NationStates Jolt Archive

...is cause they're men, not cause they're gay.

Shit, I'm a straight guy, and I'd be getting laid every night...if I could. :(

Back to the point, the next time you hear someone talking about "them promiscuous gays spreading AIDS", just stop and think for a minute...what about them promiscuous lesbians? Oh wait, lesbians have an even lower rate of AIDS infection than the general heterosexual public. Probably cause they're content to buy each other Halmark cards and cuddle in front of the fireplace, rather than fuck like bunnies night and day.

So, we must therefore stop blaming gays for spreading AIDS, and start blaming men for just being so horny.

Another point is public acceptance of their relationships. As a teenager it is normal to discuss relationship problems with your parents and friends and relatives - if you are straight. What, if you have to hide your relationship in the first place? To whom will you turn, if there is a problem, and there is always a problem in every relationship. If you have nobody to turn to, it is more likely you end the problem with the relationship and try something new (and better). And if you have been hurt often, you don't look for love anymore, just sex to relieve pressure.

And well, against AIDS, there are condoms.

Also I suspect that gay men are seen as promiscuous simply because you don't notice the ones that aren't. I know many gay men that don't sleep around at the drop of a hat - some are in monogamous relationships, and some even are celibate for lengthy intervals. All for the same reasons as anyone else.

As an analogy, imagine going to Europe. You probably have the idea of how badly behaved the travellers from a given country are. It may be people from Australia, USA, England, Germany, Italy, or wherever. However, since you're looking for that stereotype, you will find them and your perception will be reinforced. However, you will miss all the rest of the people from that group that don't behave as you would expect.

Conservatives are in no position to rant about promiscuity within the gay community when they remain so vehmently opposed to the best solution to the problem, gay marriage.... well that and the anti-discrimination laws that should be implemented to make gays feel accepted within society's moral framework. Hell, why stop there? Lets file a discrimination suit against religious nut-jobs who won't let us get married in their churches, I don't see why they should have any right to deny us, America being a non-theocratic country where the church should hold no influence over the state. It's always funny to hear rhetoric from anglican/protestant clerics who ostensibly would like to prevent the erosion of "family values" and the "sanctity of marriage" when their own sect/denomination is best known for being the first to grant people the liberty to get divorced.. that to me is a far bigger perversion of the whole idea of matrimonial commitment which, might I add, the Bible EXPLICITLY condemns. At least the Pope's self-righteous BS has some minimal trace of integrity.

Aww, come on, it's a well-known scientific fact that gay men just want to get it up the bum a lot, and they have sex with at least 10 different people per month.
[/sarcasm]
:D

Conservatives are in no position to rant about promiscuity within the gay community when they remain so vehmently opposed to the best solution to the problem, gay marriage....
Yeah, it's always funny when they use "gay promiscuity" as an argument against gay marriage. It's a self-destructive argument.

Conservatives are in no position to rant about promiscuity within the gay community when they remain so vehmently opposed to the best solution to the problem, gay marriage.... well that and the anti-discrimination laws that should be implemented to make gays feel accepted within society's moral framework. Hell, why stop there? Lets file a discrimination suit against religious nut-jobs who won't let us get married in their churches, I don't see why they should have any right to deny us, America being a non-theocratic country where the church should hold no influence over the state. It's always funny to hear rhetoric from anglican/protestant clerics who ostensibly would like to prevent the erosion of "family values" and the "sanctity of marriage" when their own sect/denomination is best known for being the first to grant people the liberty to get divorced.. that to me is a far bigger perversion of the whole idea of matrimonial commitment which, might I add, the Bible EXPLICITLY condemns. At least the Pope's self-righteous BS has some minimal trace of integrity.
Your suit would hold no ground and you would be laughed out of court. Any religious organisation can determine if they can marry you or not based on their faith and teaching. You cannot force them to marry you as it would violate the separation of church and state.

Oh wait, lesbians have an even lower rate of AIDS infection than the general heterosexual public. Probably cause they're content to buy each other Halmark cards and cuddle in front of the fireplace, rather than fuck like bunnies night and day.
No, it's because lesbians are obviously the Lord's Chosen People. ;)

Your suit would hold no ground and you would be laughed out of court. Any religious organisation can determine if they can marry you or not based on their faith and teaching. You cannot force them to marry you as it would violate the separation of church and state.

lLOL, you don't really understand the idea of separating the church or state do you? It means that religion can not be used to justify granting people the liberty to abuse the rights of others, if it can, what you have is a theocracy. A church's refusal to marry a gay couple is religiously motivated discrimination and I see no justification for it apart from that the majority wouldn't object to it, most of it whom are straight anyway and couldn't care less about the rights of minorities because they do not function within their own interests, unless they were of course a well established social convention with which they were brought up (e.g. black rights).

lLOL, you don't really understand the idea of separating the church or state do you? It means that religion can not be used to justify granting people the liberty to abuse the rights of others, if it can, what you have is a theocracy. A church's refusal to marry a gay couple is religiously motivated discrimination and I see no justification for it apart from that the majority wouldn't object to it, most of it who are straight anyway and couldn't care less about the rights of minorities because they do not function within their own interests, unless they were of course a well established social convention with which they were brought up (e.g. black rights).
The problem is that many churches believe that homosexuality is a sin, and forcing them to condone it would violate their beliefs. It would be like if a bunch of people wanted to be Christian, but wanted to continue to hate others, and it were then decided that Christianity shouldn't say to "love thy neighbor".

lLOL, you don't really understand the idea of separating the church or state do you?
You don't understand it. I support legalising gay marriage, but the government should not intervene in churches, to either prohibit or force them to wed gay couples.

Homosexuals are gay is one reason.

Another is that they just love the Crystal Meth, anal sex, and dancing in their Buster Browns.

Homosexuals are gay is one reason.
Hee, I need a pin that says that.
"Homosexuals are gay!"
:D

Hee, I need a pin that says that.
"Homosexuals are gay!"
:D
How about a t shirt (http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=23)

How about a t shirt (http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=23)
That's awesome!
:D

You don't understand it. I support legalising gay marriage, but the government should not intervene in churches, to either prohibit or force them to wed gay couples.

But to require the government not to intervene in churches is yet again justified solely by religion, everybody should conform to the same rules regarding respect for the rights of others, regardless of religious beliefs. They can keep their prejudices to themselves.

But to require the government not to intervene in churches is yet again justified solely by religion, everybody should conform to the same rules regarding respect for the rights of others, regardless of religious beliefs. They can keep their prejudices to themselves.
Your argument might hold water if marriage was purely a religious institution. But it's not. One can have a secular wedding. Your opinions are not consistent with separation of church and state, and are anti-religious.

if you want to know why some of us gay men are promiscuous, ASK US.

i dont pretend to understand straight people - i never will - and ive lived among you all my life. please dont pretend to understand us, because you don't, that's just the way things are.

:(

But to require the government not to intervene in churches is yet again justified solely by religion, everybody should conform to the same rules regarding respect for the rights of others, regardless of religious beliefs. They can keep their prejudices to themselves.

Churches should remain completely independant from the state. Meaning they neither rely on the government nor are they responsible to the government.

if you want to know why some of us gay men are promiscuous, ASK US.

i dont pretend to understand straight people - i never will - and ive lived among you all my life. please dont pretend to understand us, because you don't, that's just the way things are.

:(

So why are gay men so promiscuous, huh?

So why are gay men so promiscuous, huh?

now THERE is a clever person! :D

some mates of mine are promiscuous because they just love sex too much. other are promiscuous because deep down they are extremely lonely - gay culture only really started in the early half of the 20th century, and it has had to grow up fast. unfortunately, i think a lot of other things have been left out on the way. im growing up in a gay scene where sex, not love, is the most valued commodity.

it's a shame, but that's how it is, it seems. :(

Your argument might hold water if marriage was purely a religious institution. But it's not. One can have a secular wedding. Your opinions are not consistent with separation of church and state, and are anti-religious.

What relevance does this have? Secular marriages are unlikely to be refused to gays anyway. If they are, then there would clearly be no justification for it other than personal dislike of homosexuals which is just as bad as racism.

What relevance does this have? Secular marriages are unlikely to be refused to gays anyway. If they are, then there would clearly be no justification for it other than personal dislike of homosexuals which is just as bad as racism.
So you think the government should force churches to perform weddings for gay couples? How is this separation of church and state?

What relevance does this have? Secular marriages are unlikely to be refused to gays anyway. If they are, then there would clearly be no justification for it other than personal dislike of homosexuals which is just as bad as racism.
An example for this:
This would be much like trying to force the KKK to accept black members. it goes against their core ideologies.

Let's see. The brothels and hookers are really just for the gays out there? And adultery does not exist, since gays cannot marry and straights are not promiscuous.

Yeah, it's always funny when they use "gay promiscuity" as an argument against gay marriage. It's a self-destructive argument.

Back when the first immigration quotas were established in response to the large numbers of Chinese immigrants fleeing revolutionary China at the turn of the last century, many Chinese wives were stranded in China, forbidden by us, to follow their husbands or fiances. Americans on the west coast then developed a stereotype of "those freewheeling bachelor Chinamen."

Same deal now, forbid them from doing what they want to do, then demonize them for not doing it.

Gay men are promiscuous for the same reason you lose things behind a television set and find them a year later.
The same reason the middle word in Bodies Without Organs's username is "without".
THe same reason this smilie contains no green -> :gundge:

Your argument might hold water if marriage was purely a religious institution. But it's not. One can have a secular wedding. Your opinions are not consistent with separation of church and state, and are anti-religious.

I agree, I think religions are stupid but we shouldnt go around telling them what to do just like they shouldnt go around telling us what to do. I support Gay Marriage but if a church dosnt want to marry a gay couple that is their right.

Gay men are promiscuous for the same reason you lose things behind a television set and find them a year later.
The same reason the middle word in Bodies Without Organs's username is "without".
THe same reason this smilie contains no green -> :gundge:
i was almost with you until the last point, but im completely lost now

i was almost with you until the last point, but im completely lost now
That is good.
Go ask Refused Party Program about this. He won't know what you're talking about, but I bet he can help obfuscate it for you anyway.

That is good.
Go ask Refused Party Program about this. He won't know what you're talking about, but I bet he can help obfuscate it for you anyway.
im liking that word, "obfuscate"

...is cause they're men, not cause they're gay.

Shit, I'm a straight guy, and I'd be getting laid every night...if I could. :(

Back to the point, the next time you hear someone talking about "them promiscuous gays spreading AIDS", just stop and think for a minute...what about them promiscuous lesbians? Oh wait, lesbians have an even lower rate of AIDS infection than the general heterosexual public. Probably cause they're content to buy each other Halmark cards and cuddle in front of the fireplace, rather than fuck like bunnies night and day.

So, we must therefore stop blaming gays for spreading AIDS, and start blaming men for just being so horny.


I'm a straight guy and I could be "Getting laid" every night if I wanted to, but I don't, so I don't. I've never had sex, never kissed a girl, etc. I'm a Calvinist, we don't go for that sort of thing. We don't believe in sexual contact outside of marriage. Marriage is one man, one woman, for one lifetime, and if you EVER get a divorce, you're immediately expelled from the church.


You need to get your stories straight, homosexual men are more promiscuous than heterosexual men, studies were done by moderate and even left-wing doctors, who ultimately had to admit the order of promiscuity is as follows.

Homosexual males.
Heterosexual males.
Homosexual females.
Heterosexual females.

(Based on data gathered as to sexual partners per person from each group, per month)

Conservatives are in no position to rant about promiscuity within the gay community when they remain so vehmently opposed to the best solution to the problem, gay marriage.... well that and the anti-discrimination laws that should be implemented to make gays feel accepted within society's moral framework. Hell, why stop there? Lets file a discrimination suit against religious nut-jobs who won't let us get married in their churches, I don't see why they should have any right to deny us, America being a non-theocratic country where the church should hold no influence over the state. It's always funny to hear rhetoric from anglican/protestant clerics who ostensibly would like to prevent the erosion of "family values" and the "sanctity of marriage" when their own sect/denomination is best known for being the first to grant people the liberty to get divorced.. that to me is a far bigger perversion of the whole idea of matrimonial commitment which, might I add, the Bible EXPLICITLY condemns. At least the Pope's self-righteous BS has some minimal trace of integrity.


If America is a nation where church and state are separated, the government has NO say in what a church does. The churches are private institutions and are exempt from the whims of federal judges who legislate from the bench. The government has no right to tell churches to marry or not marry folks.

Did you read the opening post? The point was that they're promiscuous because they're horny men, not because they're homosexual. If girls were as horny as guys, I fully believe heterosexuals would be having just as much sex as gay men. You take the horniness of one guy, and add it to the horniness of another guy...lots of sex. It's entirely natural.

But to require the government not to intervene in churches is yet again justified solely by religion, everybody should conform to the same rules regarding respect for the rights of others, regardless of religious beliefs. They can keep their prejudices to themselves.


No, they don't have to keep anything to themselves, we have FREEDOM OF SPEECH in this nation, and we ought to be a nation UNDER GOD, no amount of atheist and homosexual political correctness thought police will silence God's Elect.

You need to get your stories straight, homosexual men are more promiscuous than heterosexual men, studies were done by moderate and even left-wing doctors, who ultimately had to admit the order of promiscuity is as follows.

Homosexual males.
Heterosexual males.
Homosexual females.
Heterosexual females.

(Based on data gathered as to sexual partners per person from each group, per month)
Which, to reiterate the first poster, has nothing to do with something intrinsic about homosexuality or heterosexuality, but everything to do with lack of opportunity.

and we ought to be a nation UNDER GODSo then you propose to violate the Constitution?

You need to get your stories straight, homosexual men are more promiscuous than heterosexual men, studies were done by moderate and even left-wing doctors, who ultimately had to admit the order of promiscuity is as follows.

Homosexual males.
Heterosexual males.
Homosexual females.
Heterosexual females.

(Based on data gathered as to sexual partners per person from each group, per month)
Source? And even if this is true? What are you trying to prove?

Aww, come on, it's a well-known scientific fact that gay men just want to get it up the bum a lot, and they have sex with at least 10 different people per month.
[/sarcasm]
:D

10?
stop being so frigid :D

Conservatives are in no position to rant about promiscuity within the gay community when they remain so vehmently opposed to the best solution to the problem, gay marriage.
Bullshit. Given the various amounts of divorces, affairs, and other stupid shit that occurs in "normal" marriages to suggest that marriage would truly reduce the problem is laughable at best. Last time I checked my parents were still monogamous and they never got married. Promiscuity is a matter of intent, and marriage vows probably wouldn't erase that intent. If you're going to post an argument then at least think the fucking thing through.

Caution, free flowing thoughts! ...everyone else is doing it, so i will too...

There has to be something seriously wrong with the person if they want to be gay! In order to reproduce, you need a male and a female, not two of the same! Remember, it was Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve!...i would hate the day when gay marriage is legal...besides, it is a oxymoron...look it up, homosexual and marraige cannot happen within the English dictionary, nor most relgions! If gay marriage ever does become legal, why not let other horrors such as paedophilia, rape etc become legal too? it is damn right wrong and should of never existed in the first place...

There has to be something seriously wrong with the person if they want to be gay!
"Want" isn't part of it.
In order to reproduce, you need a male and a female, not two of the same! Remember, it was Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve!...
And this means what? I don't see how that makes a difference either way.
i would hate the day when gay marriage is legal...besides, it is a oxymoron...look it up, homosexual and marraige cannot happen within the English dictionary, nor most relgions!
Well, in that case, are you opposed to civil unions?
If gay marriage ever does become legal, why not let other horrors such as paedophilia, rape etc become legal too? it is damn right wrong and should of never existed in the first place...
What do paedophilia and rape have to do with homosexuality?
Nothing.
Slippery Slope fallacy.

Hmm... to take this seriously or to believe that this is some kind of joke. After all, I really thought people nowadays didn't believe this kind of thing any more.

Still...

There has to be something seriously wrong with the person if they want to be gay!
Got to agree with you there. Wanting to be someone who's looked down upon, discriminated against and loathed by a large number of people doesn't sound very sensible at all.

Which suggest that they didn't actually *have* that "choice".


In order to reproduce, you need a male and a female, not two of the same!
And we all know, nowadays love is all about getting more children. Really, all those straight marriages where the couple has no intention of ever having children should be abolished. They're making a whole mockery of the thing, after all.


Remember, it was Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve!
Then again, if there were just Adam and Eve, then their kids would not be able to reproduce with anybody other than each other. Obviously, this means the Lord wants us all to be incestuous. So now go forth and make babies with your cousin!

Also, why is it always "Adam and Steve", eh? Why doesn't anyone ever object to "Amanda and Eve"?


...i would hate the day when gay marriage is legal...
Shucks for you then, it already is. Well, over here it is.


look it up, homosexual and marraige cannot happen within the English dictionary,
Err... this argument has completely baffled me. Mostly because I totally fail to see what the argument actually is.


If gay marriage ever does become legal, why not let other horrors such as paedophilia, rape etc become legal too?
Because gay people actually have the capability of loving each other? Just a guess.


it is damn right wrong and should of never existed in the first place...
But it does. And since God, apparently, created everything, He created homosexuality as well. This implies that either A) God has a very sick sense of humour or B) He put all those gay people here to test the capability for love, tolerance and acceptance from His True Followers.

blah, blah, blah

besides, it is a oxymoron...look it up, homosexual and marraige cannot happen within the English dictionary,


yes! hes right! a word beginning with H doesnt go with a word beginning with M!

right thats it, no gay marriage, we cant wreck the alphabet for everyone

Caution, free flowing thoughts! ...everyone else is doing it, so i will too...

There has to be something seriously wrong with the person if they want to be gay! In order to reproduce, you need a male and a female, not two of the same! Remember, it was Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve!...i would hate the day when gay marriage is legal...besides, it is a oxymoron...look it up, homosexual and marraige cannot happen within the English dictionary, nor most relgions! If gay marriage ever does become legal, why not let other horrors such as paedophilia, rape etc become legal too? it is damn right wrong and should of never existed in the first place...

None of you know me, and none of you probably care. I would bet that maybe three people on NS even give a damn about my opinions, tops. But because I can share my opinion, and have one, i'm posting anyways.

So, I guess you "wanted" to be male(or female), right? Or you wanted to be [Insert skin color/ethnicity here]. Or you wanted to be born on that specific day/month/year in that specific place/city/country. If you can honestly say that you wanted all these things before you were even conceived, then i'll concede this argument to you.

Since when did the definition of marriage mean that one was required to reproduce in order for it to be legal? Far as I recall, redroduction came before marriage, not as a result of it.

Ok, so the dictionary might say that marriages occur between a man and a woman. But who wrote the dictionary? A human being. How often has it been changed? Countless. Can it be changed again? It can, and it will, countless more times.

I won't even touch the subject of God or religion, being an untouchable rock anchored to the glory of atheism(agnostic, whatever.) Suffice to say, while God may or may not have dictated the bible, it was written, copied, and editted by human hands, almost as often as the dictionary. Hardly a reliable source for information.

And finally, that last fountain of wisdom overflowing with such logic and constructive thought. Because we all know that having affections for those of the same gender as ourselves leads inevitably to greater crimes, like raping children and household pets. You really that through carefully, didn't you?

Anal sex is a few orders of magnitude more effective at spreading AIDS than vaginal sex. That's all there is to it.

Anal sex is a few orders of magnitude more effective at spreading AIDS than vaginal sex. That's all there is to it.
unless you use a condom, where in most cases youll be absolutely fine

Anal sex is a few orders of magnitude more effective at spreading AIDS than vaginal sex. That's all there is to it.

And condoms are equally good at protecting you from AIDS whomever you fuck. What's your point?

Gay men are promiscuous? I wish I was gay :(

If your ass is a Chinese restaurant, I'll have the Poo Poo Platter.

My friend Jerry Vandergrift kissed me in Home Ec class
Later in the afternoon some jarheads in the locker room kicked my ass
I said guys I'm like you I like Monster Trucks too
Wanna see how many pushups I can do?
I just wish I was queer so I could get

Chicks dig guys that are
Queer guys that don't dig
Chicks that don't dig guys like me
See I'm not queer I'm too ugly

But if I were handsome just imagine how great it would be
Incognito as a gay though but not actually that way though pseudo homo phony
Maybe it's a stupid theory or maybe just stupidity
But if I was a queerbee in the fashion industry
Scoring with a supermodel would be easy

'Cause supermodel means voluptuous but also is synonymous with superdumb
Ya see I'd be a good listener so she'd treat me like a sister and soon I'd become
That trusted friend that cares that rubs her back and braids her hair
No it wouldn't take a week before I'm in her underwear
I wish I was queer so I could get

Chicks dig guys that are
Queer guys that don't dig
Chicks that don't dig guys like me
See I'm not queer I'm too ugly

Doesn't matter what I'm packin' in my denim it's what's in my genes
The only smoked meat the only sausage I would eat is made by Jimmy Dean
See I'm not too keen on the smell of Vaseline
No I'm not Princess Di and I don't wanna be a queen
I just wish I was queer so I could get chicks

Anyway if I were gay I'd have to change my name to Dirk or Lewis
Hang out with my mom's hair stylist his name is Kip he's got a lisp he talks like this
And wear my mother's lingerie learn the songs of Broadway
And appreciate Depeche Mode and avant-garde ballet
I wish I was queer so I could get

Chicks dig guys that are
Queer guys that don't dig
Chicks dig guys that are
Queer guys that don't dig
Chicks dig guys that are
Queer guys that don't dig
Chicks that don't dig guys like me
See I'm not queer I'm too ugly

And I don't shave my heiny
Don't shave my heiny
See I'm not queer I'm too ugly

And I don't shave my heiny
Don't shave my heiny
See I'm not queer I'm too ugly

And I don't shave my heiny
Don't shave my heiny
See I'm not queer I'm too ugly

Most religious ppl have something with wich to base their morality in. So therefore if a man is religious he is more likely to behave sexually in a "moral" manner. Moral being something outside just what he thinks ought to be moral and immoral. However homosexuals do not have a morality outside just what they think is right or wrong, therefore they will behave more freely sexually. Hence more promiscuously. Other men, who are heterosexual but also do not have a morality based on anything concrete will also be promiscuous. So the thread is actually right promiscuity isn't based on weather some is straight or gay but rather if they have a moral basis other than simply what they want to believe. It is simply built into most homosexuals moral system to be promiscuous. now in since it is based on simply what they want to believe they all are not necessarily promiscuous, so some exceptions are expected. However when Morality is based on nothing but what a person wants to believe it easily allows for such lenient sexual behavior.

Bullshit. Given the various amounts of divorces, affairs, and other stupid shit that occurs in "normal" marriages to suggest that marriage would truly reduce the problem is laughable at best.
It's only bullshit if all married people are promiscuous. Even if not all married peope are monogamous, surely gay marriage would reduce the problem?

In fact could you go over your reason for opposing gay marriage? You don't seem to be a bigot so your opposition appears to be entirely for partisan reasons.

Caution, free flowing thoughts! ...everyone else is doing it, so i will too...

There has to be something seriously wrong with the person if they want to be gay! In order to reproduce, you need a male and a female, not two of the same! Remember, it was Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve!...i would hate the day when gay marriage is legal...besides, it is a oxymoron...look it up, homosexual and marraige cannot happen within the English dictionary, nor most relgions! If gay marriage ever does become legal, why not let other horrors such as paedophilia, rape etc become legal too? it is damn right wrong and should of never existed in the first place...
All your arguments have been destroyed about 59 gazillion and two times on this forum. Have fun.

Anal sex is a few orders of magnitude more effective at spreading AIDS than vaginal sex. That's all there is to it.
Probably true. But what does this have to do with gay marriage? Aren't you in favour of it?

So then you propose to violate the Constitution?


No, I propose to restore the Constitution to the interpretations it had before the activist judges started legislating from the bench. Either that, or alter it to fit our needs into it.

VoteEarly, I'll let you in on a secret.

All men are gay - it's just a matter of how gay we are.

VoteEarly, I'll let you in on a secret.

All men are gay - it's just a matter of how gay we are.


I'll let you in on a secret, you're wrong... Wait, no, that's entirely well known since you just made the blasphemous and baseless claim that all men are gay.

What next, all cats are dogs? All trucks are cars?

I'll let you in on a secret, you're wrong... Wait, no, that's entirely well known since you just made the blasphemous and baseless claim that all men are gay.

What next, all cats are dogs? All trucks are cars?
Such a violent reaction … me thinks you have a guilty conscience :fluffle:

I'll let you in on a secret, you're wrong... Wait, no, that's entirely well known since you just made the blasphemous and baseless claim that all men are gay.

What next, all cats are dogs? All trucks are cars?

It's a matter of degress.

We'll start with two questions:

1. Have you ever masturbated?
2. Do you like porn?

Answer the questions and we'll continue. In fact, we should answer the questions as most so-called heterosexual men will answer those questions, which would be Yes to both.

But answer, and we'll continue with the proof.

Anal sex is a few orders of magnitude more effective at spreading AIDS than vaginal sex. That's all there is to it.What, and hetrosexual anal sex is unheard of?

We'll start with two questions:

1. Have you ever masturbated?
2. Do you like porn? :confused: I don't see where this is going...

...then again, i never will unless we journey down this strange new path. :D

1) Yes.
2) Yes.

Carry on, that's one hetro male that's answered you.

1. If you answered Yes to whether you've masturbated, then right off the bat (no pun intended) you've had sex with a man.

2. If you like porn, and you like watching male/female action, then are you more excited by a small, limp dick, or do you really want to see a guy with a huge, throbbing cock.

And what's with all the cum shots? That's not the woman coming now, is it? And they put them in the movies so that men will find them more exciting.

None of you know me, and none of you probably care. I would bet that maybe three people on NS even give a damn about my opinions, tops. But because I can share my opinion, and have one, i'm posting anyways.

(snip)

Khinasi, I predict good things from you in the future on this forum.

Welcome.

[*snip*]
which song is that? judging from the lyrics, I would probably like it ;)

No, they don't have to keep anything to themselves, we have FREEDOM OF SPEECH in this nation, and we ought to be a nation UNDER GOD, no amount of atheist and homosexual political correctness thought police will silence God's Elect.

I'm telling you, the almighty Ra must be really dejected to see his nation following another God like that Christian upstart.

What I'm trying to say is that nowhere was it mentionned which God should we follow. In fact, it has been quite clear that we should respect diversity when it comes to religion and that the government should not use religion to base it's law.

As for activist judges, :rolleyes:
That's their role, their function, their raison d'etre . Their function is to interpret the constitution. Claiming a judge is an activist is using partisan rethoric because you don'T agree with his interpretation. An activist judge would be a judge protesting outside for one cause or another.

That misconception irritate me to no end.