I am very thankful, but I suspect that you would sooner see me paralyzed and my eyes picked out by vultures than personally thanking one of our brave soldiers. It’s your “Christian love”, and all that.

Loundry on November 13, 2007 at 3:52 PM

Christian’s love the sinner, and hate the sin.

Thanking a soldier/sailor/Marine would be very much appreciated, especially in these times. This is the USA, where we protect all of our own.

Every transgenedered, cross-dressing, homosexual, B&D exhibitionist should thank their vibrators that there is a Republican in the White House, and a strong military to protect them from Islam.

Hening on November 13, 2007 at 2:43 PM

I am very thankful, but I suspect that you would sooner see me paralyzed and my eyes picked out by vultures than personally thanking one of our brave soldiers. It’s your “Christian love”, and all that.

Sorry for the harsh reaction. There are many, many gay men who do NOT buy into “gay culture”. When I first came out, I saw what “gay culture” was and you can probably imagine my severe disappointment as to what I had to “look forward to”. Every day I have to distance myself from those freaks. I utterly despise the “gay pride” parade, and few things repel me more quickly than that fake, faggy accent.

and you are going to equalize that fact because most people universally (not just in the USA) don’t want to watch men bumping ugly?

Never attempted to “equalize” the two. You keep arguing with a straw man.

Most people, don’t want to watch other people “bump ugly” in public. The SF street festival you mentioned should have been constrained by local ordinances. I don’t follow SF city law and don’t think it is too interesting.

There is plenty of offensive public behavior with young straight people on spring break, but it doesn’t make for an argument that all straight sex is offensive.

Young, intoxicated, co-eds drinking too much, making out and grabbing each other in public is wrong…unless it’s a couple of really attractive young girls. That’s kinda hot…except for the whole gay thing.

If you are saying that homosexuals should not flaunt publicly, and that there is no problem with it in private, that appears identical to part the quote that AP pulled at the top of this thread.

If you are saying that Iran and the United States treat homosexuals very differently. I agree.

dedalus on November 13, 2007 at 2:00 PM

Again, I am not able to draw a parallel between people hung in Iran for being reported as homosexuals while in the USA there are homosexual pride street parades, anti-Christian chic, corporate endorsements for homosexual events, homosexual celebrities talking about their lifestyle in the media, Gay alliance meetings in public schools, homosexual marriage and an entire pro-homosexual lobby, and you are going to equalize that fact because most people universally (not just in the USA) don’t want to watch men bumping ugly?

Every transgenedered, cross-dressing, homosexual, B&D exhibitionist should thank their vibrators that there is a Republican in the White House, and a strong military to protect them from Islam.

Now that will get you in trouble even though it is true.

Relax, man. No harm intended. Didn’t expect you to take it that way.

Are you familiar with the charming bumper sticker which reads “If it ain’t King James, it ain’t Bible!”?

Nope. We’ve managed to keep that brand of Christianity at bay up here in Canuckistan.

You had better be a good dresser with a penchant for interior design. Those stereotypes exist for a reason, you know.

Krydor on November 13, 2007 at 1:16 PM

Every stereotype has some basis in truth. Since there is nothing about me that says “gay culture”, I resent all of those stereotypes that you seem eager to impose upon me.

What stereotypes are there about conservative Christians which also have basis in truth? Being a stupid, racist hick for instance? Are you familiar with the charming bumper sticker which reads “If it ain’t King James, it ain’t Bible!”?

I am calling out the ridiculous attempt to draw a parallel between the treatment of homosexuals in Iran and what homosexuals flaunt in public here, in front of children, and get away with.

If you are saying that homosexuals should not flaunt publicly, and that there is no problem with it in private, that appears identical to part the quote that AP pulled at the top of this thread.

If you are saying that Iran and the United States treat homosexuals very differently. I agree.

dedalus on November 13, 2007 at 12:36 PM

I am calling out the ridiculous attempt to draw a parallel between the treatment of homosexuals in Iran and what homosexuals flaunt in public here, in front of children, and get away with.

If one homosexual in the USA gets killed by drunken rednecks, every public school in the USA shows a movie about it, in Iran they hang them in public after being tortured without a whimper from the homosexual community in this country.

And I love now how you want to use the Constitution to limit religeous beliefs because they disagree with your own. That is what liberals do they whine that their rights are violated and that they need to enforce stronger laws to keep religeon out of society.

Big leap on your part. Can you give an example of where I’ve argued for a limitation on private religious beliefs?

Ahmedinegay – I love my closet
I wish my brother jihad were here.

You’d think at some point, the overriding dislike of Bush would eventually give way to some kind of survival instinct.

That’s why I’m a gay guy but not part of that crappy “gay community”. They’re crazy. I have to make special effort to tell people that I’m not like them.

Loundry

You had better be a good dresser with a penchant for interior design. Those stereotypes exist for a reason, you know.

No desire to trample on someone’s spiritual beliefs if they don’t try to use those beliefs to limit the rights of others. Both the establishment and free exercise clauses are important.

dedalus on November 13, 2007 at 1:02 PM

Well isnt this Irony.

What “rights” are being limited ? All evangelicals ask is that gay marrage not be treated like straight marrage. Again hardly a “With holding of right(s).

And I love now how you want to use the Constitution to limit religeous beliefs because they disagree with your own. That is what liberals do they whine that their rights are violated and that they need to enforce stronger laws to keep religeon out of society.

Honestly can you see the silliness of your whole veiw ?

Again that gets down to a person’s own personal religeous belief. Unless you want to force your beliefs on them and say they have to accept gays into their religeous beliefs.

No desire to trample on someone’s spiritual beliefs if they don’t try to use those beliefs to limit the rights of others. Both the establishment and free exercise clauses are important.

i meant to say:

Ahmedinejad: now there’s a gay ol’ feller!

there’s

a gay ol’ feller!

Enough Anal Lube™ and you can get into anything.

saint kansas on November 13, 2007 at 12:06 PM

Saint Kansas wins as the Christian most likely to bring up the particulars of gay anal sex!

And still the gay community thinks Bush is more of a threat than DinnerJacket.

go figure.

Always Right on November 13, 2007 at 11:46 AM

That’s why I’m a gay guy but not part of that crappy “gay community”. They’re crazy. I have to make special effort to tell people that I’m not like them. Anyone who isn’t a stupid psycho-pussy knows that Islam is a much greater threat to gays than Christianity or Bush.

Any similarities with America end right there. Otherwise, the ChiCom execution bus would still be rolling through Folsom Street.

Exactly.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Exactly.

Oh yes, it’s the same here in the USA, and that’s why Marines patrol the streets of SF and unload their weapons at assless chapped homosexuals with their wiener in one hand and a Miller beer in the other.

You have invented a straw man to disagree with.