Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Senator's Remarks on Gays Draws Fire

Silent Method

Silent Method

New member
WASHINGTON (April 23) - Rick Santorum, the Senate's third-ranked Republican who is under fire from gay-rights groups and Democrats, says he has ''no problem with homosexuality - I have a problem with homosexual acts.''

In a wide-ranging interview with The Associated Press two weeks ago, Santorum, R-Pa., said he believes homosexual acts are a threat to the American family. He drew criticism from gays and Democrats after parts of the interview - during which he compared homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery - were published Monday.

''I have no problem with homosexuality - I have a problem with homosexual acts, as I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships,'' Santorum said during an interview taped April 7 in his Senate office.

''And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual,'' he said. ''I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.''

Given a chance to clarify his comments before the story was published, Santorum said: ''I can't deny that I said it, and I can't deny that's how I feel.''

The interview lasted more than an hour and covered a range of topics.

Democrats and gay-rights groups, in Washington and Pennsylvania, called on GOP leaders to remove Santorum from the Senate leadership after the interview was published.

But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said, ''Rick is a consistent voice for inclusion and compassion in the Republican Party and in the Senate, and to suggest otherwise is just politics.''

Conservative Republicans, including former presidential candidate Gary Bauer, rallied to Santorum's defense.

''I think that while some elites may be upset by those comments, they're pretty much in the mainstream of where most of the country is,'' Bauer said.

During Santorum's interview with the AP, he brought up a pending Supreme Court case over a Texas sodomy law within the context of his discussion on homosexual acts.

''If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.''

On Tuesday, Santorum's office released a statement to underscore that those comments were made in the context of the court case.

''My discussion with The Associated Press was about the Supreme Court privacy case, the constitutional right to privacy in general, and in context of the impact on the family,'' Santorum said in the statement. ''I am a firm believer that all are equal under the Constitution. My comments should not be misconstrued in any way as a statement on individual lifestyles.''

Santorum also criticized, during the April 7 interview, what he called ''a whole feminist movement that's built around the fact that fathers are unnecessary.'' He answered ''absolutely'' when asked if liberalism takes power away from the family.

''The basic liberal philosophy is materialistic, is relativistic, to the point of, you've got candidates for president saying we should condone different types of marriage,'' Santorum said. ''That is, to me, the death knell of the American family.''
Click to expand...

''I have no problem with homosexuality - I have a problem with homosexual acts, as I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships,''

This is a pretty standard view among many conservative politicians. Why is this guy making national headlines with it?
 
well...

besides his' being an idiot...

the dems are scrambling to take
attention away from the success
in iraq...

expect a ton of this kinda shit...

which isnt really shit i guess...what an idiot...
 
If I want to drill my wife in the ass and tie her up and shock her nipples with an Die hard battery then thats her and my business! Right Vixie??!?? I got a new evenrude for the dildomachine by the way... brrrp...brrrp....brpp.....put put....
 
Watch for him to step down soon. Bush makes 100% sure any person who may look his party look bad or hurt him is gone. This will happen very soon if it stays in the public eye. And I to have no problem with straights its there sexual ways that disgust me. (lol)
 
This all arises about a matter before the supremem court. it is bizarre that the government could actually be given the power to come into the homes and bedrooms of consenting adults.

Where are the EF gays on this one?
 
I think this senator least the balls to say what alot of us feel. It's a sin to act on homosexual urges. Period.
 
curling said:
I think this senator least the balls to say what alot of us feel. It's a sin to act on homosexual urges. Period.
Click to expand...

Said like a true religious zealot.

Fonz
 
this is just the usual bs to draw
people's attention away from how
these idiots are wasting our money
this year...
 
curling said:


Do you still want to burn me on the stake alive? Religious zealot hater?
Click to expand...

No.

I'm more in favour of impaling all the religious zealots.

Preferably alive. :)

Fonz
 
I may as well chime in with how I feel since I started the thread. I believe it is a sin to act on homosexual urges. However, it is a sin no more reprehensible than the ones I or any other straight person commits - and it is certainly not something we have a right to punish by law.
 
Santorum and Tren Lott should have a threesome with a black guy.
 
Silent Method said:


''I have no problem with homosexuality - I have a problem with homosexual acts, as I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships,''

This is a pretty standard view among many conservative politicians. Why is this guy making national headlines with it?
Click to expand...

You misinformed fool.

He compared giving rights to gays to giving rights to pedophiles and incestuous relationships.
 
I Don't Care What Hetersexuals and Homosexuals say about each other! I'm A Hermaphrodite, So I Fuck Myself! Good and hard by the way!
 
there are alot more important things in life than sex. Last night I told my GF that if she wants a guy who thinks with his dick and will bow down when he knows he is right to get a shot at some pussy... she was with the wrong guy. I told her that men are weak for being controlled by pussy. She was pissed off... and I won. (we had sex 10 minutes later)
 
Re: Re: Senator's Remarks on Gays Draws Fire

2Thick said:


You misinformed fool.

He compared giving rights to gays to giving rights to pedophiles and incestuous relationships.
Click to expand...
You blind little twit.

Many conservative politicians have been making the same comparison for decades.
 
Re: Re: Senator's Remarks on Gays Draws Fire

2Thick said:
He compared giving rights to gays to giving rights to pedophiles and incestuous relationships.
Click to expand...

no he didnt.

first off, he never said the word 'gay' or 'homosexual' in his original quote. the lady reporting the story (WIFE OF JOHN KERRY'S CAMPAIGN MANAGER) for the AP, added the word gay in quotes. this is how the whole thing got started.

santorum was simply restating what the supreme court justice white said in 1986, when they were hearing the same issue.

he is making an intellectual argument on the 'right of privacy'. he was simply stating that if this were to be repealed, when would it end and where? would it be alright for people to have sex with their siblings if they both consented to it in the privacy of their own home? would it be right for people to take multiple wives if all of them consented to it in the privacy of their own home? would it be right to have sex with their children if all parties had consented to do it in their own home? etc.

should everything be legal if a person consents to it in the 'privacy' of their own home?

i honestly do not care what kind of sex people have, but i can see what the argument he was making.

oh yeah, this guy will not be stepping down from his leadership position, nor will he be stepping down from the senate.
 
Re: Re: Re: Senator's Remarks on Gays Draws Fire

p0ink said:


should everything be legal if a person consents to it in the 'privacy' of their own home?

i honestly do not care what kind of sex people have, but i can see what the argument he was making.
Click to expand...

This guy sucks donkey cock.

Consenting adults should be able to do anything they damn well please within their own home, sexually or otherwise. if adult siblings want to fuck each other, let 'em. it's disgusting, but it's their choice.

Incest involves children, typically not of age of consent. If adult children want to sleep with their adult parents, who else's business is it?

Seriously - how do we let government get into our lives like this?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Senator's Remarks on Gays Draws Fire

MattTheSkywalker said:


Incest involves children, typically not of age of consent. If adult children want to sleep with their adult parents, who else's business is it?
Click to expand...

I wished I had loving parents like you!:D
 
Re: Re: Re: Senator's Remarks on Gays Draws Fire

p0ink said:



should everything be legal if a person consents to it in the 'privacy' of their own home?
Click to expand...

Yes, that is called living in a free country. if you do not like such freedoms, there are plenty of places where you can go where the government tells you what to do.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Senator's Remarks on Gays Draws Fire

DcupSheepNipples said:


I wished I had loving parents like you!:D
Click to expand...

Don't be a dumbass. :)

Point is I don't think government should be telling people what they can and can't do. You of all peopleshould agree.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Senator's Remarks on Gays Draws Fire

MattTheSkywalker said:


This guy sucks donkey cock.

Consenting adults should be able to do anything they damn well please within their own home, sexually or otherwise. if adult siblings want to fuck each other, let 'em. it's disgusting, but it's their choice.

Incest involves children, typically not of age of consent. If adult children want to sleep with their adult parents, who else's business is it?

Seriously - how do we let government get into our lives like this?
Click to expand...

i understand what you are saying, and i agree to an extent. i was simply just stating the reasoning behind this.

however, i do favor incest laws. i already have problems with my money being used to pay for illegitimate children of whore mothers, let alone having to pay for kids with flippers and 3 feet because their mom and uncle decided to fuck each other. same thing with consenting children fucking their parents. we already have enough problems with society.
 
Since Beastboy didn't reply, I will.

Yes, he did compare it to pedophilia, and beastiality.

MTS has it down cold, whatever you do in the privacy of your own bedroom is your own damn business.

It seems to me the Republicans have always taken a "hands off" approach about other privacy issues, so why is this one different?

Is it because if they can't get any, then no one gets any?

COCK BLOCK!
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Senator's Remarks on Gays Draws Fire

MattTheSkywalker said:


Don't be a dumbass. :)

Point is I don't think government should be telling people what they can and can't do. You of all peopleshould agree.
Click to expand...

Who me? :D Regarding this thread, I find it all childish the human race is going to adapt and become a hermaphrodite based species, so enjoy the heterosexual and homosexual clashes while you all can! Because the meaning of "Self Love" will never be the same!
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Senator's Remarks on Gays Draws Fire

2Thick said:


Yes, that is called living in a free country. if you do not like such freedoms, there are plenty of places where you can go where the government tells you what to do.
Click to expand...

like california?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Senator's Remarks on Gays Draws Fire

p0ink said:


i understand what you are saying, and i agree to an extent. i was simply just stating the reasoning behind this.

however, i do favor incest laws. i already have problems with my money being used to pay for illegitimate children of whore mothers, let alone having to pay for kids with flippers and 3 feet because their mom and uncle decided to fuck each other. same thing with consenting children fucking their parents. we already have enough problems with society.
Click to expand...

With freedom comes responsibility. If people have freedom, they must be willing to take responsibility for their actions. This is the social contract in one form.

Our country is filled with people who want freedom but look to shirk responsibility. Millions don't even vote, much less actually serve the country in any form or take an interest in leadership.

In the interest of social order, government has taken responsibility for the actions of those people.
Governmental actions cost money, so we get taxes. People abuse freedom still more, so we get aggressive policing, record keeping, and database building. We get the DHS.

Unfortunately, it is hard to reverse the trend, because as the government continues to step in, people depend on it to do more.

The whole of society loses freedom because some people can't be responsible. This is a classic human condition and is hard to solve. It has a natural outcome though: when people have given up any hope of taking any responsibility, we will have tyranny.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Senator's Remarks on Gays Draws Fire

2Thick said:


Yes, that is called living in a free country. if you do not like such freedoms, there are plenty of places where you can go where the government tells you what to do.
Click to expand...

there are no explicit rights to privacy in the constitution. there have only been some interpretations with the supreme court (ie the grissom case).
 
Rights to Privacy under the United States Constitution

There are no specific rights to privacy in the US Constitution and as how it relates to internet privacy.

There is no explicit right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled that there is a limited constitutional right of privacy based on a number of provisions in the Bill of Rights. This includes a right to privacy from government surveillance into an area where a person has a “reasonable expectation of privacy”[264] and also in matters relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing and education.[265] However, records held by third parties, such as financial records or telephone calling records, are generally not protected unless a legislature has enacted a specific law. The Court has also recognized a right of anonymity[266] and the right of political groups to prevent disclosure of their members’ names to government agencies.[267] In January 2000, the Supreme Court heard Reno v. Condon, a case addressing the constitutionality of the Drivers Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), a 1994 law that protects drivers’ records held by state motor vehicle agencies. In a unanimous decision, the Court found that the information was “an article of commerce” and can be regulated by the federal government.[268]

There is no independent privacy oversight agency in the U.S. The Office of Management and Budget plays a limited role in setting policy for federal agencies under the Privacy Act, but it has not been particularly active or effective. An office within the Office of Management and Budget to coordinate federal stances towards privacy was created in early 1999, and a Chief Counselor for Privacy was appointed. The Counselor has only a limited advisory capacity and most privacy advocates believe the position is ineffective in promoting privacy within the government. The Federal Trade Commission has oversight and enforcement powers for the laws protecting children’s online privacy, consumer credit information and fair trading practices but has no general authority to enforce privacy rights.[270] The FTC has received thousands of complaints but has issued opinions in only a few cases. It has also organized a series of workshops and surveys, which have found that industry protection of privacy on the Internet is poor, but the FTC had long said that the industry should have more time to make self-regulation work. In a shift from this historical position, the FTC recommended in this year’s report to the U.S. Congress that legislation is necessary to protect consumer privacy on the Internet due to the dismal findings in a survey of online privacy policies.[271]

The Privacy Act of 1974 protects records held by US Government agencies.

The Privacy Act of 1974 protects records held by U.S. Government agencies and requires agencies to apply basic fair information practices.[269] Its effectiveness is significantly weakened by administrative interpretations of a provision allowing for disclosure of personal information for a “routine use” compatible with the purpose for which the information was originally collected. Limits on the use of the Social Security Number have also been undercut in recent years for a number of purposes.

The Childrens' Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) was passed by Congress in 1998.
COPPA requires parental consent before any information can be collected from children under the age of 13. This Act went into effect in April 2000.

Omnibus Safe Streets and Crime Control Act of 1968 and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986.
Police are required to obtain a court order based on a number of legal requirements. Surveillance for national security purposes is governed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that has less rigorous requirements.[283] There were 1,350 orders for interceptions for criminal purposes[284] and 886 for national security purposes in 1999.[285] The use of electronic surveillance has more than tripled in the last ten years.

"Carnivore"- a controversial tool that the FBI utlilizes to monitor internet users.

The intelligence agencies have also pushed for more authority and funding to conduct surveillance of Internet communications, arguing that this is necessary to protect the nation’s infrastructure from “information warfare.” In July 2000, it was revealed that the FBI has developed a system called “Carnivore” that is placed at an Internet Service Provider’s offices and can monitor all traffic about a user including email and browsing.[289] Earthlink, a major ISP, announced that it refuses to install the system in its network.[290] After the system was discovered, Attorney General Reno promised to conduct a review of its privacy protections.[291] EPIC has filed suit demanding access to all information about the system.

Privacy International
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Senator's Remarks on Gays Draws Fire

MattTheSkywalker said:


With freedom comes responsibility. If people have freedom, they must be willing to take responsibility for their actions. This is the social contract in one form.

Our country is filled with people who want freedom but look to shirk responsibility. In the interest of social order, government has taken responsibility for the actions of those people.
Governmental actions cost money, so we get taxes. People abuse freedom still more, so we get aggressive policing, record keeping, and database building. We get the DHS.

Unfortunately, it is hard to reverse the trend, because as the government continues to step in, people depend on it to do more.

The whole of society loses freedom because some people can't be responsible. This is a classic human condition and is hard to solve. It has a natural outcome though: when people have given up any hope of taking any responsibility, we will have tyranny.
Click to expand...

Taken right of the inner core of my cerebellum! You are not psychic besides being a Skywalker are you? Once the freedoms are taken away, short of a revolution they are kept from the Sheeple and even the "People!" Anyways green for you!
 
Last edited:
curling said:
I think this senator least the balls to say what alot of us feel. It's a sin to act on homosexual urges. Period.
Click to expand...

Fuck you you stupid piece of shit



Anyway, it's absolutely NONE of the senator's business what people do in their bedrooms. What a dipshit
 
you guys are missing the boat here i think. Take his comments that if homosexual acts are allowed (which we tend to agree yes) then polygamy and incest as well as adultery should be legal as well. The basic right to self interest and consent between adults and privacy issues are all essentially the same.

For instance why is it that polygamy is not allowed?

Why is it that people can't marry close relatives (as odd as it seems)?

adultery may be a slightly different issue due to marriage, a contract with the state, etc.
 
collegiateLifter said:
you guys are missing the boat here i think. Take his comments that if homosexual acts are allowed (which we tend to agree yes) then polygamy and incest as well as adultery should be legal as well. The basic right to self interest and consent between adults and privacy issues are all essentially the same.

For instance why is it that polygamy is not allowed?

Why is it that people can't marry close relatives (as odd as it seems)?

adultery may be a slightly different issue due to marriage, a contract with the state, etc.
Click to expand...

I think you are missing the boat sir.

These things are prohibited because of country was founed by Puritans and we still can't get that crap out of our system.

If we agree that adults can consent, then we need not have dumbass alws like this (or about 10000000 others).

Your body, your home, your call. Why do we let the state into our lives this way?
 
curling said:


Whatever fruitcake I guess you like it up the rear but doesn't make it right.
Click to expand...


Nope, but I'm sick of your holier than thou hippocracy...
 
While I don't agree with his viewpoints, I respect his integrety and the fact that he didn't try to weasel out of his comments.

It's kind of scary have a senator who's so concerned with what's going on in peoples bedrooms, but I see no evidence that he's trying to pass anti-gay legislation or even promote negative attitudes. He's just stating his opinion.

I'd ask him why he's worried about what two consenting adults do behind closed doors. I mean, who gives a shit? lol It doesn't effect anyone but the people involved. Seems silly to me...oh well.

We don't have politicians like that in Canada. :) Well, maybe a few but they keep quiet for the most part.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Senator's Remarks on Gays Draws Fire

SM:
''I have no problem with homosexuality - I have a problem with homosexual acts, as I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships,''

This is a pretty standard view among many conservative politicians. Why is this guy making national headlines with it?


2Thick:
You misinformed fool.

He compared giving rights to gays to giving rights to pedophiles and incestuous relationships.


SM:
You blind little twit.

Many conservative politicians have been making the same comparison for decades.


2Thick:
That does not change the fact that you are misinformed.



Errrr, duh. What exactly have I been misinformed about? Yeah, he compared giving rights to homosexuals with giving rights to pedophiles and incestuous relationships. No shit sherlock. My whole point is that this is nothing new.
 
bwood said:
this is just the usual bs to draw
people's attention away from how
these idiots are wasting our money
this year...
Click to expand...


i feel this is the only relevant post here...

boy do i have ego problems...

:p
 
Dial_tone said:


There are probably senators who dress in their wive's clothing at night. As long as they don't start wearing it to the Senate it's all good. He can think what he wants....it's his actions that concern me more.
Click to expand...
Great point.


The government simply does not, nor should it, have any right to control consensual adult-adult homosexual relationships.
 
It's a sin to act on homosexual urges. Period.

from my side it's as in to act on your hetro urges. Period.

Guess if you where gay you would know you are born gay. If I had a choice do you think I would set my self up for hate? I can see by your post your the exact person gays fear. but I also know for a fact your views would never be told to my face because if we met you would never know I was gay, you would tell me your hate views and I would put bubble gum on my fist and put it so far up your ass I would have the privalge of watching you blow bubbles.
 
flexed1 said:
It's a sin to act on homosexual urges. Period.

from my side it's as in to act on your hetro urges. Period.

Guess if you where gay you would know you are born gay. If I had a choice do you think I would set my self up for hate? I can see by your post your the exact person gays fear. but I also know for a fact your views would never be told to my face because if we met you would never know I was gay, you would tell me your hate views and I would put bubble gum on my fist and put it so far up your ass I would have the privalge of watching you blow bubbles.
Click to expand...

who are you talking to?
 
curling said:
I think this senator least the balls to say what alot of us feel. It's a sin to act on homosexual urges. Period.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's just me but does this sound like something is fighting off their homosexual urges?
 
The Whole F/N Show said:


Maybe it's just me but does this sound like something is fighting off their homosexual urges?
Click to expand...

No. What I am saying is that he says what alot of homosepians think but are afraid to say because the world has gone because of the media and now accept homosexual acts as normal behavior. Now I am not saying that some people aren't born with homosexual urges just like some people are born more prone to be alcholics, herion or coke addicts, than others. They have to fight from acting on those urges.

I mean do you think pedophilla is a normal behavior too? What about beastiality? I am sure those people were born with urges to do them otherwise they(the acts) never would happen. Like I said I have no problem with homosexuals(people with homosexual tendencys) I just have a problem with it if they act on them.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Senator's Remarks on Gays Draws Fire

2Thick said:


Yes, that is called living in a free country. if you do not like such freedoms, there are plenty of places where you can go where the government tells you what to do.
Click to expand...
But the simple truth is that people do not wish to move , they wish to stay where they are regardless of various hardships endured.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Senator's Remarks on Gays Draws Fire

MattTheSkywalker said:


This guy sucks donkey cock.

Consenting adults should be able to do anything they damn well please within their own home, sexually or otherwise. if adult siblings want to fuck each other, let 'em. it's disgusting, but it's their choice.

Incest involves children, typically not of age of consent. If adult children want to sleep with their adult parents, who else's business is it?

Seriously - how do we let government get into our lives like this?
Click to expand...
I disagree with you Matt as many individuals have shown that they are not able to exercise their responsibilities in their own interests. Also many issues stemming from childhood dramas should be treated not allowed to flourish. We had a recent case in Germany of a woman who abused her son and rented him to paying customers , while the child may not have consented. Should the state continue to tolerate acts if that child as an adult wished to abuse others , adults or children? Should hard drug addiction with all it's inevitable consequences for society be tolerated? There are many reasons why governments are unwilling to allow such "freedom". Try Berlin ,Hamburg or Amsterdam if you wish to see true human misery on a large scale.
 
I have said often my first indication of being gay I was 4. From that point foward I looked at boys as I got older boys my age. I never ever looked at females as I did the way I looked at guys. I had no idea what gay was. I though every male lusted after Tom Cruise or Scott Baio my crushes. I did marry because I did not know it was not normal to look at guys. I was never comforatble with my wife but did it because thats what I though folks did. My family had no hate so I had no idea what a gay person even was. In my school the word fag never came out so maybe I was so isolated in the early 80's late 70's that I did not know what a gay person was but looking back now realize I was gay from the moment I recall.

And for the record when I came out I lashed out at what I saw. I did not fit the "prototype" gay person and wondered how I could be gay. I was 23 years old and would not accept that I was gay but you can't fight what your born with. Kinf of like being born black and wanting to be white. Unless you are gay yourself don't for a second think you have a choice because you are born gay or straight and if your bi it's because you can't accept the fact your gay.
 
curling said:


No. What I am saying is that he says what alot of homosepians think but are afraid to say because the world has gone because of the media and now accept homosexual acts as normal behavior. Now I am not saying that some people aren't born with homosexual urges just like some people are born more prone to be alcholics, herion or coke addicts, than others. They have to fight from acting on those urges.

I mean do you think pedophilla is a normal behavior too? What about beastiality? I am sure those people were born with urges to do them otherwise they(the acts) never would happen. Like I said I have no problem with homosexuals(people with homosexual tendencys) I just have a problem with it if they act on them.
Click to expand...

No I don't think pedophilia or beastially are normal but there's a big difference. Homosexuality as is being discussed is sexual act between consenting adults. Not the case with pedophilia or beastiality. The thing that really annoys me about the whole anti-homo sexuality is how it's so wrong for guys to be gay but so cool for women to be bi. Give me a break. Both should be wrong in God's eyes and condemed if it's like that. I not judging anyone but I'd never date a woman who's says she's bi sexual, but I won't condem her either. She can do whatever she wants as far as she's concerned as long as she's not hurting anyone or breaking the law. The same for gay guys as far as I'm concerned.
 
curling said:
I think this senator least the balls to say what alot of us feel. It's a sin to act on homosexual urges. Period.
Click to expand...

Attitudes like that are the reason why the separation of church and state is such a great idea.
Not a single person on the planet, including you, has the right to force your religious believes on anyone else.
 
Last edited:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Senator's Remarks on Gays Draws Fire

Mandinka2 said:

I disagree with you Matt as many individuals have shown that they are not able to exercise their responsibilities in their own interests.

Also many issues stemming from childhood dramas should be treated not allowed to flourish. We had a recent case in Germany of a woman who abused her son and rented him to paying customers , while the child may not have consented. Should the state continue to tolerate acts if that child as an adult wished to abuse others , adults or children? Should hard drug addiction with all it's inevitable consequences for society be tolerated? There are many reasons why governments are unwilling to allow such "freedom". Try Berlin ,Hamburg or Amsterdam if you wish to see true human misery on a large scale.
Click to expand...

Your example of what happened in Germany is child abuse.

If adults consent to a certain behavior with each other, no matter how wacky it sounds, it can't be called abuse in a legal sense. Therefore, the state should not be involved.
 
curling said:


No. What I am saying is that he says what alot of homosepians think but are afraid to say because the world has gone because of the media and now accept homosexual acts as normal behavior. Now I am not saying that some people aren't born with homosexual urges just like some people are born more prone to be alcholics, herion or coke addicts, than others. They have to fight from acting on those urges.

I mean do you think pedophilla is a normal behavior too? What about beastiality? I am sure those people were born with urges to do them otherwise they(the acts) never would happen. Like I said I have no problem with homosexuals(people with homosexual tendencys) I just have a problem with it if they act on them.
Click to expand...

Why do you have a problem with it? Who are they harming? And what gives you the right to tell them they cannot?
 
The Whole F/N Show said:


She can do whatever she wants as far as she's concerned as long as she's not hurting anyone or breaking the law. The same for gay guys as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

What about aids? IT seems like it has hurt thousands of people.
 
"I mean do you think pedophilla is a normal behavior too? What about beastiality? I am sure those people were born with urges to do them otherwise they(the acts) never would happen. Like I said I have no problem with homosexuals(people with homosexual tendencys) I just have a problem with it if they act on them."

Homosexual Acts are between CONSENTING ADULTS. Beastiality and pedophilia ARE NOT. There is no comparison!

And for your comment: "What about aids? IT seems like it has hurt thousands of people."

In case you didn't know, the OVERWHELMING majority of AIDS cases world wide are contracted through heterosexual sex. So by your reasoning, heterosexual sex should be banned as well and then maybe everyone can have babies by in vitro fertilization. Give me a break!!!!!

And I FIRMLY agree with the comment as to how this clearly demonstrates why there NEEDS to be COMPLETE separation of church and state. I for one do NOT agree with your fundimentalist hate mongering prejudicial and intolerant attitudes!
 
I think gays started and spread it(aids) and the only reason hetrosexuals get it is because of promiscuity which is a sin too.

Also God said it was an abomination. And since he designed us doesn't he have right to get pissed if someone pervets his creation. It's like if you were an artist and drew a picture then someone came along and pissed on it.
 
Dial_tone said:


Right on! And if you come across any hot bi babes just direct 'em my way.
:)
Click to expand...

Truly spoken like a man who hasn't dealt with openly bisexual women. They are good for a good time but that's about it. At least that has been my experience.
 
Last edited:
curling said:
I think gays started and spread it(aids) and the only reason hetrosexuals get it is because of promiscuity which is a sin too.

Also God said it was an abomination. And since he designed us doesn't he have right to get pissed if someone pervets his creation. It's like if you were an artist and drew a picture then someone came along and pissed on it.
Click to expand...

how did gays start it? were they in a laboratory?
 
ignorance part two. gays started Aids. So all of the little African childern and all of the aids cases in Africa where so many have dies was because all of the Africans where gay? You my friend have no fucking clue of waht you speak.
 
curling said:
I think gays started and spread it(aids) and the only reason hetrosexuals get it is because of promiscuity which is a sin too.

Also God said it was an abomination. And since he designed us doesn't he have right to get pissed if someone pervets his creation. It's like if you were an artist and drew a picture then someone came along and pissed on it.
Click to expand...

If God creates all things and has a plan for each of his children. Then for homosexuals, created by God to be an abomination, would mean God is fallible.

Last time I checked God doesnt make mistakes.
 
flexed1 said:
ignorance part two. gays started Aids. So all of the little African childern and all of the aids cases in Africa where so many have dies was because all of the Africans where gay? You my friend have no fucking clue of waht you speak.
Click to expand...

Now hold on just a darn minute!! Are you suggesting that curling is.....uninformed? :FRlol:
 
flexed1 said:
ignorance part two. gays started Aids. So all of the little African childern and all of the aids cases in Africa where so many have dies was because all of the Africans where gay? You my friend have no fucking clue of waht you speak.
Click to expand...

I might have over stepped by saying gays started aids but this how they spread it. I saw the show on 60 minutes that documented that aids spread so quickly in the U.S. because of a male airline steward that screwed dudes in every town he flew to knowing that he had some infectious disease. And since gays are more promiscous than straights it spread like wildfire.
 
In most countries. AIDS is more a problem of the non-gay population.

And concerning the senator... I remeber a couple decades ago, there was this representative from the eastern shore of Maryland who railed against gays every opportunity he got and was anti any legislation that was pro-gay or neutral re: gays. He had little tolerance for other minorities as well. Guess what? later on he was found to be a regular at the then Chesapeake House -- a well-known gay go-go-dancer bar that catered to white men who wanted black dick and black men who wanted white ass. Needless to say, he had to eat (or suck in?) his own words.

I do think the senator protesteth too much!
 
curling said:


I might have over stepped by saying gays started aids but this how they spread it. I saw the show on 60 minutes that documented that aids spread so quickly in the U.S. because of a male airline steward that screwed dudes in every town he flew to knowing that he had some infectious disease. And since gays are more promiscous than straights it spread like wildfire.
Click to expand...

Promiscuity has NOTHING to do with being gay. It has to do with being MALE! If straight guys played by the same rules that gay guys do, they'd be hittin' it just as much.
 
gymtime said:


Promiscuity has NOTHING to do with being gay. It has to do with being MALE! If straight guys played by the same rules that gay guys do, they'd be hittin' it just as much.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I totally agree with your statement.
 
flexed1 said:
Watch for him to step down soon. Bush makes 100% sure any person who may look his party look bad or hurt him is gone. This will happen very soon if it stays in the public eye. And I to have no problem with straights its there sexual ways that disgust me. (lol)
Click to expand...


If that is the case, Bush should fire himself!
 
"I think gays started and spread it(aids) and the only reason hetrosexuals get it is because of promiscuity which is a sin too. "

I suspect that gays had virutally nothing to do with the spread of AIDS in Africa or in Asia as it is virtually 100% a heterosexually transmitted disease there and apparently has been from day one.
 
"I think gays started and spread it(aids) and the only reason hetrosexuals get it is because of promiscuity which is a sin too. "


Does that mean if I eat a milk product from a wooden vessel or if I mix milk and meat in a meal I might get AIDS. I think that prohibition was in the same part of the Bible as the gay bit. As though it had nothing to do with Jews facing extinction wandering in the Sinai, or First Century Christians trying to maintain or increase their numbers in a world laden with the same hatreds that so many Christians now have against gays.
 
"Does that mean if I eat a milk product from a wooden vessel or if I mix milk and meat in a meal I might get AIDS."

Actually most of the references about homosexuality are from Leviticus (old testament) and are taken out of context dealing with issues of "ritual purity" in order to enter the temple.........a structure that has not existed in nearly two thousand years! Not to mention that it was a JEWISH temple, not a christian one. I find it interesting how christians ignore most of the "old testament" claiming it no longer applies because it was the "old deal" and only the new testament matters as it is the "new deal" signed in blood by Christ. With the exception of the homosexual issues, of course..........

As for all you freakazoid fundimentalists, I also resent you trying to push your morality and judgements as to what YOU think God intends and then trying to turn it into secular law to force compliance on those of us that do not subscribe to YOUR system of beliefs or YOUR rigid fundimentalist interpretations of the Bible. A LITERAL interpretation of the Bible can be easily dispproved, unless God is actually fallible and imperfect. Did you know that the Bible claims that a rabbit chews a cud? I guess that God doesn't know that a rabbit is not a ruminant like a cow, sheep, giraffe, deer or a camel (of course, any hunter would know that a rabbit does not have a multichambered stomach so would not have a cud but I guess that God, who supposedly made everything including all creatures that inhabit the earth, didn't know this, that is if the Bible is actually his literal word). For another example, there are TWO stories of Creation in the Bible that directly contradict each other. One of them is the commonly cited one in Genesis. Can you figure out where the other is? And there are dozens of "dublets" which are stories that directly contradict each other but are clearly the same story but occur in different parts of the Bible.

And YOU fundimentalist freakazoids, constantly judge and try to determine "appropriate" behavior for others, in spite of the NUMEROUS Biblical prohibitions AGAINST judging others.....so you obviously don't believe in or subscribe to the Bible either by your own actions and attitudes....there is a classic quote that goes something like "never mind the sliver in someone else's eye when you have a mote sticking out of your own eye...." Not the exact quote but close as it is from memory and I don't have a Bible in front of me to give you the EXACT wording. Anyway, a sliver is a small splinter and a mote is a beam and in this context is sticking out of the eye of the person making judgements about someone else's minor infractions when the person is blinded by this mote sticking out of their eye and can't see their own horrendous behavior. Quite simply, if you don't agree with the activities of someone else, don't JUDGE--worry about YOUR OWN SHIT. You do NOT have to PARTAKE in their actions EITHER. Simple. There is nothing in there that says that thou shalt impugne others with YOUR interpretation of morality. It quite obviously says just the OPPOSITE. You need to deal with your own issues and not worry about the issues of others. They will deal with them in their own way. And the last person on the planet I want to hear about morality issues from is a fucking politician!!! They need to look in a mirror first before saying ANYTHING about what others are doing--let he, who is free from sin, cast out the first stone--or something to that effect. And this goes for a LOT of, but not all christians as well!!!!

I find it amazing that people can actually CLAIM that they believe in freedom and the constitution and freedom of (or from) religion and then out the other side of their mouths want the government to implement laws that control who does what with another consenting adult in their own homes or what someone does to their own self. Following this line of reasoning, it is obvious why the republicans pushed and got so many laws in place like mandatory drug sentencing laws in many states, criminalized AAS, went against states rights to make laws allowing medical use for marijuana and to make laws that assisted suicide for terminally ill patients that were suffering among other things.

The idiotic religiousNAZI senator from Pennsylvania seems to be offended that the supreme court has taken up the issue of sodomy laws when he feels it should be up to the individual states to decide morality issues like this. Well HOW FUCKING INTERESTING?.........SO where the hell was he when John Ashcroft and the Feds under republicaNAZI control invaded California and enforced federal marijuana statutes against patients (putting them in prison--what? for smoking a joint to try to relieve nausea associated with chemo and radiation therapy for cancer and/or AIDS?) and providers supplying medical marijuana under local license to seriously ill patients with projectile vomitting from chemotherapy? Did it ever occur to ANY of them that smoking a joint to control nausea and improve appetite bypasses having to swallow anti nausea medication and try to hold it down for TWO hours before it can do ANY good when the person is having projectile vomitting? Smoking a joint takes the smoke directly into the lungs and the bloodstream and begins providing relief from nausea in as little as ten minutes. And you don't THROW UP SMOKE. Well thank you to the republicans for making THE POINT!!!!

Oh, and thanks for making THE POINT in Oregon against their patient's right to assisted suicide (which did not force ANY doctor to go along with the request if it violated THEIR morality but required the patient to find a doc willing to assist). The feds reclassified the medications which were used for assisted suicide which were also used to treat narcolepsy as schedule I--no valid medical use, illegal to prescribe, posses or use for ANY purpose--so now narcolepsy patients have lost the MOST effective treatments that WERE available as well. Additionally, the feds have more than just warned physicians that they are "dead meat" if they do ANYTHING to assist a patient in suicide to escape the final months of extreme suffering before death. So where was the senator from Pennsylvania when the republicaNAZIS invaded Oregon and violated THEIR state's rights regarding this moral/medical issue?

It seems that people like him ONLY believe in states rights when the state votes THEIR way. When the situation is reversed?.........DIRECT federal control to force them to comply with HIS religiousNAZI morality!!!!! Maybe it is time for the government and all of YOU religousNAZI freakazoid fundimentalists to get out of everyone else's face and personal lives. If you don't like what others do, then just say "No" and don't do it. Simple. Seems to me that in the Bible, free will has to do with the fact that people are ALLOWED to seek the truth and also to MAKE their own mistakes, whether anyone else agrees or not.

And frankly, if we need laws to "protect marriage" then maybe the whole issue needs to be examined to find out what the hell is wrong with marriage that it is SO vulnerable and threatened by everything that everyone else does. Maybe if some of these folks would put the energy into their marriage or marriage counseling to find out what is wrong instead of worrying about what everyone else is doing or projecting the blame from THEIR failing relationship onto others because other may do some things differently, then maybe marriage wouldn't need to be "protected."
 
My brilliant comment on all of this:

"All of this talk about sin is turning me on . . ."

Now that I got that out, I can rest for the night knowing that I said something that Madonna would say if she were on this board. :)

Tah Tah

JustyXXXX
 
NorCalBdyBldr said:
Maybe it is time for the government and all of YOU religousNAZI freakazoid fundimentalists to get out of everyone else's face and personal lives. If you don't like what others do, then just say "No" and don't do it. Simple. Seems to me that in the Bible, free will has to do with the fact that people are ALLOWED to seek the truth and also to MAKE their own mistakes, whether anyone else agrees or not.
Click to expand...

Paul Veyne: "You may know fraud by the warmth it exudes."

The big lie of the wingnuts is that they are in support of individual rights, when in actuality they are no such thing. They exude warm religiosity and even make claims to "conservative compassion," but their real agenda is to control the bodies (and pleasures) of Americans.

It should never be a surprise that such people -- Newt Gingrich, for example -- usually turn out to be enthusiastically practicing the behavior they wish to control in others. (Remember, Newt called for Clinton's head for lying about a blow job and turned out to have engaged in an "inappropriate" relationship with a Congressional aide himself.)
 
NorCalBdyBldr said:

Oh, and thanks for making THE POINT in Oregon against their patient's right to assisted suicide (which did not force ANY doctor to go along with the request if it violated THEIR morality but required the patient to find a doc willing to assist). The feds reclassified the medications which were used for assisted suicide which were also used to treat narcolepsy as schedule I--no valid medical use, illegal to prescribe, posses or use for ANY purpose--so now narcolepsy patients have lost the MOST effective treatments that WERE available as well. Additionally, the feds have more than just warned physicians that they are "dead meat" if they do ANYTHING to assist a patient in suicide to escape the final months of extreme suffering before death. So where was the senator from Pennsylvania when the republicaNAZIS invaded Oregon and violated THEIR state's rights regarding this moral/medical issue?
Click to expand...

What narcoleptic drugs are you talking about? The primary drugs for narcolepsy are Adderal, Ritalin, Provigil and Cylert. None of these would be used for suicide, unless you wished to kill one in a most inhumane manner.

As for state sanctioned euthanasia, it should remain illegal. You never give legal lisence to allow others to kill a person. If the concept of your continued existence is grim, then the onus is placed on YOU to kill yourself, not the state. Even though suicide is illegal in some states, the law can't touch you when dead.
 
I am a gay republican. Bush has NO problems with gays only gays wanting special rights of which I agree 1000%. I want nothing special from anybody and am so far off with other gays on this. People respect people and I have respect because I ask for nothing of anybody. As for gays being more active or cheating more please spare me with this. gays can't get divorced straights can. Check and see the ratio of divorces in the past 10 years. Also take it one step further and see gay aids cases virus straight aids acses than measure aids cases in asia and africa. Stop watching 20/20 and see real facts.
 
atlantabiolab said:



As for state sanctioned euthanasia, it should remain illegal. You never give legal lisence to allow others to kill a person. If the concept of your continued existence is grim, then the onus is placed on YOU to kill yourself, not the state. Even though suicide is illegal in some states, the law can't touch you when dead.
Click to expand...

Whoops. There goes the military. And capital punishment. I know. Different circumstances. We are defending ourselves. We are punishing others. Much better reasons to authorize "killings" than assisted suicide in the case of terminal disease and unbearable pain. In case nobody told you, a person on a respirator in a coma, can't kill himself. To say nothing of needing a prescription for drugs to kill yourself relatively painlessly. Oh, I know. Let 'em get a gun. Or fall on their swords.

Killing and assisted suicide are quite different actions in any case, just as murder and combat killing are.
 
Last edited:
euthanasia however does require special attention, in that you must make sure it is the patient's interests being served, and not someone elses.
 
musclebrains said:


Whoops. There goes the military. And capital punishment. I know. Different circumstances. We are defending ourselves. We are punishing others. Much better reasons to authorize "killings" than assisted suicide in the case of terminal disease and unbearable pain. In case nobody told you, a person on a respirator in a coma, can't kill himself. To say nothing of needing a prescription for drugs to kill yourself relatively painlessly. Oh, I know. Let 'em get a gun. Or fall on their swords.

Killing and assisted suicide are quite different actions in any case, just as murder and combat killing are.
Click to expand...

Since you are unaware of the real world effects of euthanasia, read up on the "benefits" of euthanasia laws in the Netherlands, and the "slip-ups" that occur. Grandma gets the morphine drip, cause the doc needs a room for the younger patient, since there are limited resources. Not to mention, something that you would be interested in, the idea of asking for death, due to pain, which may or may not be a rationally decided request. Studies have shown that a number of people request death due to pain, and when relieved of pain are no longer wanting of death.

As for comas, how many euthanasia cases are for this condition? For the most part, euthanasia has been limited to cancer or other debilitating diseases. I am under the impression that comas are granted a different catagory in the medical setting.

Nice try at granting equivalency of euthanasia to that of crime and war, though.
 
Originally posted by atlantabiolab:

"As for state sanctioned euthanasia, it should remain illegal. You never give legal lisence to allow others to kill a person. "

Then I suppose that you OPPOSE capital punishment as that is state license that allows the killing of a person under controlled conditions by another person also and is the law in many if not most states. However, most republicans have traditionally been IN FAVOR of capital punishment and have been the main driver behind pushing for such laws to be reinstated, etc. if they were not already in effect. Also, the law currently neither forbids nor condones assisted suicide (federal law). This is another John Ashcroft morality case and he has found other ways to force the state to comply with HIS morality instead of allowing "state's rights" to determine what seems appropriate morally, which is EXACTLY what the senator from Pennsylvania says when talking about how he believes that the Federal government shouldn't be deciding issues about morality that the individual states have decided via the supreme court and the Texas homosexual acts sodomy law. Don't you see the OBVIOUS contradiction in what the senator says he believes in? States rights when they AGREE with HIM and Federal control when they DON'T AGREE with HIM.

"If the concept of your continued existence is grim, then the onus is placed on YOU to kill yourself, not the state. "

No one is asking the state or any governmental agency for that matter to do anything. This is a case where Oregon's law ALLOWED a patient with at least TWO independent diagnoses stating they were terminal and most likely had less than six months to live in conjunction with a pyschiatric consutation to determine if this is REALLY what they wanted to do obtained a physician that was WILLING of their own accord to assist in a painless termination. It may come as quite a shock to you that the last six months are typically the most costly medical care a person will receive and some people would prefer NOT to continue suffering when the condition is HOPELESS and save a little money for their heirs, i.e. the living. The person ALONE, not his/her doctor can make the decision so the Netherlands example is just an apples and oranges thing and has no bearing on the laws of OREGON which do not allow that kind of thing and have safeguards built in to prevent it. Of course, you probably don't realize that because of the nature of medical bills, etc., your estate become encumbered and the medical profession will get paid inspite of your will or trust, etc. They can bleed you dry. And guess what, when you can no longer pay, it is surprising how much faster the patient "goes down hill" but not until the money is gone. Something to think about for your "golden years."

Additionally, Terminal hospitalized patients that are in the final stages (months/days) of dying are what we are talking about here. These folks do not have the means available and often the mobility to carry out a suicide without assistance. That is why it is called "assisted suicide." No cases of abuse of the law were ever documented in Oregon and I can't speak for other countries and how they write/administer their laws. Alledged abuse of the law was never John Ashcroft's contention. There seems to be unanimous agreement about the people that choose to end their lives under the law while it was in effect. Several died before the process could even be completed to allow them to do it.

And the reason the pain can't be relieved has a lot to do with the same folks that claim that there is sufficient pain management available to relieve suffering but also have supported laws that limit how much pain management can be given even to the terminally ill (can not cause death and can not give a large enough amount that could likely cause addiction-like anyone should care when they're terminal anyway). If you have ever had to watch someone waste away to nothing WHILE ALSO being accutely aware that the medical establishment won't give sufficient pain medication to alleviate the suffering because of fear of Federal retribution, you might have a different attitude about this. Somehow, I think the Feds should just stay out of it altogether.

atlantabiolab:
"and when relieved of pain are no longer wanting of death."

The only relief of pain in these case IS death. So your statement does not apply.
 
flexed1 said:
"Bush has NO problems with gays only gays wanting special rights of which I agree 1000%. "

If this were even REMOTELY true, than Bush would have no problem with changing the laws to allow gays/lesbians to marry, to adopt, to have inheritance rights, to have spousal benefits for medical insurance coverage and a whole host of "special rights" that heterosexual couples now have to the exclusion of gays/lesbians. And to pay the marriage penalty that heterosexuals couples have to pay and share in all the misery of divorce procedings as well. After all, fair is fair.

It also seems to me that the whole "special rights" issue was a spin put on by the right wing republicans to make a nice sounding one second sound byte fir mindless mainstream consumption to cover up a whole list of injustices and inequities built into the law. What we are talking about is equality under the law. We wouldn't need this if people actually DID respect others and their differences. But this is clearly NOT the case, hence laws in general dealing with discrimination. Certainly not the best way to go but unfortunately as long as people are bigots, then we are stuck with laws of some sort dealing with it.

And tell that to the friend of mine that got fired for being gay in Illinois (outside of the city limits of Chicago as Chicago does have anti discrimination ordinances which deal with employment). His crime was to ask for domestic partner benefits for his partner and instead, one of the right wing religious zealot senior VP's said she'd have his job. He was told at separation that they were extremely happy with his work but he just didn't "fit in with the new company direction." Since homosexuality is not one of the "protected categories" it is actually very much LEGAL for them to fire him on this basis. His Illinois attorney confirmed this. He couldn't even sue under the Federal Right to Privacy laws because he in effect gave up his privacy by announcing he was gay by requesting medical insurance benefit coverage for his partner. Bush and the other republicanazis have worked VERY hard to keep things this way.

As for being gay and a republican--that's a real oxymoron.......sort of like being a NAZI and Jewish--believe it or not, there were actually some of them too during Hitler's tenure but were tolerated because they were "useful" at the time. Oh, and there were also a number of homosexuals that were Nazis too while they watched their compatriots go to the death camps along with the Jews as well, like Ernest Roehm, head of the Storm Troopers (brown shirts). Something else to think about.
 
Quote the entire post I made not just the part you feel like bashing. By your post you are the exact person of whom I speak. By the way in many staes anybody can be fired for whatever reason no matter who or what you are.

biggots? only for those who find need to flaunt there lifestyle in front of others. Most of the "mainstream" have no problems with gays . the problems arise when folks like you feel you deserve special privilages for being gay. I have no desire to marry my other half. I also will be with him forever and would never cheat.

don't need nor seek any special laws. have tons of friends mostly straight who hang with my other half and I and i have done well my entire life as a gay and proud male. go figure, guess you ahve a rainbow flag and ride a float at the gay parade asking for special rights. whatever.
 
flexed1 said:
Quote the entire post I made not just the part you feel like bashing. By your post you are the exact person of whom I speak. By the way in many staes anybody can be fired for whatever reason no matter who or what you are.

biggots? only for those who find need to flaunt there lifestyle in front of others. Most of the "mainstream" have no problems with gays . the problems arise when folks like you feel you deserve special privilages for being gay. I have no desire to marry my other half. I also will be with him forever and would never cheat.

don't need nor seek any special laws. have tons of friends mostly straight who hang with my other half and I and i have done well my entire life as a gay and proud male. go figure, guess you ahve a rainbow flag and ride a float at the gay parade asking for special rights. whatever.
Click to expand...

right on, man.

flexed1 is right. the majority of people do not have any problems with gay people, unless they feel the need to flaunt it and shove their sexuality down the throats of everyone around them.

do you actually think those who currently do not 'accept' homosexuality will suddenly change once legislation is introduced? hell no. all that will do is create a shit storm of negative sentiment directed at all homosexuals, not just the 'flamboyant' ones.

and why would anyone choose to define themselves, as a person, by who they have sex with? that's fucking retarded.

there are a million other ways to describe what kind of person you are, besides just saying who and what you do in your bedroom.
 
I have lived everywhere and traveled the world. I have lived in

Houston
Dallas
Tahoe
Sacramneto
San Francisco
Long Island
Brooklyn
Rochester
Rhode Island
orlando
Tampa
Austin

Never ever had any problems anywhere
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SouthernCalifornianBody
Career Crossroads-California Social Studies High School Teacher or California Lawyer?
Replies
0
Views
2K
SouthernCalifornianBody
SouthernCalifornianBody
B
Are Prostitutes Better Than Normal Women?
Replies
49
Views
59K
NAVIRA
N
B
Coach Sunglasses Womens Coach Amelia Sunglasses
Replies
0
Views
795
beatsbydre
B
javaguru
Mentor Debunks Barry as Legal Scholar...
Replies
0
Views
852
javaguru
javaguru
pin
From Russia with love
Replies
12
Views
3K
pin
pin
Top Bottom