RE: Homo-phobic and then some (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


DupedDom -> RE: Homo-phobic and then some (3/19/2008 1:38:47 PM)

Shoot em if they run, is a good philosophy, worked well when Frank Rizzo was mayor of Philadelphia.

I do not see any reaon why the state should not recognize same sex marriages. Churches, that is a different thing. A church should be able to choose who they marry, the state should have some provisions for people of the same sex that are long term partners and need to deal with property issues and other legal issues.

Call me a homo-phobe, I love my gay neighbors but I believe that the lifestyle is immoral.

I also have some guns that were handed down to me and I intent to keep them, in my home for protection.

And for the Bear, Breeder?? How many people in heterosexual relationships have sex for reproductions sake??? You like labels??? I can imagine that close minded people have alot of names for homosexuals as well.




Gwynvyd -> RE: Homo-phobic and then some (3/19/2008 2:00:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LovingD0m

America should be a country where we have the right to choose, not a country where we absolutely must agree 100% with the masses. I think one country already tried that it kinda failed remember stalin? Hitler? Marx? they tried the same thing. Anyway respect my right to disagree with you and I will respect your right to practice as you see fit im not against homosexuality im against homosexuals saying you must accept me. Well fact of the matter is you accept my right to not accept you and i will accept your right to hate me for bein a bigotted racist. Otherwise this becomes a country where only the homosexuals have rights and freedoms the rest of us "normal" ppl (whatever that means) can only live by what the homosexuals legislate we can live by.

PS dont jump on the normal word in the post i know it will be hard but what a person in a BDSM lifestyle considers normal is usually an act of prostitution under most states laws so dont pick out the normal word and say "what is normalcy" {In my best Mr. Garrison voice}



wow rewind 60 years ago.. and that is exactly what they said about the blacks.. and that they ( if we allowed them to have equal rights and all) would start making laws and crazy shit.. and the whites would be the minority. The blacks would make all the laws and the whites would have to live by them because they would "out breed" them.

Niiiice. Good to see a predictable patern at least.

Gwyn




Gwynvyd -> RE: Homo-phobic and then some (3/19/2008 2:15:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19

Of course most of American government doesnt want gay marriage. Why? because its unholy? No! It adds a larger chunk that Businesses small and large will have to pay. now they have the family of the hetro couple. But to have the partner of gay couples will indeed cost more. less profit. Less profit, umhappy businesses. That in turn means less contributions to those in office. Also, lobbyists of big business lobby against this kind of stuff.


How right you are....

The govt would have to pay benifits for govt. employees.. ( not to mention state and local govt.) and as far as helathcare goes in the private ssector my partners healthcare is reported as _Earnings_ on my payroll, and I am taxed on it. If you are straight and married you are not taxed on it.. the company pays the taxes.. and they do not report thier part of the coverage as your _earnings_ This makes some people tax brackets go up.. which means more money for the govt. ~ I wrote a thread about this when the rules came out on this and my checks looked funny. They even began taking our son's insurance stuff _after_ taxes. ~ and I am the birth mother. The amount of money the govt saves by disenfranchising the GLBT crow is substancal.

Gwyn




domiguy -> RE: Homo-phobic and then some (3/19/2008 2:17:14 PM)

DupedDom is from Florida...Anyone see a pattern emerging here?

quote:

DupedDom
Call me a homo-phobe, I love my gay neighbors but I believe that the lifestyle is immoral.

I also have some guns that were handed down to me and I intent to keep them, in my home for protection.

And for the Bear, Breeder?? How many people in heterosexual relationships have sex for reproductions sake??? You like labels??? I can imagine that close minded people have alot of names for homosexuals as well.


You are a homophobe. You like labels? and..."You can imagine that close minded people have a lot of names for homosexuals as well"...WOw you are a creative sort....C'mon...It doesn't take much imagination and you seem to fit the bill quite nicely so what are they?

Here, I'll even give you a hand on your way...Dirt burglar...Rump ranger...C'mon...I know you will be able to come up with a few.





faerytattoodgirl -> RE: Homo-phobic and then some (3/19/2008 2:21:28 PM)

quote:

And I can get the Gender Recognition Certificate without having reassignment surgery.


you can get your m changed to an f without surgery?? holy shit... not here you cant...fat chance of that ever happening...im stuck with an M even though i am intersexed.





Gwynvyd -> RE: Homo-phobic and then some (3/19/2008 2:34:36 PM)

aww com'on Domi.. not all of us in Florida are losers... Ok.. just a large portion.

That is why they want to pass through that admendment 2 in Nov. those fucking cock suckers.

It will even screw over all the little grandmas and grandpas living "in sin" that is how far out there these folks are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IHdaJOZe7E

Gwyn




AquaticSub -> RE: Homo-phobic and then some (3/19/2008 2:34:49 PM)

~Fast Reply~

The only reasons I've heard to ban gay marriage are religious, therefore they are worthless in a government that believes in seperation of church and state. Not that it actually fucking happens, but I can dream.




pissdoll -> RE: Homo-phobic and then some (3/19/2008 2:40:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AquaticSub

a government that believes in seperation of church and state


ha. the separation of church and state really only meant that the U.S. wouldn't have one official religion (such as Church of England).
because if there's anything we know about our government, it's that God has His hand in every pocket.




AquaticSub -> RE: Homo-phobic and then some (3/19/2008 2:43:37 PM)

Eh... I keep hoping. It's better than other places and the law allows for very unpopular religions to do animal sacrifice as long as the animals are treated well beforehand and are only sacrificed in particular ways. Now if we could just get the Boy Scouts to either let homosexuals in or stop accepting federal money and meeting in public schools...




faerytattoodgirl -> RE: Homo-phobic and then some (3/19/2008 2:44:00 PM)

wow...your tiny... your picture is almost a full size pic! [8|][8|]




pissdoll -> RE: Homo-phobic and then some (3/19/2008 2:47:38 PM)

:) you just made me LOL.

and i agree about the boy scouts.


do you know what would happen if the girl scouts kicked out all of the lesbians?


(crickets & tumbleweeds)






pissdoll -> RE: Homo-phobic and then some (3/19/2008 2:50:48 PM)

that's because i'm almost a full size woman




(hmmm, so does that mean if i ride you, i don't have to recycle my newspaper anymore?)




beargonewild -> RE: Homo-phobic and then some (3/19/2008 2:53:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pissdoll


quote:

ORIGINAL: chiaThePet

Why the hell would they want to get married?

Fifty percent of marriages end in miserable failure.



why shouldn't homosexuals have the right to be as miserable as "breeders"?


Nah we get more miserable because we have to put up with backwards thinking




faerytattoodgirl -> RE: Homo-phobic and then some (3/19/2008 3:01:49 PM)

riding me means no cost or use of gas...unless i fart.... so it saves the environment.

and its freaken hard  to tell a boyscout that so and so is actually a girl cause its hella easy for a girl to pass off as a boy.




pahunkboy -> RE: Homo-phobic and then some (3/19/2008 3:01:58 PM)

umm.  the "B'' word is --   well   rude.  I apoligise  that it came up.  

People need people.   Being devisive only backfires.    Again, I aploigize for the B word.




colouredin -> RE: Homo-phobic and then some (3/19/2008 3:07:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: beargonewild

Nah we get more miserable because we have to put up with backwards thinking



Dont we all though




aviinterra -> RE: Homo-phobic and then some (3/19/2008 3:32:56 PM)

This reply is to no one in particular, just an observation on what I have been reading on this thread.
I have noticed that people tend to get upset when homosexual couples demand a right to marriage- note the use of the term marriage. Most 'normal' people favor giving homosexual couples civil unions- that is, they get ALL the beneifts that 'normal' couples get at work and in govt. The word marriage has religious connections, hence it leads back to various churches, most of which view marriage as a sacred 'ok' for a couple to start having kids. Since two men or two women can't produce kids, they can't marry. I kind of wonder at the insistance of the homosexual rights groups that the word marriage has to be used- it should properly be an insistance on the right to have civil unions, since that is what the govt. can give a couple. A church is a private thing, the govt. can't force it to marry just anybody.
As for the business aspect of this, I can see the rational of business owners not wanting to pay for more benefits, esp. the small employers. Hiring a worker is extremely expensive ( worker's comp, liability, benefits, etc.) that at some point it ceases to be helpful to the business and hence a job position is gone from the market ( in terms of large corps. moved overseas ). Each problem has two faces, either we go all capitalistic in our country, or go to a more social model, but being in between is not working currently.




thornhappy -> RE: Homo-phobic and then some (3/19/2008 3:45:37 PM)

I've read somewhere (maybe the lawyers can pipe up), that some civil unions lack the full effects of a marriage.

thornhappy




sirsholly -> RE: Homo-phobic and then some (3/19/2008 3:50:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: aviinterra

Most 'normal' people favor giving homosexual couples civil unions- that is, they get ALL the beneifts that 'normal' couples get at work and in govt. The word marriage has religious connections, hence it leads back to various churches, most of which view marriage as a sacred 'ok' for a couple to start having kids. Since two men or two women can't produce kids, they can't marry.


i am not nit picking here, and did not read the entire thread, but one statement here caught my eye. Marriage is the sacred ok to start having children and gays/lesbians can't have children so marriage is vetoed.
If there is a church out there that is hiding behind this then how can they justify marrying infertle couples? Should those men and women remain forever single?





LadyEllen -> RE: Homo-phobic and then some (3/19/2008 3:51:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: faerytattoodgirl

quote:

And I can get the Gender Recognition Certificate without having reassignment surgery.


you can get your m changed to an f without surgery?? holy shit... not here you cant...fat chance of that ever happening...im stuck with an M even though i am intersexed.




Hi Faery - yep, you just have to convince the Gender Recognition Panel that you've lived as female for a certain period or that for medical/age reasons it would be unreasonable to undergo SRS.

In the meantime its been no problem to get my driving licence changed (the numbers are ordered differently for M and F), passport, banking, utilities, insurance etc changed to show Ms or F. But my Birth Certificate says M, so it would be off to a male prison I'd go........ what fun!

I cant understand why with all the changes we've had here certainly, the intersexed seem to have been ignored and left behind whilst we're getting progress. Mind you its so difficult to get information on intersex matters so I dont know if my impression is accurate?

E




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125