
It is just disgusting
Moderator: Dux
-
- Top
- Posts: 1093
- Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 5:30 pm
Re: It is just disgusting
It's funny; with a username like Wild Bill I always imagined him being more like this:


Re: It is just disgusting
WildBill, The greatest male Olympian athlete ever is an American transgender.

Osama Bin Ladin was probably ventilated by a transgender

Our transgenders
your homophobes 8 days of the week. Deal with it.

Osama Bin Ladin was probably ventilated by a transgender

Our transgenders

Don’t believe everything you think.
-
- Sgt. Major
- Posts: 2710
- Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:25 am
Re: It is just disgusting
God Damn that is some weak gruel to sustain a man's life right there.
Pretty much par for yours and BCGAs courses though.
“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”
― George Orwell, 1984
Pretty much par for yours and BCGAs courses though.
“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”
― George Orwell, 1984
Re: It is just disgusting
Certainly the most fabulousHerv100 wrote:LOL at greatest American Olympian!
Don’t believe everything you think.
-
- Sergeant Commanding
- Posts: 5884
- Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:29 am
- Location: Surrounded by short irrational people
Re: It is just disgusting
We're all gay. Everyone but Russia is gay really if you think about it. :)Wild Bill wrote:i have a lot americans in friends there and in last to days revealed that about 90% of them are gays!!!SubClaw wrote:Said the russian girevik.Wild Bill wrote:The whole FB in rainbow flags!
Just kidding.
Everyone is excited because we're one step further away from being a theocracy. We have this stupid tradition of interpreting the Constitution through a biblical lens and although we always chant stuff like "Freedom!", many of our freedom chanters only support freedom if it doesn't make them feel icky. :)
Section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to our Constitution reads something like this: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So, most of us think that consenting adults have the right to be married to other consenting adults, especially since marriage provides a great number of protections to our citizens. So while some would consider it a slippery slope regarding other marriage arrangements, these are the protections previously denied to gay couples who wished to marry but could not:
Anyway, that's what's with all the rainbows. It really has little to do with gay sex.Death: If a couple is not married and one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items in the absence of a will.
Debts: Unmarried partners do not generally have responsibility for each other's debt.
Divorce: Unmarried couples do not have access to the courts, structure, or guidelines in times of break-up, including rules for how to handle shared property, child support, and alimony, or protecting the weaker party and kids.
Family leave: Unmarried couples are often not covered by laws and policies that permit people to take medical leave to care for a sick spouse or for the kids.
Health: Unlike spouses, unmarried partners are usually not considered next of kin for the purposes of hospital visitation and emergency medical decisions. In addition, they can't cover their families on their health plans without paying taxes on the coverage, nor are they eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage.
Housing: Denied marriage, couples of lesser means are not recognized and thus can be denied or disfavored in their applications for public housing.
Immigration: U.S. residency and family unification are not available to an unmarried partner from another country.
Inheritance: Unmarried surviving partners do not automatically inherit property should their loved one die without a will, nor do they get legal protection for inheritance rights such as elective share or bypassing the hassles and expenses of probate court.
Insurance: Unmarried partners can't always sign up for joint home and auto insurance. In addition, many employers don't cover domestic partners or their biological or non-biological children in their health insurance plans.
Portability: Unlike marriages, which are honored in all states and countries, domestic partnerships and other alternative mechanisms only exist in a few states and countries, are not given any legal acknowledgment in most, and leave families without the clarity and security of knowing what their legal status and rights will be.
Parenting: Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.
Privilege: Unmarried couples are not protected against having to testify against each other in judicial proceedings, and are also usually denied the coverage in crime victims counseling and protection programs afforded married couples.
Property: Unmarried couples are excluded from special rules that permit married couples to buy and own property together under favorable terms, rules that protect married couples in their shared homes and rules regarding the distribution of the property in the event of death or divorce.
Retirement: In addition to being denied access to shared or spousal benefits through Social Security as well as coverage under Medicare and other programs, unmarried couples are denied withdrawal rights and protective tax treatment given to spouses with regard to IRA's and other retirement plans.
Taxes: Unmarried couples cannot file joint tax returns and are excluded from tax benefits and claims specific to marriage. In addition, they are denied the right to transfer property to one another and pool the family's resources without adverse tax consequences.
Miss Piggy wrote:Never eat more than you can lift.
Re: It is just disgusting
Stay in your lane there, Oliver Wendell Holmes.syaigh wrote:We have this stupid tradition of interpreting the Constitution through a biblical lens and although we always chant stuff like "Freedom!", many of our freedom chanters only support freedom if it doesn't make them feel icky. :)
Section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to our Constitution reads something like this: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So, most of us think that consenting adults have the right to be married to other consenting adults, especially since marriage provides a great number of protections to our citizens.
"Know that! & Know it deep you fucking loser!"


-
- Sergeant Commanding
- Posts: 5884
- Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:29 am
- Location: Surrounded by short irrational people
Re: It is just disgusting
That is my non expert opinion on stuff I have feelings about. :)Protobot wrote:Stay in your lane there, Oliver Wendell Holmes.syaigh wrote:We have this stupid tradition of interpreting the Constitution through a biblical lens and although we always chant stuff like "Freedom!", many of our freedom chanters only support freedom if it doesn't make them feel icky. :)
Section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to our Constitution reads something like this: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So, most of us think that consenting adults have the right to be married to other consenting adults, especially since marriage provides a great number of protections to our citizens.
Miss Piggy wrote:Never eat more than you can lift.
-
- Sgt. Major
- Posts: 2710
- Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:25 am
Re: It is just disgusting
“Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.”Everyone is excited because we're one step further away from being a theocracy. We have this stupid tradition of interpreting the Constitution through a biblical lens and although we always chant stuff like "Freedom!", many of our freedom chanters only support freedom if it doesn't make them feel icky. :)
― George Orwell, 1984
Do the smiley faces mean you condescend to let me disagree for a little bit longer?

-
- Sergeant Commanding
- Posts: 8498
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 11:59 pm
Re: It is just disgusting
Divorce lawyers rejoice! Your pool of potential clients practically doubled overnight.
-
- Sergeant Commanding
- Posts: 8034
- Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:04 am
- Location: Deep in a well
Re: It is just disgusting
The new standard for disagreeing is that you are allowed to disagree until our betters declare the time for disagreeing to be over. After that point you are "denormalized". Your ideas become labeled as so far outside of the accepted mainstream that they become publicly disallowable.bennyonesix wrote:“Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.”Everyone is excited because we're one step further away from being a theocracy. We have this stupid tradition of interpreting the Constitution through a biblical lens and although we always chant stuff like "Freedom!", many of our freedom chanters only support freedom if it doesn't make them feel icky. :)
― George Orwell, 1984
Do the smiley faces mean you condescend to let me disagree for a little bit longer?
Most importantly, your disallowable views are viewed as morally reprehensible and mandate public punishment and humiliation by the new puritans in the public square similar to that inflicted by the old puritans. See Brendan Eich and the Indiana pizza shop owner, who hypothetically stated that she might be uncomfortable catering a gay wedding, as recent examples. The witch (non-gender specific) must be burned in the public square.
Mao wrote:Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party
-
- Sergeant Commanding
- Posts: 5884
- Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:29 am
- Location: Surrounded by short irrational people
Re: It is just disgusting
The twitter witch trials indeed. :)DrDonkeyLove wrote:The new standard for disagreeing is that you are allowed to disagree until our betters declare the time for disagreeing to be over. After that point you are "denormalized". Your ideas become labeled as so far outside of the accepted mainstream that they become publicly disallowable.bennyonesix wrote:“Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.”Everyone is excited because we're one step further away from being a theocracy. We have this stupid tradition of interpreting the Constitution through a biblical lens and although we always chant stuff like "Freedom!", many of our freedom chanters only support freedom if it doesn't make them feel icky. :)
― George Orwell, 1984
Do the smiley faces mean you condescend to let me disagree for a little bit longer?
Most importantly, your disallowable views are viewed as morally reprehensible and mandate public punishment and humiliation by the new puritans in the public square similar to that inflicted by the old puritans. See Brendan Eich and the Indiana pizza shop owner, who hypothetically stated that she might be uncomfortable catering a gay wedding, as recent examples. The witch (non-gender specific) must be burned in the public square.
Miss Piggy wrote:Never eat more than you can lift.
-
- Sgt. Major
- Posts: 2710
- Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:25 am
Re: It is just disgusting
Follow the Great but Lapsed American Tradition of MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!
Also, who cares?
Really? What is going on with you? Why do you care? You seem really worked up about this? No No No I am just concerned for you... You seem well really worked up to quite an extent about this and it I don't know seems weird???
http://time.com/3939143/nows-the-time-t ... titutions/
Also, who cares?
Really? What is going on with you? Why do you care? You seem really worked up about this? No No No I am just concerned for you... You seem well really worked up to quite an extent about this and it I don't know seems weird???
http://time.com/3939143/nows-the-time-t ... titutions/
-
- Sgt. Major
- Posts: 2710
- Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:25 am
Re: It is just disgusting
Who cares?
This is not a big cultural deal! What are you gonna get forced to be gay-married now?
http://fusion.net/story/158096/does-you ... ing-taxes/
This is not a big cultural deal! What are you gonna get forced to be gay-married now?
http://fusion.net/story/158096/does-you ... ing-taxes/
We’ll let you practice your bigotry, at least within the confines of your own church. But we’re not about to reward you for doing so.
Re: It is just disgusting
They always had the same rights as others.syaigh wrote:Section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to our Constitution reads something like this: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Each gay man has right to marry gay woman.
The same as all normal people.
This is just abomination. Who's next? Zoophiles? Pedophiles? They are also citizens of US and i am sure they are also want some rights.
All of you cheering about FREEDOM. Posting 1984 here... :)
But this is strange freedom for me.
If most of people of some state are against allowing gay marriages, but government order them to allow it. Is it freedom?
It is totalitarism like in 1984 wich bennyonesix likes to quote :)
This is not one step further away from being a theocracy. It is one step further away from being a normal society.
Re: It is just disgusting
A percentage of the population being gay is what is normal. A population of 100% hetero would be an outlier. Think about that.Wild Bill wrote:? Zoophiles? Pedophiles? They are also citizens of US...
This is not one step further away from being a theocracy. It is one step further away from being a normal society.
This stuff has gone on since forever. Our society is just now taking a wide stance on the issue and being honest about it and not pretending it doesn't happen.
Don’t believe everything you think.
-
- Sgt. Major
- Posts: 2710
- Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:25 am
Re: It is just disgusting
That was facile even for you. Do you really expect anyone to buy that? On either side? It is nonsense. This = pretending it doesn't happen? Ack you suck. I think you are the one with the "wide stance".nafod wrote:A percentage of the population being gay is what is normal. A population of 100% hetero would be an outlier. Think about that.Wild Bill wrote:? Zoophiles? Pedophiles? They are also citizens of US...
This is not one step further away from being a theocracy. It is one step further away from being a normal society.
This stuff has gone on since forever. Our society is just now taking a wide stance on the issue and being honest about it and not pretending it doesn't happen.
-
- Sergeant Commanding
- Posts: 5884
- Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:29 am
- Location: Surrounded by short irrational people
Re: It is just disgusting
Why? Two people want to consolidate their assets and support one another for the purpose of family, business, joint assets, medical power of attourney, power of attourney, etc. Should one group be able to do that with one legal act while others have to seek all those things independently at great expense?Wild Bill wrote:They always had the same rights as others.syaigh wrote:Section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to our Constitution reads something like this: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Each gay man has right to marry gay woman.
The same as all normal people.
This is just abomination. Who's next? Zoophiles? Pedophiles? They are also citizens of US and i am sure they are also want some rights.
All of you cheering about FREEDOM. Posting 1984 here... :)
But this is strange freedom for me.
If most of people of some state are against allowing gay marriages, but government order them to allow it. Is it freedom?
It is totalitarism like in 1984 wich bennyonesix likes to quote :)
This is not one step further away from being a theocracy. It is one step further away from being a normal society.
It really doesn't make sense. Gay couples have children, raise children, adopt children (when they can), why should they have more legal limitations on them than other couples simply because of the distribution of penises and vaginas?
Not trying to be ugly. Gay sex makes a lot of heteros uncomfortable and that's okay. Lots of things make us feel uncomfortable. i just don't think its grounds to grant one group legal rights and keep others from having those same rights.
Miss Piggy wrote:Never eat more than you can lift.
Re: It is just disgusting
Buy what? The fact that a pretty much statistically constant percentage of the population is gay?bennyonesix wrote:That was facile even for you. Do you really expect anyone to buy that? On either side?nafod wrote:A percentage of the population being gay is what is normal. A population of 100% hetero would be an outlier. Think about that.Wild Bill wrote:? Zoophiles? Pedophiles? They are also citizens of US...
This is not one step further away from being a theocracy. It is one step further away from being a normal society.
This stuff has gone on since forever. Our society is just now taking a wide stance on the issue and being honest about it and not pretending it doesn't happen.
Don’t believe everything you think.
-
- Lifetime IGer
- Posts: 21247
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
- Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan
Re: It is just disgusting
Uh, the courts are taking the stance, not our society. It's been shot down on pretty much every ballot out there. There's a sizeable silent majority on this issue.nafod wrote:A percentage of the population being gay is what is normal. A population of 100% hetero would be an outlier. Think about that.Wild Bill wrote:? Zoophiles? Pedophiles? They are also citizens of US...
This is not one step further away from being a theocracy. It is one step further away from being a normal society.
This stuff has gone on since forever. Our society is just now taking a wide stance on the issue and being honest about it and not pretending it doesn't happen.
It would be much better for gays and lesbians if it were settled by elected representatives or on the ballot, even if it took a little longer. It's a much better way to get the details right.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
-
- Sgt. Major
- Posts: 2710
- Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:25 am
Re: It is just disgusting
You argument is that the last year of political and cultural change = acknowledging a statistically constant % is gay.
Let's assume we all know that it is a statistically constant % and what "gay" means.
Let's assume we all know that it is a statistically constant % and what "gay" means.
-
- Sgt. Major
- Posts: 2710
- Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:25 am
Re: It is just disgusting
Utterly disingenuous. All non-"marriage" options were rejected by the Left. As was clear from Tony K's decision. The democratic process and the rule of law was also rejected by the Left and SCOTUS REX.syaigh wrote:Why? Two people want to consolidate their assets and support one another for the purpose of family, business, joint assets, medical power of attourney, power of attourney, etc. Should one group be able to do that with one legal act while others have to seek all those things independently at great expense?Wild Bill wrote:They always had the same rights as others.syaigh wrote:Section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to our Constitution reads something like this: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Each gay man has right to marry gay woman.
The same as all normal people.
This is just abomination. Who's next? Zoophiles? Pedophiles? They are also citizens of US and i am sure they are also want some rights.
All of you cheering about FREEDOM. Posting 1984 here... :)
But this is strange freedom for me.
If most of people of some state are against allowing gay marriages, but government order them to allow it. Is it freedom?
It is totalitarism like in 1984 wich bennyonesix likes to quote :)
This is not one step further away from being a theocracy. It is one step further away from being a normal society.
It really doesn't make sense. Gay couples have children, raise children, adopt children (when they can), why should they have more legal limitations on them than other couples simply because of the distribution of penises and vaginas?
Not trying to be ugly. Gay sex makes a lot of heteros uncomfortable and that's okay. Lots of things make us feel uncomfortable. i just don't think its grounds to grant one group legal rights and keep others from having those same rights.
You're superficial rationales are about 10 years out of date. You need to be careful or you will get dragged under by the flood.
This is about raw power which means stroking the Id until it lights up like The Las Vegas Strip.
Last edited by bennyonesix on Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Sgt. Major
- Posts: 2710
- Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:25 am
Re: It is just disgusting
You do not understand. This is a supra-democratic and supra-legal issue. Read Tony's opinion. The Dignity Right can not be subjected to the disgrace of either.Turdacious wrote:Uh, the courts are taking the stance, not our society. It's been shot down on pretty much every ballot out there. There's a sizeable silent majority on this issue.nafod wrote:A percentage of the population being gay is what is normal. A population of 100% hetero would be an outlier. Think about that.Wild Bill wrote:? Zoophiles? Pedophiles? They are also citizens of US...
This is not one step further away from being a theocracy. It is one step further away from being a normal society.
This stuff has gone on since forever. Our society is just now taking a wide stance on the issue and being honest about it and not pretending it doesn't happen.
It would be much better for gays and lesbians if it were settled by elected representatives or on the ballot, even if it took a little longer. It's a much better way to get the details right.
-
- Sergeant Commanding
- Posts: 5884
- Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:29 am
- Location: Surrounded by short irrational people
Re: It is just disgusting
I didn't reject them. IMO, marriage happens in a church, civil unions are recognized by law. Honestly, I'd be cool if gay couples could just have a civil union and if they find a church that officiates the ceremony, so be it. That's how the rest of us do it. But, honestly, we should have a legal only option for the legal benefits of marriage for people who don't subscribe to the limitations of religious marriage definitions.bennyonesix wrote:Utterly disingenuous. All non-"marriage" options were rejected by the Left. As was clear from Tony K's decision. The democratic process and the rule of law was also rejected by the Left and SCOTUS REX.syaigh wrote:Why? Two people want to consolidate their assets and support one another for the purpose of family, business, joint assets, medical power of attourney, power of attourney, etc. Should one group be able to do that with one legal act while others have to seek all those things independently at great expense?Wild Bill wrote:They always had the same rights as others.syaigh wrote:Section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to our Constitution reads something like this: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Each gay man has right to marry gay woman.
The same as all normal people.
This is just abomination. Who's next? Zoophiles? Pedophiles? They are also citizens of US and i am sure they are also want some rights.
All of you cheering about FREEDOM. Posting 1984 here... :)
But this is strange freedom for me.
If most of people of some state are against allowing gay marriages, but government order them to allow it. Is it freedom?
It is totalitarism like in 1984 wich bennyonesix likes to quote :)
This is not one step further away from being a theocracy. It is one step further away from being a normal society.
It really doesn't make sense. Gay couples have children, raise children, adopt children (when they can), why should they have more legal limitations on them than other couples simply because of the distribution of penises and vaginas?
Not trying to be ugly. Gay sex makes a lot of heteros uncomfortable and that's okay. Lots of things make us feel uncomfortable. i just don't think its grounds to grant one group legal rights and keep others from having those same rights.
You're superficial rationales are about 10 years out of date. You need to be careful or you will get dragged under by the flood.
You think I'm a liberal? I used to think I was a liberal. Just like many here thought they were conservatives before it became the great war of "thou shalt not offend" vs "legislate my version of morality!".
Miss Piggy wrote:Never eat more than you can lift.