The homophobic thread :>

[bannination]

I don't doubt ol' Tom is laughing his ass off. That's pretty much his reaction to anything outside his right wing scope of understanding. But Vrede's right in that if you let people opt out of their government jobs for religious reasons, they can use that for things other than just marriage equality matters. Otherwise, the law would be seen as what it is - a blatant attempt to continue practices already ruled unconstitutional. When the law prohibited marriage equality, a person issuing a marriage license to a same-sex couple would have been fired. S/he couldn't have said, "my religion compels me to issue it." Now the law prohibits such discrimination and they want to carve out exceptions. But sure - if it passed and wasn't declared unconstitutional almost immediately, a person could use the same reason to decline marriage licenses to rednecks. Oh wait - maybe it is a good idea.

Marriage licenses for rednecks.... nah... what we need is breeding licenses, and stiff penalties when violated.

[Mr.B]

"The bill’s supporters said it would protect magistrates’ religious rights while guaranteeing gay couples can marry in any county."

"So, a magistrate claiming “sincerely held” religious objections could refuse to wed Christians, people of other faiths, whites, people of other races, interracial couples, Republicans, people of other political parties, the elderly, the sterile, slimy, hateful politicians, etc."
You're desperately grasping at straws. The bill is aimed at issuing "gay" marriage licenses; it doesn't state that they could refuse licenses at will; even to "rednecks". You're imagining "conclusions".

"........the GOP throws our money at clearly unconstitutional measures like this."
I have to agree with you on that, however, if it's deemed "unconstitutional", I'm sure the SCOTUS will step in; we'll see.

(to billy.pilgrim...this is an example of my NOT changing or deleting posts; it's commenting on specific parts of a post; and it's NOT changing any meaning of what you or anyone else wrote. See how easy that is?)

[Mr.B]

"This time, you just ran away from a response to your same ignorant post about the bill.."

What...I'm supposed to comment on everything in a post?

[billy.pilgrim]

"This time, you just ran away from a response to your same ignorant post about the bill.."

What...I'm supposed to comment on everything in a post?

Note: After review of page 152 I edited away the sentence Mr.B quotes before I saw that he quoted it. In fact, he didn't just run away, he deceptively edited in order to avoid dealing with the inconvenient.

he's always been unable to stand up for his own bs

still bet he has one of those s viet nam flag bumper stickers on his car

[Mr.B]

"This time, you just ran away from a response to your same ignorant post about the bill.."

What...I'm supposed to comment on everything in a post?

Note: After review of page 152 I edited away the sentence Mr.B quotes before I saw that he quoted it. In fact, he didn't just run away, he deceptively edited in order to avoid dealing with the inconvenient.

[Mr.B]

he's always been unable to stand up for his own bs.....still bet he has one of those s viet nam flag bumper stickers on his car

So what? You're no better, you Homerfobe wannabe.

[Mr.B]

"Now, the crybaby is running away, but without deceptive editing . . . this time."

waa, waa, waa,... 0:-?> what'cha gonna do if I do..? You gonna go tell on me?...this time?

[Mr.B]

No Caption Necessary.....

[rstrong]

Obsessed.

[Mr.B]

"Leave it to Mr.B to find a gay German website, must be the discipline aspect that attracts him, nttawwt."
Not a website like the ones you're familiar with, dummy. It's a grab from Ebaums World.

"It is a pretty funny pic. That's why they call it the "backside" of Mt. Rushmore."
It's not surprising that rstrong protested in Vrede fashion, saying I'm obsessed. It's the only thing he could think to say since that is the side that is facing Canada. Look at it as a gift from the U.S., rstrong.......

[O Really]

It is a funny pic, and would have absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality if it weren't for the sign in the lower right. But ya' gotta admit, Mr.B says the pic "needs no caption" so I guess he bought into the view of the Germans.

[Mr.B]

"It is a funny pic, and would have absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality if it weren't for the sign in the lower right. But ya' gotta admit, Mr.B says the pic "needs no caption" so I guess he bought into the view of the Germans."

I still think the "view" was dedicated to Canada; the German website just got turned on by it.

[Mr.B]

Leave it to Mr.B to find a gay German website, must be the discipline aspect that attracts him, nttawwt.

Not a website like the ones you're familiar with,

Fantasizing about me, as usual.

As if you weren't fantasizing about me to begin with.

dummy. It's a grab from Ebaums World.

Ummm, "queer-travel.de", dummy. Maybe you were too enthralled with the butts, nttawwt, to notice the sign.

If you would have right-clicked and checked the properties, you would have found out where it came from. I've not been trolling your favorite websites; you're safe.

It is a pretty funny pic. That's why they call it the "backside" of Mt. Rushmore.

It's not surprising that rstrong protested in Vrede fashion, saying I'm obsessed.

A statement of fact is not a protest. My guess is that rstrong is as supportive of your emerging homosexuality as I am.

If I were "gay", it appears that you and rstrong are the most obsessed with it. Your fantasies of me are noted.

It's the only thing he could think to say since that is the side that is facing Canada. Look at it as a gift from the U.S., rstrong.......

They're "facing" (funny how English is sometimes) Wyoming, which is appropriate. Look at it as a gift from SD and the rest of the U.S.

Plus, even if they were "facing" north, that would be to North Dakota.

The faces side of Mt. Rushmore actually face an approximate southeast direction; therefore if they had hind-ends, they (the hind-ends) would face Canada in an approximate northeast direction. Of course there is the northeastern corner of Wyoming and southeastern Montana that comes first, but the 'butts' are still aimed in the direction of Canada.

Personally I don't care who the recipient of the butt view is; it was intended as a post in jest. You were the one who made a big deal of it.

[rstrong]

Comment found:

As a civil servant, as President of the United States, I am declaring the North Carolina coast a national disaster area after being destroyed by Hurricane Jesus. However, due to my strict Catholic faith, I cannot dispense emergency funds to anyone who does not believe in transubstantiation, so Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Agnostics, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, you'll have to find another President who will serve you.

So, a President who would consider it a sin to assist the Christians who came over on the Mayflower, AND the Christians they were fleeing from. Not to mention the natives they met in America.

One in a while a Catholic official here in Canada will declare that Catholic politicians - including the occasional Prime Minister - should be excommunicated if they don't follow church policy on same-sex marriage and other issues.

Inevitably it lead to questions about whether Catholic politicians could then be trusted to serve the will of the voters over the will of the church. The official quickly drops the issue.

[Mr.B]

“You could move."
--- Dear Abby responds to a reader who complained that a gay couple was moving in across the street and wanted to know what he could do to improve the quality of the neighborhood.

Or invite a registered sex-offender to move in next door to him...or them.

[Mr.B]

:?:

How does that improve the quality of any neighborhood?

About the same as the scenario you've described!

[Mr.B]

"Well, how would you like it if your wife was dying and you had no ability to make medical calls regarding her hospitalization? How would you like not being able to carry her on insurance? etc. etc. Mr. B, you are not an idiot. You know how it works."

You're absolutely correct...I'm not an idiot. My wife is a 'she' and that is how it's supposed to work. As to "how it works" now is the most confused, screwed-up mess this world has ever been in. Depravity and lust for the same sex is as low as you can get on the humanity scale.

Two men...which is the wife? Two women...which is the husband? Kids involved...which is the dad; which is the mom?
In reading your question, I don't know whether to laugh or puke. The latter is more pressing.

[Mr.B]

I'm still confused. Dear Abby's scenario is getting rid of the homophobe.
However, if he stays then you have a sex-offender and a homophobe.
Or, from your perspective, you'll have a sex-offender and a gay couple.
How does the sex-offender improve the quality of the neighborhood either way?
. . . Unless . . . your point is that things can always be worse.

Things can always be worse...they could have homosexuals and sex offenders; not too much difference there....one pervert's illegal, other one ain't.

[Mr.B]

Poor Mr.B, "consent" still has too many syllables for him, just like pedophiles and rapists. Ick.

So you're saying as long as consent is given, it's OK to be a pedophile and consent doesn't make a rapist? Got it.

[Boatrocker]

Ummm, children can't consent and if there's adult consent it can't be rape. Damn, you're stupid.

You ran away from my questions, as usual.

Why is this so gdamn hard to grasp?