BajaNomad - Mexico reaffirms gay marriages. Not hard to be more enlightened than California.

Mexico reaffirms gay marriages. Not hard to be more enlightened than California.

Pages: 1 2

bajabass - 8-19-2010 at 05:04 PM

OK, we are sounding a little more reasonable now. I thought we were headed for off topic for sure! :lol:

Even Mr. Bill toned it down a little.
Old Lady, I can't wait until we are neighbors, I think I'll learn a lot, and test your tolerance.

k-rico - 8-19-2010 at 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DENNIS

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico

Why be opposed to love and commitment, that's crazy.

Who's opposed to that? Let's all love and commit. Do we have to have the government bless this union?

Churches do the blessing and that's up to them. I think government should apply the laws that distinguish single people from married people equally, regardless of gender.

redhilltown - 8-19-2010 at 05:36 PM

I'm reminded of a cartoon I once saw which showed an elderly couple in their living room reading the newspaper. Woman says "Now gays want to marry? Haven't they suffered enough already?"

As for Mr Bill...he is the only person on the thread so far to really go off track with such words as "anus", "balls", and "butt pluggers" when the issue was marriage and prop 8.

Seems a bit obsessed...

DENNIS - 8-19-2010 at 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by redhilltown
As for Mr Bill...he is the only person on the thread so far to really go off track with such words as "anus", "balls", and "butt pluggers" when the issue was marriage and prop 8.

Seems a bit obsessed...

He has his own way of expressing himself. He won't respond to challenges and is usually right with his comments.
I don't know anybody here who would or could go head to head with him.
That said, you don't have to agree with him. I often think he's full of sht, but there will be no response to a rebutal.

Just accept his knowledge and hate him as you feel appropriate. Any response other than quiet acceptance will be met with derision the quality which you've never seen.

Good luck in your decision to carry on......or not.

[Edited on 8-20-2010 by DENNIS]

vgabndo - 8-19-2010 at 06:22 PM

It seems to boil down to the same old problem of one part of the population which is willing to grow, learn, experiment, accept new things and remain open to understanding having a fundamental disagreement with those who align themselves with a bizzare bronze age myth and who try to enforce some constantly changing set of values on EVERYONE else.

It is impossible to have a rational argument with a Christian. If one's opponent was rational, they wouldn't be a Christian.

So it becomes necessary to protect our godless constitution ALL THE TIME because of the Christian dominionist threat and the horrible damage already done. When the Christian mob (Congress) got the chance to support the Baptist church and put their god on our money in 1864, the constitution meant NOTHING. When in 1954 the same Christian mob decided to follow the example of the Catholic Knights of Columbus and make our flag pledge a religious statement the constitution meant nothing. When these issues went before SCOTUS, that (previously) exclusively Christian body did all in its power to protect their own religion at the cost of freedom for the rest of the citizens.

The Mexican government has one thing much more right than the U S of A. While they may be predominantly Christian, they DO have seraration of church and state. We do not.

An atheist was recently elected to head the government of Australia. Christianity is in decline all over the world. There is hope for rationality, but in this country it is a faint hope and the opponents have a long and dismal history of killing those who disagree with their dogma. The perfect example is the history of the Irish Catholics and Protestants butchering each other for generations while waving the same irrational bible overhead!!! How in "god's" name could that possibly happen among rational people????

There can be little hope for peace and understanding until these "chosen" people run their course.

For some reason I'm reminded of a line from the 50 year old Mad Magazine. "Fools rush in.............and get the best seats."

[Edited on 8-20-2010 by vgabndo]

Woooosh - 8-19-2010 at 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken Bondy
It astonishes me that christians can emphatically claim that homosexuality is an abomination, on the basis of what their bible says (Leviticus 18:22), and at the same time reject other things that are clearly advocated and justified by their religion, like slavery (Leviticus 25:44), selling your daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7), killing someone who believes in some other god (Deuteronomy 13:7-17), killing those who work on the sabbath (Exodus 35:2), and killing your kids for talking back to you (Leviticus 20:9 and Exodus 21:17). Where's the consistency in that? Seems like one should not cherrypick the bible, it should either be accepted in its entirety or rejected in its entirety.

[Edited on 8-19-2010 by Ken Bondy]

I wish there was a "standing ovation" icon for that post. Thanks.

Woooosh - 8-19-2010 at 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by redhilltown
I'm reminded of a cartoon I once saw which showed an elderly couple in their living room reading the newspaper. Woman says "Now gays want to marry? Haven't they suffered enough already?"

As for Mr Bill...he is the only person on the thread so far to really go off track with such words as "anus", "balls", and "butt pluggers" when the issue was marriage and prop 8.

Seems a bit obsessed...

Maybe a weekend with a dominatrix would solve the curiosity. Are either of those pretty gals in the photo a few pages back available?
:saint:

Mexico is not perfect

Lee - 8-19-2010 at 06:51 PM

Quote:

Good observation. Some Nomads have obsessions. Toilet humor is harmless.

Now back to the subject of this thread: Mexico -- a gay haven?

Gays can marry and adopt kids but abortion is illegal? Scratching my head on this one.

''Argentina this year passed a law allowing gay marriage nationwide, the first such measure in the region. Neighboring Uruguay allows same-sex couples to adopt under civil unions, but not to marry.

Mexico City's bill was pushed through by leftist Mayor Marcelo Ebrard, who has backed other liberal measures like the legalization of abortion, which remains illegal in most cases across the rest of the country.''

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6745RD20100805

DENNIS - 8-19-2010 at 06:58 PM

Gewwwwwwwwdammmmmmmmmm...Who cares?

vgabndo - 8-19-2010 at 08:06 PM

Lee...equating Bill's well documented history of anti-social stands, and his proud collection of "isms" to potty humor is hardly in balance.

He does serve a purpose. It is important, IMJ, for people with an interest in culture to know that there are indeed radical extremists out there reacting like him.

I generally think most about him when I go to the polls and personally cancel HIS vote. I only regret that I have only one vote to give for my country. Sorry Nate!

[Edited on 8-20-2010 by vgabndo]

DENNIS - 8-19-2010 at 08:10 PM

Shallow victory, Perry. I'll betcha Bill knows how to vote forty times. :lol:

Jes kiddin, Bill.

oldlady - 8-20-2010 at 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DENNIS
Shallow victory, Perry. I'll betcha Bill knows how to vote forty times. :lol:

Jes kiddin, Bill.

Not that tricky....any community organizer like ACORN can help.

DENNIS - 8-20-2010 at 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pompano
Mulege has been a GAY HAVEN for as long as I can remember...

I thought Santa Rosalia was the Laguna of Baja???

Who said I was opposed?

wessongroup - 8-20-2010 at 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico

Quote:

Originally posted by wessongroup
Folks it's about money... it really not that complicated...

Same sex couples that feel a deep emotional bond and want that bond recognized in the same manner done so by opposite sex couples as a true commitment to sharing their lives together might argue with you about the importance of the money aspect.

Why be opposed to love and commitment, that's crazy.

Me personally, have stated before... Government has no business in OUR personal lives, for anything that does not hurt anyone else ... and again this is not about love, committement, flowers, bridal veils, people throwing rice or any of that... can already be done..

The true arugument about "rights" are about the "Rights which I posted above"... its about money... simply stated...

Most of these other issues deal with personal feelings in reaction to homosexual couples “doing” what all couples do … have intimacy .. (or many do, there is a movement toward celibacy for obvious reasons)

I have had many gay friends in my life, and still do, I do not care one damn bit how they wish to live their life, it's their business in my book... and have never ever questioned why they lived that way... I just enjoyed their company... and some great times.. two guys I met at work were gay, my wife and I went to HI with them for two weeks.. one of the guys mom and dad lived there with others from the family.. it was a great family and one of the best times we ever had... sex did not enter into one damn thing... a sign of affection by two men, does not bother me one damn bit... or two women

It does bother me.. that an argument is being used, to get money ..... and a smoke screen of issues are being used which is not being honsetly presented ... it is about the money... a surviour homosexual marraige can not get after death of a "spouse"... at this time ...... now its that simple..

All the other blah, blah, most gays can and do deal with it on a daily basis since there was a religion, which said it was a no-no ... however, at the end.. when one dies.. the division of assessts by current law (Government) does nothing for the survior in the "marriage" as the marraige is not recognized for the following:

1. Denied the Social Security survivor benefits that are made available to all married couples;

2. Heavily taxed on any retirement plan – 401(k) or IRA – they inherit from their partners, although married spouses can inherit these plans tax-free; and

3. Charged an estate tax on the inheritance of a home, even if it was jointly owned – a tax that would not apply to married spouses.

And if you think this is not the issue, change the current law that the spouse in a “recognized marriage” Will be treated under the following conditions, and lets see what happens….

1. Denied the Social Security survivor benefits that are made available to all married couples;

2. Heavily taxed on any retirement plan – 401(k) or IRA – they inherit from their partners, although married spouses can inherit these plans tax-free; and

3. Charged an estate tax on the inheritance of a home, even if it was jointly owned – a tax that would not apply to married spouses.

:lol:

and again, can hardly wait for the division of property, children and all the rest... when these come up for divorce ....

oldlady - 8-20-2010 at 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by wessongroup
The true arugument about "rights" are about the "Rights which I posted above"... its about money... simply stated...

It does bother me.. that an argument is being used, to get money ..... and a smoke screen of issues are being used which is not being honsetly presented ... it is about the money... a surviour homosexual marraige can not get after death of a "spouse"... at this time ...... now its that simple..

All the other blah, blah, most gays can and do deal with it on a daily basis since there was a religion, which said it was a no-no ... however, at the end.. when one dies.. the division of assessts by current law (Government) does nothing for the survior in the "marriage" as the marraige is not recognized for the following:

1. Denied the Social Security survivor benefits that are made available to all married couples;

2. Heavily taxed on any retirement plan – 401(k) or IRA – they inherit from their partners, although married spouses can inherit these plans tax-free; and

3. Charged an estate tax on the inheritance of a home, even if it was jointly owned – a tax that would not apply to married spouses.

And if you think this is not the issue, change the current law that the spouse in a “recognized marriage” Will be treated under the following conditions, and lets see what happens….

1. Denied the Social Security survivor benefits that are made available to all married couples;

2. Heavily taxed on any retirement plan – 401(k) or IRA – they inherit from their partners, although married spouses can inherit these plans tax-free; and

3. Charged an estate tax on the inheritance of a home, even if it was jointly owned – a tax that would not apply to married spouses.

:lol:

and again, can hardly wait for the division of property, children and all the rest... when these come up for divorce ....

Bingo!

DENNIS - 8-20-2010 at 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pompano

Merely a training center....

Gay Basic Training? What'll they think of next. Oh...I know. Gay Marriage Tourism. :lol:

yeah...but i always say...

capt. mike - 8-20-2010 at 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pompano
Mike...I sense that you have rung the death knell on this thread...

go out with a laugh!! hahahahaha.

mtgoat666 - 8-20-2010 at 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Woooosh
There shouldn't be any economic benefit or penalty associated with marriage- and why discriminate against single people?

many laws were created to impose social policy on the masses. laws favoring spousal inheritance w/o taxation, mortgage interest deduction, dependant tax credits, etc, etc. all are govt controls of the masses. single childless people living in rentals should rise up in revolt. married people that own houses and breed like rabbits do so by foisting their tax obligations onto single childless renters. we need a progressive flat tax, and repeal all tax deductions and tax credits.

****************** get out of everybodies bedrooms. it is ridiculous that the US allows christain right to try to impose social policy via discriminatory laws.
the constitution and amendments were written to avoid tyrants imposing their whims on monorities. (the term tyrants includes *******************************)

***********************************************************

[Edited on 8-24-2010 by BajaNomad]

DENNIS - 8-20-2010 at 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666
the masses.

WOW....That term took me back to a time when I read "The Naked Communist."
An Orwellian flashback.

Pompano - 8-20-2010 at 11:36 AM

Are we the 'masses?'

"We have met the enemy..and he is US." - Pogo

Pogoisms

MrBillM - 8-20-2010 at 11:57 AM

In what must be an enormous fount of knowledge, isn't it odd that the only pearl of Pogo anyone quotes is the "Enemy" one ?

AND, it's secondhand.

After all, "We are our own worst enemy" (in various forms) predates the cartoon character by a bunch.

Bajahowodd - 8-20-2010 at 12:54 PM

I think that the reason the 'enemy' quote is still remembered is that it is quite profound. Most of Walt Kelly's work was published so many years ago, that the majority alive today never read it. I will say, though, that for many years Kelly produced some of the finest political satire that there has ever been.

A Profound Thought ?

MrBillM - 8-20-2010 at 01:30 PM

OK, but it's NOT his Thought.

Just as FDR's "Fear" Quote and JFK's "Ask Not".

All just "re-worded" something that already existed.

Without attribution.

capt. mike - 8-20-2010 at 02:02 PM

"Well...yes. A laugh WOULD have been nice.

So to fill in for your lame joke, here's one: "

well who cares really? it was funny when i 1st heard it and every other one i told it to thot so as well. i actually cleaned it up a bit for all the white bread members here... hahaha.

mtgoat666 - 8-20-2010 at 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBillM
Not anytime soon, Hopefully.

At least, not before November.

Whatever else Eventually happens in the courts, right now this is an issue which is working in our favor.

what issue is that, hate?

hate may work for you in november due to economy and the unemplyed and underelmployed looking for a scape goat for their ills, but hate may not be much of a foundation for keeping office through following elections or after economy turns

TMW - 8-21-2010 at 09:09 AM

Hate? I don't think it's hate, that's your line of work. People are hungry for change. Change for the good.

capt. mike - 8-22-2010 at 07:05 AM

too bad Killer from Santispac isn't alive anymore...he'd be a RIOT on nomads.

Pompano - 8-22-2010 at 07:34 AM

I felt the same way as you, Lee. Until I got so damned sick of hearing all the one-way trirades that were interjected into almost every other thread on this site. That's why I posted my thoughts in the above post...but I will respect your wishes and delete it..even though it just gives fuel to the following, I'm sure.

I am a lover of Baja first and foremost...and could care less about promotoing my point of view on politics.

In fact, I will just delete all my posts on this thread..adios..sniff, sniff..snort

What was the name of that other Baja Forum again?? :rolleyes:

[Edited on 8-22-2010 by Pompano]

Ken Bondy - 8-22-2010 at 07:46 AM

Lee I don't see how you can post a topic like this:

"Mexico reaffirms gay marriages. Not hard to be more enlightened than California."

...and not expect that it would lead to a discussion about politics.

Lee - 8-22-2010 at 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken Bondy
Lee I don't see how you can post a topic like this:

"Mexico reaffirms gay marriages. Not hard to be more enlightened than California."

...and not expect that it would lead to a discussion about politics.

Can we be clear here?

This is about MX politics and California politics as it involves gay marriage.

Or, if we follow your logic, it's a informational thread about gay marriages in Mexico City AND the United States National Guard moving in to defensive positions along the California border.

IT's NOT ABOUT U.S. POLITICS!

Why is that a problem?

Ken Bondy - 8-22-2010 at 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lee
Or, if we follow your logic, it's a informational thread about gay marriages in Mexico City AND the United States National Guard moving in to defensive positions along the California border.

Huh?

DENNIS - 8-22-2010 at 08:12 AM

Threads morph....that's what they do. Especially when everything imaginable has been said a few times on the same subject.
It's hard to imagine what the board would be like if it was against someones rules to stray from the subject. It just isn't the way we communicate. In fact, dialog isn't the structure here as much as monologue, which is by far the predominant posting technique. People here post mostly just to hear themselves talk.

Everyone relax. Threads have lives. When they've run their course, they die. It's my opinion that they shouldn't be kept on life support.
Grieve.......and move on.

mtgoat666 - 8-22-2010 at 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lee

Quote:

lee,
if you would post a cute picture of a puppy dog, the nomads would change their mood and have a love fest, they would ooh and aah over your cute puppy and send you hugs and kisses.
but if you post a thread about gay political issues, well, you will draw out every homophobe in baja and the US to expound on obama and every other crank issue of the day, because they have no credible argument against gay marriage rights. the modus operandi here is to debate gay marriage by trying to change the subject to obama's birth certificate and stimulus deficit spebding

Stereotyping!

toneart - 8-22-2010 at 10:37 AM

That is what this string has evolved to.

On the Left: The Goat

On the Right: Practically all of them; especially the quotations attributed to Robt. A. Hall

As to taking it to Off topic, it is dominated by the extreme Right Wingers. No rational, objective debate occurs there, with the exception of perhaps, Old Lady. I don't mean she is right. I am just saying that she has demonstrated a sincere desire to debate her point of view without an agenda of hate.

Lee has posted on a provocative topic. It is naive to think that polarized opinions will not follow. I do understand Lee's wish that politics do not enter this debate, but was too late as soon as he pushed the Send button.

So, as Dennis says (I am paraphrasing, so no quotes), take your lumps. Every string has a life of its own and will eventually die.

My personal political opinion is that the Homophobes keep this string going. For the rest of us...WHO CARES, except for the countering of ignorant statements :?:

Pompano - 8-22-2010 at 11:54 AM

Goat..stop by my place in Coyote Bay..,kilometer 108..I'm easy to find. Would like to meet you...please stop by..please.

You can entertain an old man and I can help you with your choice of options.

redhilltown - 8-22-2010 at 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by oldlady

Quote:

Originally posted by redhilltown
Dear Old Lady:

"Your" god has nothing to do with "our" monetary policies.

Do you have an issue with reading for understanding or are you just Deiphobic?

Say what???

But I was a bit peey so I apologize. Would be nice though if the thread stayed on course (and I didn't mean to separate your name for any reason!... You may be an old lady and call yourself an old lady, but I would never do it!) "God" knows I'm old enough

oldlady - 8-22-2010 at 02:37 PM

Redhilltown,
Thank you, it's appreciated. I used the G word only as a figure of speech.
The old lady "issue" comes up once in a while. Separate if you like, others do worse.

back at ya.

[Edited on 8-22-2010 by oldlady]

Pompano - 8-22-2010 at 03:14 PM

I have met oldlady..trust me, she's a lady, but not old..nor even olde. :wow:

DENNIS - 8-22-2010 at 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lee
Hey Dennis? Can I quote you? Do you care?

Quote:

Originally posted by DENNIS
Gawwwwwwwwdammmmmmmmmm...Who cares?

Feel free, Mr. Lee, or reasonable, if that's more in tune with the times. :biggrin:

.

[Edited on 8-22-2010 by DENNIS]

Fess up

Lee - 8-22-2010 at 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DENNIS
I am so completely sick and tired of seeing demonstrations and parades with a bunch of dancing poodles and overweight, female lumberjacks waving rainbow banners. Let them do what they want to do, but keep it out of my face.

Have you had a close or recent negative experience with a female lumberjack?

Also, how do you mean ''keep it out of my face?''

Like, on TV? Or do you mean at a Pride Fest?

DENNIS - 8-22-2010 at 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lee

Also, how do you mean ''keep it out of my face?''

Like, on TV? Or do you mean at a Pride Fest?

TV is close enough for me. I have no business at a pride anything. The government can tell me what I have to put up with, but they won't tell what I have to agree with.
It's a personal thing that I usually keep to myself. I have no axes to grind.

Beware

MrBillM - 8-22-2010 at 08:29 PM

AND avoid ANYONE who seems to have TOO much knowledge of those Queer Fests.

IF unavoidable to be around, be careful not to turn your back.

redhilltown - 8-22-2010 at 10:53 PM

Can't we all just watch Project Runway and get along?

DianaT - 8-23-2010 at 10:58 AM

Pompanos post was interesting because there are thing there that almost anyone can agree.

It was also a pretty clear picture of much of the ********** spin on things, whether true or not.

It would be easy to counter every one of the I am tireds with a completely different take---

But, even with that, still have not seen one rational argument against granting civil rights to the gay community.

And the argument of unintended consequences is one of those stawman aruguments. Of course there might be unintended consequences, there alway are. For instance, when women were granted the right to not be discriminated against financially, there was the unintended consequence of inflation, especially in the housing market as more people qualified for home loans (the woman's income used to not be counted even if she was the sole wage earner) The rise in home prices hurt some, so should these civil rights be taken away from woman?

Still would like to see ANY rational reason for denying gays the right to marry.

[Edited on 8-24-2010 by BajaNomad]

Let's tell it like it is

Lee - 8-23-2010 at 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DianaT
Still would like to see ANY rational reason for denying gays the right to marry.

I grew up in San Francisco. If you didn't know someone who was gay, you had to be a hermit or monk. Even San Francisco is divided on gay issues but the gays have a strong political machine working for them. Half the City is blue collar conservative. Hate Crimes still take place.

Reasons conservatives don't want marriage rights for gays:

1. Gay marriage would devalue the ''sanctity'' of marriage (for het couples).

2. God intended marriage only for procreation and that can only take place between a a male/female.

3. If gays married, everyone would want to be like them.

4. Gays/lesbians are perverted and a ''abomination.'' That means they are not of sound mind.

5. If gays married, they'd end up marrying goats, sheep, and their dogs. That would be morally wrong.

6. Gay sex is a moot point: what do women do anyway? And men? Can't even go there.

7. Since the conservative element wanting to deny gay marriage and accompanying rights are too conservative to ''appreciate'' diversity, anything different from conservative, christian values would be irrelevant.

8. Gays (homos) are pedophiles and are only interested in ''converting'' children to their lifestyle.

9. The gay lifestyle is disgusting to look at, much less contemplate. Conservatives are not interested in looking at anything gay related and are not interested in rights for anyone who isn't heterosexual, ''straight'' in appearance, and ''fits in.''

10. Lesbians do not NEED men, and many do not like or tolerate men. What's in it for men?

11. Men, generally, do not like any women who aren't feminine and submissive, esp. in the bedroom. That rules out all lesbians.

12. Gay men are only interested in indiscriminate and anonymous sex. Clearly a deviant and corrupt behavior.

13. Gays choose a flamboyant lifestyle. They would show up most het couples and that would be wrong.

14. Het men would be threatened by any gay man finding them attractive. Totally unacceptable.

More?

The Heart Wants What the Heart Wants

Gypsy Jan - 8-23-2010 at 12:31 PM

"The heart wants what the heart wants," said Woody Allen in justifying his affair with Mia Farrow's adopted daughter.

wessongroup - 8-23-2010 at 12:39 PM

Believe they can be currently married both civilly and within churches ... however.. reoccurring theme of "civil rights" as couched within your and many others argument ... are not really telling the true point of this drill.... MONEY .... presently this is the situation for survivors of a "gay" marriage as viewed by YOUR GOVERNMENT and the three points have nothing to do with civil rights... rather MONEY... who get the "money" and/or "assets" of the "marriage"...

1. Denied the Social Security survivor benefits that are made available to all married couples;

2. Heavily taxed on any retirement plan – 401(k) or IRA – they inherit from their partners, although married spouses can inherit these plans tax-free; and

3. Charged an estate tax on the inheritance of a home, even if it was jointly owned – a tax that would not apply to married spouses.

And if you think this is not the issue, change the current law so that ALL spouses in a “recognized marriage” will loose the monies from the three items outlined above and lets see what happens….

If folks would be a bit more honest, perhaps.. all this Blah, Blah, Blah would drop off pretty fast...

"the pump don't work cuz the vandals took the handle"

DENNIS - 8-23-2010 at 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lee

10. Lesbians do not NEED men, and many do not like or tolerate men.

Gosh, Lee....You make it sound like Muslims and Infidels. Now I'm going to have nightmares about Rosie O'Donnell.
Oh...yeah....I already do. :barf:

DENNIS - 8-23-2010 at 12:47 PM

Maybe they should all be rounded up and taken by train to Manzanar. There must be a little wedding chapel in there somewhere. :lol:

I'm getting in the mood for some mindless gay-bashing. Anybody want to join me? It's our right, ya know. I'd hate it if someone told me I couldn't excercise my rights.

Queerly Unabashed

MrBillM - 8-23-2010 at 02:27 PM

They are difficult to Bash.

If you were to say "Shove it up YourAss", they'd say "been there, done that".

TMW - 8-23-2010 at 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DENNIS

Quote:

Originally posted by Lee

10. Lesbians do not NEED men, and many do not like or tolerate men.

There use to be a truck around the corner from me that had a sticker on it that said ["cover me in honey and throw me to the lesbians"].

I have no ideal if it was a man or woman who drove the truck.

Bajahowodd - 8-23-2010 at 03:29 PM

Gonna give Lee a pass on that list, considering it must be tongue in cheek. The items are either irrelevant, spurious, or clash with constitutional provisions, especially those connected to religious dogma.

Interesting to see that died in the wool homophobic Mr. Bile hanging around this thread, as he usually concentrates spewing his hate and racism in off-topic.

DianaT - 8-23-2010 at 04:48 PM

Quote:

But I think he covered every argument I have ever heard against gay marriage. Great list, Lee---it really says it all.

wessongroup - 8-23-2010 at 05:37 PM

bag of hammers

DianaT - 8-23-2010 at 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wessongroup
bag of hammers

tis good you keep up on the more modern insults.

toneart - 8-23-2010 at 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
Gonna give Lee a pass on that list, considering it must be tongue in cheek. The items are either irrelevant, spurious, or clash with constitutional provisions, especially those connected to religious dogma.

Interesting to see that died in the wool homophobic Mr. Bile hanging around this thread, as he usually concentrates spewing his hate and racism in off-topic.

I am guessing that Lee's list contain the stereotypical, ignorant beliefs that Wing Nuts espouse, rather than originating from him.

Lee needs to be clear about this. Otherwise it represents his own belief system. I can't believe that it does. Although a moderate conservative, Lee has shown some good sense through the years here. He did indeed hit all the those dumb buttons but I have to believe Lee is smarter than that. Say it isn't so, Lee! :?:

wessongroup - 8-23-2010 at 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DianaT

Quote:

Originally posted by wessongroup
bag of hammers

tis good you keep up on the more modern insults.

good that your current too

Getting it STRAIGHT ?

MrBillM - 8-23-2010 at 09:29 PM

Means supporting the ANALysts ?

No Thanks.

It's actually too bad that the whole AIDS thing didn't work out better.

[Edited on 8-24-2010 by MrBillM]

DENNIS - 8-24-2010 at 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DENNIS

Quote:

Originally posted by Lee

10. Lesbians do not NEED men, and many do not like or tolerate men.

There use to be a truck around the corner from me that had a sticker on it that said ["cover me in honey and throw me to the lesbians"].

I have no ideal if it was a man or woman who drove the truck.

Hey....I didn't say that.

Cutting the Lesbians some slack

MrBillM - 8-24-2010 at 09:14 AM

Except the ones who find Rosie attractive. They're obviously BADLY disturbed .

Paul Newman's character in "Slap-Shot" pretty well described the conflict felt regarding Male Fags v. Lesbos. After all, the Lezzies aren't doing anything to a woman that guys wouldn't like to. As far as we know. The Male Queers are a different story. That Anal-Probing along with the "Tea-Bagging" is Pretty STRANGE.

One thing I've always been curious about was the Lezzie rejection of Male Intercourse coupled with their fascination and enthusiastic use of Over-Sized imitation male Phalli. It seems odd.

Have there been any studies done regarding percentages and motivations ? Dildo- Riders as a percentage of the total versus those who are strictly Lap-Lickers ?

Perhaps (as so often said by the Libs) IF we understood their aberrations better, there would be a greater coming-together.

OK, they don't want to COME Together with us, but you know what I mean.

[Edited on 8-24-2010 by MrBillM]

Pages: 1 2