the troops. Of course, time and history proved that Truman was right.

That same tired old argument just doesn't fly. There is a huge difference between white/black and straight/gay. The bottom line is, it will cause problems that are very deep seated and won't be gotten past over time, as have the white/black thing in the military.

I don't even care if a boy scout leader is gay/lesbian. Why not teach the boys acceptance? Besides, it's the married males that are the pedophiles. I realize the boy scouts have the right, as they are a private organization. I have 2 Eagle Scouts by the way. Religion is part of boy scouts, but we managed to get our boys thru without being religious.

trev wrote:I don't even care if a boy scout leader is gay/lesbian. Why not teach the boys acceptance? Besides, it's the married males that are the pedophiles. I realize the boy scouts have the right, as they are a private organization. I have 2 Eagle Scouts by the way. Religion is part of boy scouts, but we managed to get our boys thru without being religious.

Acceptance of what? Getting fukking the arse or maybe having their salad tossed?

No thanks.

smackaholic wrote:

trev wrote:I don't even care if a boy scout leader is gay/lesbian. Why not teach the boys acceptance? Besides, it's the married males that are the pedophiles. I realize the boy scouts have the right, as they are a private organization. I have 2 Eagle Scouts by the way. Religion is part of boy scouts, but we managed to get our boys thru without being religious.

Acceptance of what? Getting fukking the arse or maybe having their salad tossed?

No thanks.

I don't remember ever discussing with kids what I do sexually.

Have you?

Jsc810 wrote:

smackaholic wrote:That same tired old argument just doesn't fly. There is a huge difference between white/black and straight/gay. The bottom line is, it will cause problems that are very deep seated and won't be gotten past over time, as have the white/black thing in the military.

And if you think you can articulate valid reasons why constitutional rights should be denied to homosexuals, feel free to try. Take your time.

Could you cite me the amendment where service in the military is a right?

The military exists for a reason. Staffing it with people that are most likely to accomplish the mission without issues is of prime importance. It is why recruits are screened. Having women in units causes major problems, no matter how much te=he pols and bootlicking flag officers tell you otherwise.

I served on an all male ship fortunately, but, even then, women were on non-combatants and the problems that came with these co-ed crews were widely known.

The bottom line is, an all male unit will perform better because all manner of issues are not there. Beyond the social interaction issues, there is plain old logistics, which anyone with a bit of knowledge about military history knows, is HUGE. Armies have failed throughout history simply because they could not keep themselves supplied.

trev wrote:

smackaholic wrote:

trev wrote:I don't even care if a boy scout leader is gay/lesbian. Why not teach the boys acceptance? Besides, it's the married males that are the pedophiles. I realize the boy scouts have the right, as they are a private organization. I have 2 Eagle Scouts by the way. Religion is part of boy scouts, but we managed to get our boys thru without being religious.

Acceptance of what? Getting fukking the arse or maybe having their salad tossed?

No thanks.

I don't remember ever discussing with kids what I do sexually.

Have you?

You don't.

I don't.

Can't speak for others. What I do know is gay guys have a thing for other guys. And spare me the "only other gay guys" BS.

Knowing this, I'd rather not send my 13 year old son on a sleepover with some authority figure who may or may not think he's kinda cute.

Is this really that fukking hard to understand?

It is hard to understand. I really don't think being gay increases your chance of being a child predator.

trev wrote: I really don't think being gay increases your chance of being a child predator.

Who knows? But since Chip brought up Savage, let's take a look at what this fine upstanding citizen thinks about pedophiles. Hey, they aren't all bad.
http://www.rpvnetwork.org/profiles/blog ... pedophiles

Maybe he just had a brain fart when he wrote that. Let's look at some of his past actions, shall we? Licking door knobs to infect people he disagrees with. Lovely.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... Gary-Bauer

Yeah, this guy is who we need speaking to children.

Why does it not surprise me that you speak out against door knob licking but not pedophilia? Spin it however you want, this guy is a sick, demented individual who has no business speaking to a group of kids. But feel free to dig a deeper hole for yourself.

I disagree with anyone normalizing any aspect of pedophilia in any way, shape or form. If you have a desire to have sex with kids, you should be put away for life.

I'm good with that too.

I'll run with the blow the brains out too.

trev wrote:It is hard to understand. I really don't think being gay increases your chance of being a child predator.

Are you that fukking stupid or is it the popov?

Let's try a slightly different hypothetical.

You have a 15 year old girl scout. Her scout leader got run over by a bus and you need a new one pronto to take her on an overnight camping trip. Your prospective leaders are myself and my wife. We are both more or less normal hetero types?

Who ya gonna pick?

If you pick me, yer a dumb ass, because, being a hetero dude, there's a pretty fair chance I'll be eyeballing you little girl. Being a non POS, I won't act on it, but, still, it will be best for all involved if you just have mrs smack do it. i promise you, there will be no shenanigans or even thoughts of such.

Here is the dumbed down bottom line. Sex drive is a mofo. You deal with it by controlling situations using your best judgement and the vegas line on what could happen. Having a dude who admits to having a thing for other dudes be in charge of your 156 year old son over night is pretty much allowing the fox to watch the hen house. There is no huge advantage to letting him do it, so don't.

End of fukking story.

BTW, Dan Savage's logic regarding the "good" pedophile follows this perfectly.

You are a guy with a thing for guys?

Don't babysit young guys.

smackaholic wrote:

You are a guy with a thing for guys?

Don't babysit young guys.

So it's OK to babysit old guys?

Mikey wrote:

smackaholic wrote:

You are a guy with a thing for guys?

Don't babysit young guys.

So it's OK to babysit old guys?

If you are a chicken hawk, it probably would work out.

smackaholic wrote: there's a pretty fair chance I'll be eyeballing you little girl. Being a non POS, I won't act on it, but, still, it will be best for all involved if you just have mrs smack do it.

Are you outting yourself as a good pedophile?

smackaholic wrote:Having a dude who admits to having a thing for other dudes be in charge of your 156 year old son over night is pretty much allowing the fox to watch the hen house.

Just wanted to send out a pre-emptive "go fuck yourself" to shutyomouth.