Flame Away...

[Trey & Melissa Burns]

Tom: LOL One too many Red Bulls...Yeehawwww!?!

Blue: I do believe my position on this issue appears to be self explanatory? And I digress......Read Cosmo sometime - Size is really not all that important. Again its the way you use it.

Oh come on, who are you kidding?
Size does matter. If it is some tiny little thing he can know how to work it all he wants but it is not going to make a whole hell of a lot of difference to you.
But I am a Texan so I like everything BIGGER!

Eric - I see your point but the whole animal / human marriage does seem far fetched.
I understand that your point is when is enough really enough. If for those that gay marriage draws the line on crossing moral issues on marriage; than what is enough to draw the line on moral issues of marriage for those that think same sex marriage is fine?

Some gay people choose, most do not from my experience. People who get bent seeing two men kiss or express affection will often be the first to rent lesbian porn

In your experience, how/why do some become gay if they do not choose? Are you implying they are born that way?
I sometimes wonder if boys that are constantly babied (usually by their mother) can influence them in a certain manner. I do not look at it the same though for girls that are brought up tomboyish.


As far as two males I do find that disturbing to watch, see, witness, whatever you want to call it. However, I do not have that same feeling with two females.
I don't know why.



DiscoJen- That is an awesome quote. Janeane Garofalo is aweosme!

Melissa B. TX. RoverChic

 

[cptyarderho]

In your experience, how/why do some become gay if they do not choose? Are you implying they are born that way?

No I am plainly stating that some people are born gay. Watch the Discovery channel, they did a piece on what determines sexual orientation in the last year. They do not BECOME gay, some are gay right out of the box (punny)

As far as two males I do find that disturbing to watch, see, witness, whatever you want to call it. However, I do not have that same feeling with two females.
I don't know why.
Melissa B. TX. RoverChic

This kinda proves my point, it is really about the fact that it bothers you, not wether it is natural.

 

[Eric N.]

Yes, Chuck.. I never once mentioned anything about it being natural or not.. I have always said that I felt it is wrong. All my post have been about my feelings and my opinions. Someone else brought nature and every thing else in.


Yes, Melissa it is far fetched.. I'm not saying that it would ever actually be an issue but, who knows... 40 years from now we could all have some device that allows us and dogs to talk freely with each other and maybe some whacko will try to sue for human animal marriages. Only time will tell.. I'm bet back in the 50's and 60's they didn't ever think that gay marriage would come up either and here it is.. However, I wasn't alive back then so that is also my opinion.


So is Rosie O'Donald (sp) the gay version of M L King?

 

[Trey & Melissa Burns]

So is Rosie O'Donald (sp) the gay version of M L King?

Now that was a good one.
Melissa B. TX. RoverChic

 

[MarkP]

Somewhere back in this thread someone mentioned that gay rights are the same as the civil rights movement of the 60's. Well, Blacks do not like being compared to homosexuals. It sounds good and makes some feel good about today's social issues but there is little comparison.

The following items make me pause when considering gay "rights", particularly the ones aimed at tearing apart the fabric of family and society.

- Clinicians Mattison and Mcwhirter studied 156 long-term homosexual relationships, but found that not one couple was able to maintain sexual fidelity for more than five years. most maintained a monogamous relationship for less than one year. (The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop)

- In a study of 2,583 older homosexuals, "the model range for number of sexual partners was 101-500 (Paul Van de Ven "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Hoimosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354)

- According to the Centers For Disease Control, 50% of male homosexuals had over 500 sexual partners (Rotello, G. (1997). Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men. NY: Dutton)

- For homosexual men, the term "monogamy" doesn't necessarily mean sexual exclusivity. The term "open relationship" has for a great many homosexual men come to have one specific definition: A relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often, put away their resentment and jealously, and discuss their outside sex with each other, or share sex partners. (Michelangelo Signorile, Life Outside (New York: Harper Collins, 1997), p. 213)

- "Homosexuals model a poor view of marriage to children by teaching that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature, sexual relationships are primarilly for pleasure rather than for procreation, and monogamy in marriage is not the norm and should be discoiuraged if one wasnts a good 'marital' relationship." (Bradley P. Hayton, "To Marry or Not: The Legalization of Marriage and Adoption of Homosexual Couples," Newport Beach: The Pacific Policy Institute, 1993, p.9)

- Studies of previous civilizations reveal that when a society strays from the sexual ethic of marriage (a union between a male and a female), it deteriorates and eventually disintegrates. (J.D. Unwin, Sexual Regulatiuons and Human Behavior (London: Williams & Norgate, 1933)

- Paula Ettelbrick, former leagl director of the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, has stated "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so...Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society." (Paula Ettelbrick, quoted in William B. Rubenstein, "Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?" Lesbains, Gay Men, and the Law, (New York: The New Press, 1993), pp. 398, 400)

- According to homosexual writer and activist Michelangelo Signorile, the goal of homosexuals is : "To fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demad the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution...the most subversive action lesbian and gay men can underatke...is to transform the notion of 'family' entirely." (Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal wave," Out, Dec 1994)

It's no wonder that new AIDs cases are up 18% for homosexuals. One can also see that there is little / no similarity between the civil rights movement and the current gay rights agenda. The last two are most disturbing for the future of the family, the foundation of civilization.

More discussion at: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1275961/posts

 

[KEJ]

Hey, look! It's freerepublic.com again!

Maybe one reason gay marriage is so in our faces lately is because our president has beaten the drum on the thing until he squeezed every last fear vote out of it he could.

KJ

 

[Christopher]

That's what I was thinking too, but then the Left-ish Slate Magazine published this, on The Gay Marriage Myth. It seems that voter turnout in those states with a gay-marriage ban on the ballot wasn't significantly higher than in states without. The point of this article is that people are more scared of terrorists than gays.

 

[KEJ]

Christopher, point taken, but I submit that the gay marriage "threat" placed fear into the hearts of many in states that did not have that on their ballots. It was just another way that fear was ultilized to "stay the course" and re-elect Bush. Be afraid, be very afraid, of everything, and don't change horses in the middle of the mess they created. I've never seen such fear-mongering in my life.

KJ

 

[Eric N.]

Ya, from both sides of the debate floor too.. Don't sit there and just beet up Bush about it.. Kerry was riding the terror band wagon too. Both sides were.

It's nice to be out in the styx isn't it Karen.. Not having to worry about racine on the Metro, anthrax and racine at your wifes office building, constant building evacs, bomb threats, all that other crap that goes on every day... All that fun stuff that you don't have to worry about cause you aren't in a metro area.. Ya, why should you fear anything.. Is there even a nuke reactor near you? I think that there are two in this area. Either one would level the place. Crazy people are going for numbers of bodies not just certain high up people.. So ya, people should worry.. If it takes people being scared to actually pull their head out of their ass and look around once in a while I say scare the shit out them.. At least now that people are scared they are paying closer attention and hopefully I won't have to read about 300,000 people dying on metro durring rush hour or worse getting caught up in a radio active shit storm cause I wanted to have lunch with my wife.

I say scare em... scare them to death... To many people walking around here thinking that it will never to happen to them..

 

[KEJ]

Well, you haven't read much of what I've posted here in recent weeks, Eric. I DO live near a nuclear power plant. I live between Andrews Air Force Base (a nice target) and that plant. We had family friends die at the Pentagon. My geographic area has one road in and the same road out. I'm surrounded on three sides by water. Not good for evac. We always know when there's going to be a ramp-up in military activity because the flight patterns come right over our farm. That said, I'm not going to buy into all the fear-mongering and let that sway my thinking or my voting. I will consider my security, as I consider all issues, but I'm not going to jump up and swallow the shit sandwich like a trained animal.

KJ

 

[Eric N.]

How many times a week does the pentagon kick all it's workers out due to a threat? Just wondering since I don't know. Hart building downtown averages about once a week..

Didn't know about the reactor.. Good info to have.. As for the air base, do you really think the folks are going to go out and try to get people at an armed military base when they can take huge numbers of un armed, un trained, un prepaired everyday people.. They are going for the biggest bang for the buck that they can get.. They want to make a statment about how they can get back at the evil americans. I would do the same if I was in their shoes..

Kerry was putting it out there just as much as everyone else... I would much rather we fight them on their door step then on our own.. However, I didn't vote for Bush out of fear for anything.. I voted for Bush becuase Kerry's proved in the last ten years ( I say ten as that's as far back as I looked ) of being a senator that he is a liar by telling people he is going to stand by them and then screws them by voting against them. I also don't like his views on gun control and gay marriage.. You may be open minded about that sort of thing but, I'm not. That has already been dragged out so no need to go into that anymore. My mind is and has been made up about that.

 

[MarkP]

Hey, look! It's freerepublic.com again!

Yeah, the discussion mirrors DiscoWebs discussion, except with more facts.

Maybe one reason gay marriage is so in our faces lately is because our president has beaten the drum on the thing until he squeezed every last fear vote out of it he could. KJ

I don't think Bush has beaten the drum on this lately. I heard the same fear mongering from both sides. I have a different take on the reason more discussion is taking place. The big loser over the last several years has been the mainstream media. They no longer control the public discussion. In the past the media "discussion" always included the liberal and socialist agenda. It is the new media like DiscoWeb and FreeRepublic where real discussions are taking place. In this environment where one side no longer has control and data is persistent factual information is more available. So while you can criticize FreeRepublic, point me to a mainstream media site that raises these issues and presents a balanced discussion.

With or without Bush the cultural war would still be raging. Even the Democrat party now admits that the far left has siezed control of the party, to their detriment. Problem is, who will believe them when they come back 4 years from now and say they are moderates? In 4 years the mainstream media will be even less important. I read somewhere that the media bias accounted for a +15 percent boost for Kerry.

 

[stansell]

They can bark though.. Do you take this wacko to be your husband? woof woof woof.. I now pronouce you man and ah dog. Sure you could use the argument about the 60's, hippies in the 70's.. Hell you could apply it to whether you like peanut butter or jelly.. SO I guess the answer to my question of when is enough enough is never? Is that safe to say that you feel that there should never be an end to what people are allowed to do as long as they aren't killing someone or crimes like that? Do we need to allow every one every freedom that they want? Dogs can communicate to us and they can understand us as well.. You can't hold a conversation with them but, you can teach them to sit.. Should they get to be able to vote too? Some probably already have I'm sure..

Enough is never enough. Progress continues. Life evolves/grows (dependinging on your religious slant). Look back one hundred years and their standard of living and you will find yourself very happy to be living in todays world. Yes there are arguments today, but again, the arguments of one hundred years ago were just as virulent and angry (though perhaps a little more gentelmanly). Progress by and large is a good thing, and the bad parts...well that is why we have these types of discussions, to moderate progress with common sense.

On the topic of special rights. Well, I also am against special rights. I think we should repeal all federal and states privileges handed out to groups, including marriage. Why do we need em except as an excuse to give lawyers more work. If people want special recognition of a union between man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, go to a church. The reason I am against all special rights is that it causes inevitable conflict between people by creating the feeling they are being 'excluded'. Damn, when did I turn into a libertarian. LOL.

 

[Blue]

No I am plainly stating that some people are born gay. Watch the Discovery channel, they did a piece on what determines sexual orientation in the last year. They do not BECOME gay, some are gay right out of the box (punny)

But I read on the internet that people choose to be gay. Who do I believe? TV or the internet? What's a boy to do?

 

[Blue]

WOW Blue you can look up definitions on the internet, boy am I impressed. Where is the definition of brocolli? Why didn't you include that? Do you "fear" brocolli and do you show prejudice against brocolli? Do you think that broccoli deserves less than you as far as tax benefit and such? Do you make irrational leaps about brocolli's choice to be broccoli.

If you'd take out all that shit that's obviously been packed into your ears and listen up for a minute, you'd realize that I am very accepting when it comes to homosexuality. I personally don't approve of it, but it's a personal disagreement, not an active "hate" issue for me. I can find no purpose in one's choice to practice homosexuality, other than pleasure. I, for one, do not consider homosexual activity to be a pleasurable edneavor; therefore I have absolutely no use for it. It is, for me, a non-issue. However, it becomes an issue when the homosexual minority makes it a public issue. If you want to make a public issue out of something, then you are going to get responses. Obviously. If I voice my personal opinion, which is the fact that I do not approve of homosexuality, then people like you assign a negative label to me. This is your mistake. I used the brocolli analogy to simply show that homosexuals are like brocolli to me - they don't matter one bit, unless they are forced on me. Then we have a problem. Yes I dislike homosexuals and brocolli. Am I prejudiced against homosexuals and brocolli? No, not in the modern sense of the word prejudice.

At the risk of dazzling you a second day in a row:

broc?co?li
n.

1. A vegetable (Brassica oleracea var. italica) in the mustard family, closely related to the cauliflower and having dense clusters of numerous green flower buds.
2. A word that gets Brian Dickens all hot & bothered.

 

[Eric N.]

Damn, Blue, you don't like broccoli!!! You must be a bigot. You're a broccoli bigot.. It's all part of a plot by you and cauliflower to keep the broccoli down isn't it?

 

[MarkP]

Excellent article written by a Democrat. A good read for all Disco Webbers, Republicans and Democrats alike.

And for Karen - yes it's FreeRepublic.

My Fellow Democrats
FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | 11/10/04 | Carol Gould
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1276131/posts

 

[NorCalDiscoII]

However, I do not have that same feeling with two females. I don't know why.
Melissa B. TX. RoverChic

Melissa - I do not have that same feeling with two females. But I do know why. The truth is... I enjoy the heck out of it! Like Blue's points above, it's about pleasure.

p.s. "...And who knows, with a little effort and determination, maybe we can talk the two TX RoverChics into some hot lesbo action?!?!" (Private Parts - Howard Stern).

...no?

 

[Trey & Melissa Burns]

p.s. "...And who knows, with a little effort and determination, maybe we can talk the two TX RoverChics into some hot lesbo action?!?!" (Private Parts - Howard Stern).

...no?

Hey Norcal,

DAMN her, did she tell you about the Roverchics Go Live movie?



Melissa B. TX.RoverChic

 

[bri]

If you'd take out all that shit that's obviously been packed into your ears and listen up for a minute, you'd realize that I am very accepting when it comes to homosexuality. I personally don't approve of it, but it's a personal disagreement, not an active "hate" issue for me. I can find no purpose in one's choice to practice homosexuality, other than pleasure. I, for one, do not consider homosexual activity to be a pleasurable edneavor; therefore I have absolutely no use for it. It is, for me, a non-issue. However, it becomes an issue when the homosexual minority makes it a public issue. If you want to make a public issue out of something, then you are going to get responses. Obviously. If I voice my personal opinion, which is the fact that I do not approve of homosexuality, then people like you assign a negative label to me. This is your mistake. I used the brocolli analogy to simply show that homosexuals are like brocolli to me - they don't matter one bit, unless they are forced on me. Then we have a problem. Yes I dislike homosexuals and brocolli. Am I prejudiced against homosexuals and brocolli? No, not in the modern sense of the word prejudice.

At the risk of dazzling you a second day in a row:

broc?co?li
n.

1. A vegetable (Brassica oleracea var. italica) in the mustard family, closely related to the cauliflower and having dense clusters of numerous green flower buds.
2. A word that gets Brian Dickens all hot & bothered.

Trust me Blue, the cut/paste definitions are not dazzling me. What does dazzle me is that you don't see sarcasm when it is staring you in the face, LOL. The rest of the post was to Eric, that is if you read it.

BTW, I love you man.



Brian