NationStates Jolt Archive

Seriously. I mean why is there such a big deal surrounding whether a person is gay or not? Why do people honestly care if they get married, adopt children, or join the military? It makes no sense to me! Can some one please explain it???

In the US, it's an issue because the Republican party insists on using it to drive out their fundamentalist base to vote. It's understandable, because they don't have much else to drive their party to the polls with. Plus, there's the fact that with all the other really important shit to deal with in the world, the President has decided to make a speech today on "protecting the sanctity of marriage" to show his fundy base that he can act like he gives a shit about a constitutional amendment that doesn't have nearly enough votes to pass.

i don't get it either... *watches thread for the answer*

In the US, it's an issue because the Republican party insists on using it to drive out their fundamentalist base to vote. It's understandable, because they don't have much else to drive their party to the polls with. Plus, there's the fact that with all the other really important shit to deal with in the world, the President has decided to make a speech today on "protecting the sanctity of marriage" to show his fundy base that he can act like he gives a shit about a constitutional amendment that doesn't have nearly enough votes to pass.


Yeah, I figured it had something to do with those darn republicans :).

Meh, it makes no since though, why homosexuality is so bad.. I mean, why do Conservative Christians and just Conservatives in general, think that it is such a wrong thing?

Really, there's not much difference between the Democrat and Republican parties.

Both have plenty of corrupt idiots who couldn't negotiate their way out of a wet paper bag.

Neither is going to get us out of Iraq anytime soon.

So they have to market a "difference".

Since they are not too distinct from a political philosophy point of view, you get ridiculous differences.

Yeah, I figured it had something to do with those darn republicans :).

Meh, it makes no since though, why homosexuality is so bad.. I mean, why do Conservative Christians and just Conservatives in general, think that it is such a wrong thing?
They find it icky ... then use their religion to try and justify that feeling

It has been on the forums more than usual recently...

Because somebody needs to pander the hate vote.

Election year. Repubs are using us as a wedge issue.

Is Zilam coming out of the closet?

Yeah, I figured it had something to do with those darn republicans :).

Meh, it makes no since though, why homosexuality is so bad.. I mean, why do Conservative Christians and just Conservatives in general, think that it is such a wrong thing?
There's no easy answer to that. For some it comes down to what their pastors tell them (as opposed to what they read in the Bible, because Jesus never condemned homosexuality); for others, I think it's just that they fear what's unfamiliar. It's a common phenomenon.

For instance, in larger cities, where there's a more prominent gay population, the population in general is more open to equality for homosexuals. It's in more insulated communities where you see the open hatred. It's the same on immigration--the greatest howling against immigration, legal or illegal, comes from communities where there's a small to nonexistent immigrant population. Places where immigration is common have far less objection to it, because most people in the community know immigrants, have friends or relatives by marriage who are immigrants, etc. Same with homosexuals--the larger the group, the more chance that you know someone or are related to someone who is gay, and it's a lot harder to hate someone you know than it is to hate an idea or an abstract.

Still, many manage to pull it off, and that's just sad.

They find it icky ... then use their religion to try and justify that feeling


See thats the thing though, no where does it say in the teachings of Christ "Persecute thy homosexual brethren." I hear many people say "well its a sinful lifestyle" and use that as justification.

Ummm
1) Who cares if they want to sin, let 'em. Its not really your(rhetorically speaking) problem.
2) Lying is sinning, so is lusting, being greedy, and so on.. Are we to ban everything?
3) STFU you religious zealots. You are tainting the good name of Christ with you freaking idiotic beliefs.
/finished venting.

Is Zilam coming out of the closet?


No no no. I love vagina, very much so. :D

See thats the thing though, no where does it say in the teachings of Christ "Persecute thy homosexual brethren." I hear many people say "well its a sinful lifestyle" and use that as justification.

Ummm
1) Who cares if they want to sin, let 'em. Its not really your(rhetorically speaking) problem.
2) Lying is sinning, so is lusting, being greedy, and so on.. Are we to ban everything?
3) STFU you religious zealots. You are tainting the good name of Christ with you freaking idiotic beliefs.
/finished venting.

You forgot about the whole "Do unto others..." thing.
Oh and "Let he who is without sin..."
Oh and "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake."

See thats the thing though, no where does it say in the teachings of Christ "Persecute thy homosexual brethren." I hear many people say "well its a sinful lifestyle" and use that as justification.

Ummm
1) Who cares if they want to sin, let 'em. Its not really your(rhetorically speaking) problem.
2) Lying is sinning, so is lusting, being greedy, and so on.. Are we to ban everything?
3) STFU you religious zealots. You are tainting the good name of Christ with you freaking idiotic beliefs.
/finished venting.
I happen to agree with you … but when people feel it is part of their religion to project it onto others …

You forgot about the whole "Do unto others..." thing.
Oh and "Let he who is without sin..."
Oh and "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake."


Oh yeah. -smites self for not remembering those things- ;)

I happen to agree with you … but when people feel it is part of their religion to project it onto others …


Well, those people seriously need to shut the hell up. I honestly am embarrassed at times to be considered a Christian, with all of what these people do, using snippets of scripture to try and justify their cause.

You forgot about the whole "Do unto others..." thing.
Oh and "Let he who is without sin..."
Oh and "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake."
Isn't it interesting that depending on what you emphasize in those sayings, Jesus could very easily be talking about groups persecuted by so-called Christians, instead of the Christians themselves?

I'll do you one better: Why's everyone so gay?

Isn't it interesting that depending on what you emphasize in those sayings, Jesus could very easily be talking about groups persecuted by so-called Christians, instead of the Christians themselves?

Have you already noticed that we got a new member of Muslim extraction who is now busy justifying faith-based-initiatives on such things as gaiety?

Isn't it interesting that depending on what you emphasize in those sayings, Jesus could very easily be talking about groups persecuted by so-called Christians, instead of the Christians themselves?

Jesus rescued a convicted adulterer from being stoned. This is where "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" comes from. What is significant about this is it implies NO HUMAN IS PERFECT, therefore no human should judge. The only being perfect enough to judge is God himself.

Have you already noticed that we got a new member of Muslim extraction who is now busy justifying faith-based-initiatives on such things as gaiety?

Christian, Muslim, it doesnt matter. These religions would be fine if the people actually practiced them as they should.

Christian, Muslim, it doesnt matter. These religions would be fine if the people actually practiced them as they should.


It would be even better if people started treating religion as a matter of private concern only.
Come to think of it: the same thing applies to gaiety.

It would be even better if people started treating religion as a matter of private concern only.
Come to think of it: the same thing applies to gaiety.

Are you saying people who are gay should just keep it to themselves? If so get ready to be told youre ignorant.

Seriously. I mean why is there such a big deal surrounding whether a person is gay or not? Why do people honestly care if they get married, adopt children, or join the military? It makes no sense to me! Can some one please explain it???

If we dont identify and brand gays how can we track their movements? and if we give them a few civil rights what will they want next? one day youl be watching tv, minding your own business, and theyl come in and ass rape you and turn you gay too. then where will you be? gay, thats where.

Christian, Muslim, it doesnt matter. These religions would be fine if the people actually practiced them as they should.


Exactly.

If we dont identify and brand gays how can we track their movements? and if we give them a few civil rights what will they want next? one day youl be watching tv, minding your own business, and theyl come in and ass rape you and turn you gay too. then where will you be? gay, thats where.

Sadly thats what some people actually think.

Jesus rescued a convicted adulterer from being stoned. This is where "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" comes from. What is significant about this is it implies NO HUMAN IS PERFECT, therefore no human should judge. The only being perfect enough to judge is God himself.
Interesting side note to that: did you know that that story doesn't actually appear in the earliest Greek texts of the scriptures? It was apparently added a couple of centuries later into a text that became a seed text for later translations. Something I picked up from Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus, but it's apparently well known inside Biblical textual critic circles.

It would be even better if people started treating religion as a matter of private concern only.
Come to think of it: the same thing applies to gaiety.

You mean you should only be gay in private?

It would be even better if people started treating religion as a matter of private concern only.
Come to think of it: the same thing applies to gaiety.
So--are you going to keep your hetero-ness to yourself? :rolleyes:

It would be even better if people started treating religion as a matter of private concern only.
Come to think of it: the same thing applies to gaiety.

So straight people can kiss, hold hands in public, have public weddings, celebrate anniversaries very publicly, but if you're gay it's a private matter?

Fuck you very much.

So--are you going to keep your hetero-ness to yourself? :rolleyes:

And black people should obviously keep their niggerdom to themselves...

You mean you should only be gay in private?

Yup. You can practise it in your own bedroom.
And ditto for your religion. No need to display it in public space.

And black people should obviously keep their niggerdom to themselves...

Categoric impossibility.

Categoric impossibility.

Yes that was the point.

Yup. You can practise it in your own bedroom.
And ditto for your religion. No need to display it in public space.
How are you supposed to meet someone if people don’t know your preference?

How are you supposed to meet someone if people don’t know your preference?

Don't feed BogMarsh.

Yup. You can practise it in your own bedroom.
And ditto for your religion. No need to display it in public space.
There's a lot more to being gay than just who you fuck, but I suppose you don't want to talk about any of that because it's going to make you look like an idiot and you know that.

How are you supposed to meet someone if people don’t know your preference?


I think the point was you're not supposed to. It's ok to be gay, as long as you don't do anything that's actually gay.

How are you supposed to meet someone if people don’t know your preference?


Close you eyes, clap your heels together, and hope they end up in your bed?

Close you eyes, clap your heels together, and hope they end up in your bed?
Wouldn't it work better if the heels were apart? ;)

Close you eyes, clap your heels together, and hope they end up in your bed?


But what if you don't own any ruby slippers?! Even if I had a pair I'd have to find a matching purse!

How are you supposed to meet someone if people don’t know your preference?


Gaydar.

My gaydar is hopelessly busted. Either that or about 40% of the "straight" guys around here are closet cases.

My gaydar is hopelessly busted. Either that or about 40% of the "straight" guys around here are closet cases.Wishful thinking's a bitch, isn't it?

Yeah sorta is, speaking of which the boss' 20 year old son just walked in without a shirt on.

Oh my. Not a wise career move, but tasty none the less.

My gaydar is hopelessly busted. Either that or about 40% of the "straight" guys around here are closet cases.

I wouldnt doubt it.

Yes that was the point.

Yes?
How can you regulate the unregulatable?

Yes?
How can you regulate the unregulatable?

Hi, I'm Earth, have we met?

What do you think I am getting at?

Wouldn't it work better if the heels were apart? ;)

:p




But what if you don't own any ruby slippers?! Even if I had a pair I'd have to find a matching purse!

Then I guess you are screwed

-puns are fun- :)

There's a lot more to being gay than just who you fuck, but I suppose you don't want to talk about any of that because it's going to make you look like an idiot and you know that.

Oh? What gave you the slightest idea I cared to know more about it?
Ahhh - what you really have in mind is canvassing, perhaps?

Yes?
How can you regulate the unregulatable?
You seem to be suggesting it's possible when it comes to homosexuality--why don't you answer the question?

Hi, I'm Earth, have we met?

What do you think I am getting at?

What do you think I'm getting at?

What do you think I'm getting at?

What the fuck?

Oh hey is this that game where we have a conversation with only questions?

You seem to be suggesting it's possible when it comes to homosexuality--why don't you answer the question?

:gasp: Intelligence!

What do you think I'm getting at?


I honestly don't think anyone knows what the fuck you are saying anymore.

Because gays are evil yucky sodomites and perverts who killed Jesus and 9/11 was a gay plot and gays are in league with the jews and the freemasons to RULE TEH WRLD!!11 and destroy our glorious christian values that sex should only be consentual missionary position between two adults of opposite genders for the purpose of procreation that results in no enjoyment by either party!!!1


I'll do you one better: Why's everyone so gay?
Why shouldn't we be? With all the despair, pain, and fear in the world, we all need some happiness every now and then. :p

Oh? What gave you the slightest idea I cared to know more about it?
Ahhh - what you really have in mind is canvassing, perhaps?
Not me personally, but nice one with the unsubtle attempt to call me a fag. You're involved in the thread--if you don't want to learn more or you don't want to take part in a conversation about it, then no one is forcing you to click on the thread. That you are means you're showing a certain level of interest.

You seem to be suggesting it's possible when it comes to homosexuality--why don't you answer the question?

What question?

The matter is exceedingly easy: your private things can be dealt with in private.
They are no concern of mine at all - and you have no business making 'em my concern.
Wether it is your religion, foodpreference, sexuality, or tattoos - they can be kept in private.

:gasp: Intelligence!
It happens once in a while--I wouldn't get too used to it. ;)

What question?

The matter is exceedingly easy: your private things can be dealt with in private.
They are no concern of mine at all - and you have no business making 'em my concern.
Wether it is your religion, foodpreference, sexuality, or tattoos - they can be kept in private.
So what are you suggesting we do about the signs of heteronormativity that surround us--outlaw all public displays of affection, regardless of sexual preference? Get rid of all sexual references in advertising? in literature? in film? What are you, the fucking Taliban?

Because gays are evil yucky sodomites and perverts who killed Jesus and 9/11 was a gay plot and gays are in league with the jews and the freemasons to RULE TEH WRLD!!11 and destroy our glorious christian values that sex should only be consentual missionary position between two adults of opposite genders for the purpose of procreation that results in no enjoyment by either party!!!1





:eek: NO WAY!!!!! The Jews and gays...plotting together? Next Im sure you'll tell me that GW bush is liberal and fat albert was actually anorexic!

So what are you suggesting we do about the signs of heteronormativity that surround us--outlaw all public displays of affection, regardless of sexual preference? Get rid of all sexual references in advertising? in literature? in film? What are you, the fucking Taliban?

Safe to say that under his rule no one would be fucking.

my friend on MSN had this to say about the federal marriage admendment:
The consitution is about protecting individual rights, not restricting them... the only time there has ever been an amendment restricting individual rights, it was repealed because it made the problem worse
now we're going to have bootleg gays

haha

can't you see it...all the mobsters running around with pink tommy guns, and we have Big gay Al capone and the Fabulous Lucky Luciano. Oh my!

Not me personally, but nice one with the unsubtle attempt to call me a fag. You're involved in the thread--if you don't want to learn more or you don't want to take part in a conversation about it, then no one is forcing you to click on the thread. That you are means you're showing a certain level of interest.

Let me repeat: I don't give a SHIT about your sexuality.
There is no need to ever bring it up at all.

It may have something to do with getting subpoena'd way back in the early nineties to give evidence on the private behaviour of a fine brother officer whose sexual tastes in no way interfered with his excellence as a company commander.
Who he fiddlesticks hasn't got a darned thing to do with the way in which he performed his duties.

You zealots of both the left and the right are all the same:
you oppose the very concept of privacy.
Who fiddlesticks who is no topic of civilised conversation - EVER.

Drive by makeovers?

Drive by makeovers?

You might actually see some women sneaking in to speakeasys to get a good makeover.

:eek: NO WAY!!!!! The Jews and gays...plotting together? Next Im sure you'll tell me that GW bush is liberal and fat albert was actually anorexic!

Well, gays can get married in Israel...

Its the Protocols of the Gay Elders of Zion!

Let me repeat: I don't give a SHIT about your sexuality.
There is no need to ever bring it up at all.

It may have something to do with getting subpoena'd way back in the early nineties to give evidence on the private behaviour of a fine brother officer whose sexual tastes in no way interfered with his excellence as a company commander.
Who he fiddlesticks hasn't got a darned thing to do with the way in which he performed his duties.

You zealots of both the left and the right are all the same:
you oppose the very concept of privacy.
Who fiddlesticks who is no topic of civilised conversation - EVER.

Awesome, lets all just sew our eyelids shut then.

Well, gays can get married in Israel...

Its the Protocols of the Gay Elders of Zion!


-dies from implosion of the head, due to being unable to comprehend that certain evil-:rolleyes:

Let me repeat: I don't give a SHIT about your sexuality.
There is no need to ever bring it up at all.

It may have something to do with getting subpoena'd way back in the early nineties to give evidence on the private behaviour of a fine brother officer whose sexual tastes in no way interfered with his excellence as a company commander.
Who he fiddlesticks hasn't got a darned thing to do with the way in which he performed his duties.

You zealots of both the left and the right are all the same:
you oppose the very concept of privacy.
Who fiddlesticks who is no topic of civilised conversation - EVER.
Oh spare me--sex has been a topic of human discussion since the invention of language. The first thing early humans talked about was who was fucking whom. Get the fuck over yourself. It is impossible to make sex a private issue--it pervades every aspect of our lives, publicly and privately, and to act otherwise is to simply be blind to the world as it exists around you.

Let me repeat: I don't give a SHIT about your sexuality.
There is no need to ever bring it up at all.

It may have something to do with getting subpoena'd way back in the early nineties to give evidence on the private behaviour of a fine brother officer whose sexual tastes in no way interfered with his excellence as a company commander.
Who he fiddlesticks hasn't got a darned thing to do with the way in which he performed his duties.

You zealots of both the left and the right are all the same:
you oppose the very concept of privacy.
Who fiddlesticks who is no topic of civilised conversation - EVER.


Well, if you don't like seeing people showing PDA, or whatever, and you enjoy that much privacy, then stay the fuck inside your home.

:eek: NO WAY!!!!! The Jews and gays...plotting together? Next Im sure you'll tell me that GW bush is liberal and fat albert was actually anorexic!
Bah, Bush is a commie. We need to implement tax rates of -30000% immediately and only give voting rights to stockholders and executives in big corporations!!!1
haha

can't you see it...all the mobsters running around with pink tommy guns, and we have Big gay Al capone and the Fabulous Lucky Luciano. Oh my!
We'll have to smuggle gay men and women in from Canada. I call first moonshine still!
zomgwtf punnishness

So what are you suggesting we do about the signs of heteronormativity that surround us--outlaw all public displays of affection, regardless of sexual preference? Get rid of all sexual references in advertising? in literature? in film? What are you, the fucking Taliban?

Since when is there need to regulate social norms?
They pretty much form themselves.
What you seem to have in mind is imposing your own instead.

Society has been working out nicely enough without canvassing.
No one is getting their panties in a bind over Little Britain, are they?
Neither hetero or homo is getting upset over that.

Zealot.

Since when is there need to regulate social norms?
They pretty much form themselves.
What you seem to have in mind is imposing your own instead.

Society has been working out nicely enough without canvassing.
No one is getting their panties in a bind over Little Britain, are they?
Neither hetero or homo is getting upset over that.

Zealot.
You're the one calling for it. You tell me. You're the one who wants to make sexuality a private issue--well, if you're going to do that, then you have to regulate the ever-loving shit out if it. Zealot, heal thyself.

And by the way, what you call canvassing is what most people call living their everyday lives. You've got issues, dude.

Since when is there need to regulate social norms?
They pretty much form themselves.
What you seem to have in mind is imposing your own instead.

Society has been working out nicely enough without canvassing.
No one is getting their panties in a bind over Little Britain, are they?
Neither hetero or homo is getting upset over that.

Zealot.


Lemme see, straight people are normal as defined by society, thus it's perfectly acceptable for them to be as open with their sexuality as they like. Queers are immoral/unnatural/against god/too stylish/just plain icky so they need to keep their fucking immoral/unnatura/against god/stylish/icky asses hid or you'll bust some heads?


Yes that's perfectly fair and in no way being a complete ASSHAT.

We'll have to smuggle gay men and women in from Canada. I call first moonshine still!
zomgwtf punnishness


There'll have to be a movie out later, regarding those days. We'll have to call it "Touchaboys"


(like the untouchables...ohh jeez...failed attempt to make a funny...count the tally of those...like 2300 or so of them)

Lemme see, straight people are normal as defined by society, thus it's perfectly acceptable for them to be as open with their sexuality as they like. Queers are immoral/unnatural/against god/too stylish/just plain icky so they need to keep their fucking immoral/unnatura/against god/stylish/icky asses hid or you'll bust some heads?


Yes that's perfectly fair and in no way being a complete ASSHAT.

Yes, society DEFINES. Nothing else is needed.
I don't bust heads - so talk to someone who does.

You're the one calling for it. You tell me. You're the one who wants to make sexuality a private issue--well, if you're going to do that, then you have to regulate the ever-loving shit out if it. Zealot, heal thyself.

And by the way, what you call canvassing is what most people call living their everyday lives. You've got issues, dude.


Know what?
Up yours too.

You can stick to social norms - or emigrate somewhere.

Yes, society DEFINES. Nothing else is needed.
I don't bust heads - so talk to someone who does.

Wow, society defines, and the definition is changing dumbass. The problem is you don't like it and you want to prevent it from changing.

Kiss my queer ass.

You can stick to social norms - or emigrate somewhere.The problem with that is...if everyone is sticking to social norms, how do we change them?

Wow, society defines, and the definition is changing dumbass. The problem is you don't like it and you want to prevent it from changing.

Kiss my queer ass.

Go forth and be fruitful.

Know what?
Up yours too.

You can stick to social norms - or emigrate somewhere.In other words, you've got nothing left to do but insult me. Glad to see where we stand on this.

As to the other, I can tell social norms to fuck themselves, and I do. And in many cases, those norms change for the better, leaving people like you in the cold grousing about how horrible the world is that people are actually living their fucking lives the way they want to live them.

Wow, society defines, and the definition is changing dumbass. The problem is you don't like it and you want to prevent it from changing.

Kiss my queer ass.
:D

Kiss my queer ass.
That would be.... ironic.

You can stick to social norms - or emigrate somewhere.
Yeah. Everyone should conform to social norms; otherwise, they are thought-criminals, and the Thought Police will haul them off to the Ministry of Love for re-education. Rebellion is doubleplusungood.

The problem with that is...if everyone is sticking to social norms, how do we change them?

By the ballot.
*shrug*
My own LDP is arguably the party with the biggest queer-contingent of the country.
How do 'we' get away with it?
By treating sexuality as a private issue.
Sure, one gets joked about.
But then again, you never get a bunch of zealots turning up near the main entrance.

In other words, you've got nothing left to do but insult me. Glad to see where we stand on this.

As to the other, I can tell social norms to fuck themselves, and I do. And in many cases, those norms change for the better, leaving people like you in the cold grousing about how horrible the world is that people are actually living their fucking lives the way they want to live them.

Well, you started using foul language, did you not?
What did you expect, a cookie for swearing?

By the ballot.
*shrug*
My own LDP is arguably the party with the biggest queer-contingent of the country.
How do 'we' get away with it?
By treating sexuality as a private issue.
Sure, one gets joked about.
But then again, you never get a bunch of zealots turning up near the main entrance.Right, but in this case, the social norm is heterosexual public displays of affection. Homosexual public displays of affection are frowned upon, but not illegal. How do we go about making it so homosexual public displays of affection are no more frowned upon than heterosexual ones?

Well, you started using foul language, did you not?
What did you expect, a cookie for swearing?
I use foul language when talking to my teenage daughter about tv shows, for fuck's sake. Like that makes one bit of difference. :rolleyes:

Foul language, another example of a social norm. What makes a word foul? Its just a word. Given that there are times you must be respectful and not say them, who cares if I say fucking alot in familiar conversation?

Know what?
Up yours too.

You can stick to social norms - or emigrate somewhere.
Social norms, sir? You think we can't adapt to new social norms? Well, what of cars? And the service-sector economy? And longer life spans?

That would be.... ironic.


Yeah. Everyone should conform to social norms; otherwise, they are thought-criminals, and the Thought Police will haul them off to the Ministry of Love for re-education. Rebellion is doubleplusungood.


No tongue though, I don't know or like him that well!

No tongue though, I don't know or like him that well!

That doesnt mean it wont feel good ;)

Right, but in this case, the social norm is heterosexual public displays of affection. Homosexual public displays of affection are frowned upon, but not illegal. How do we go about making it so homosexual public displays of affection are no more frowned upon than heterosexual ones?
Easy. You go around town holding hands with your same-sex partner like it's the most normal thing in the world and have no worries in mind. If someone starts to give you shit, you either ignore them and smile, or act confused and ask them "Is there a problem, sir?".

After a couple of years of that, people start to get used to the idea of seeing two men and/or women walking hand in hand. And they stop carring.

Easy. You go around town holding hands with your same-sex partner like it's the most normal thing in the world and have no worries in mind. If someone starts to give you shit, you either ignore them and smile, or act confused and ask them "Is there a problem, sir?".

After a couple of years of that, people start to get used to the idea of seeing two men and/or women walking hand in hand. And they stop carring.Oh, I know, but BogMarsh was saying that this shouldn't be done, because it violates social norms...which would be fine, if social norms were static and never warranted changing.

Right, but in this case, the social norm is heterosexual public displays of affection. Homosexual public displays of affection are frowned upon, but not illegal. How do we go about making it so homosexual public displays of affection are no more frowned upon than heterosexual ones?


*shrugs again*
Don't ask me - the only public displays of affection I do are with my own children. Grouphugs, really.

PDAs are frowned upon in general. However, the only ones that are illegal are the PDAs of a commercial nature. As a general rule, bans on certain types of behaviour are a local issue. Issued by local authorities, and strictly following local tastes.

In this community, you get into legal trouble for public drinking, or public sex of all kinds, or using drugs. You don't get into trouble for hugging anyone, nor kissing.

As for anyone getting their heads bashed in, or similar things, that seems to be contigent upon walking on the wrong time of day in the wrong street - and not on what you do there.

Oh, I know, but BogMarsh was saying that this shouldn't be done, because it violates social norms...which would be fine, if social norms were static and never warranted changing.
We're the ones who define social norms. When I go out and hold my boyfriend by the hand, and kiss him in public, I'm the one making social norms change. If he doesn't like it, he can go and tell me about it.

And when he does, I'll just answer "Your objection, sir, have been duly noted. And as of now, it will be duly ignored. Have a good day."

No tongue though, I don't know or like him that well!
< does his best to avoid making some kind of stupid joke involving the cleaning habits of cats >

*shrugs again*
Don't ask me - the only public displays of affection I do are with my own children. Grouphugs, really.

PDAs are frowned upon in general. However, the only ones that are illegal are the PDAs of a commercial nature. As a general rule, bans on certain types of behaviour are a local issue. Issued by local authorities, and strictly following local tastes.

In this community, you get into legal trouble for public drinking, or public sex of all kinds, or using drugs. You don't get into trouble for hugging anyone, nor kissing.All right, fair enough, but...have you ever worn a wedding ring in public? It is the most overlooked, and probably the most comment public statement of sexuality, in spite of all the jokes about married people not getting any.

As for anyone getting their heads bashed in, or similar things, that seems to be contigent upon walking on the wrong time of day in the wrong street - and not on what you do there.I have to disagree. I mean, simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time can be an issue, but plenty of gays have gotten their heads bashed in for being gay, too. UpwardThrust started a thread about this very topic.

We're the ones who define social norms. When I go out and hold my boyfriend by the hand, and kiss him in public, I'm the one making social norms change. If he doesn't like it, he can go and tell me about it.

And when he does, I'll just answer "Your objection, sir, have been duly noted. And as of now, it will be duly ignored. Have a good day."Oh, I know. Have you ever felt like your personal safety was in danger?

Oh, I know, but BogMarsh was saying that this shouldn't be done, because it violates social norms...which would be fine, if social norms were static and never warranted changing.

Oh, I challenge that.
It would be horrible if it were the other way around.

Social norms change - and we all change along with 'em.
Meanwhile we conform to the norms of 1980 in 1980, those of 2000 in 2000, and 2020 in 2020.

What you cant do is what the Conservative Zealots want: force people in 2006 to conform to the norms of 1500. Puritanism is over.
And what you cant do either is what the Liberal Zealots want: force people in 2006 to conform to the norms of 1990. Freaknik is over.

1. All right, fair enough, but...have you ever worn a wedding ring in public? It is the most overlooked, and probably the most comment public statement of sexuality, in spite of all the jokes about married people not getting any.

2. I have to disagree. I mean, simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time can be an issue, but plenty of gays have gotten their heads bashed in for being gay, too. UpwardThrust started a thread about this very topic.

3. Oh, I know. Have you ever felt like your personal safety was in danger?

1. Oddly enough, I wore mine on a chain around my neck.
Not about modesty, I suppose, but to remind me closer to my heart.
( I rarely was at home during 1984-2000, so remaining committed was a major challenge. Well... in the beginning. )

2. *shrugs* Violence here is pretty random. Haven't heard much complaints about gender-related violence in that sense - and I do assume I would be one of the first to know around these parts.
It's a Little Britain thing. This isn't the kind of community where hate crimes involve blood.

Oh, I challenge that.
It would be horrible if it were the other way around.

Social norms change - and we all change along with 'em.
Meanwhile we conform to the norms of 1980 in 1980, those of 2000 in 2000, and 2020 in 2020.

What you cant do is what the Conservative Zealots want: force people in 2006 to conform to the norms of 1500. Puritanism is over.
And what you cant do either is what the Liberal Zealots want: force people in 2006 to conform to the norms of 1990. Freaknik is over.
But if we do not challenge social norms how are they supposed to change?

But if we do not challenge social norms how are they supposed to change?
You think he'll ever acknowledge the inherent contradictions in his posts in this thread?

Oh, I challenge that.
It would be horrible if it were the other way around.

Social norms change - and we all change along with 'em.
Meanwhile we conform to the norms of 1980 in 1980, those of 2000 in 2000, and 2020 in 2020.

What you cant do is what the Conservative Zealots want: force people in 2006 to conform to the norms of 1500. Puritanism is over.
And what you cant do either is what the Liberal Zealots want: force people in 2006 to conform to the norms of 1990. Freaknik is over.Then I'm not sure what you mean, because PDAs are still the social norm, both heterosexual and homosexual PDAs.

1. Oddly enough, I wore mine on a chain around my neck.
Not about modesty, I suppose, but to remind me closer to my heart.
( I rarely was at home during 1984-2000, so remaining committed was a major challenge. Well... in the beginning. ) Ah. Well, I suppose if you never showed it to anyone in public then you could conceivably have never declared your sexuality in public. Few people do this though, most wear it on their fingers where it can be easily seen (even if having other people see it isn't necessarily their goal.)

2. *shrugs* Violence here is pretty random. Haven't heard much complaints about gender-related violence in that sense - and I do assume I would be one of the first to know around these parts.
It's a Little Britain thing. This isn't the kind of community where hate crimes involve blood.Ah. Well, Britain is more open-minded than we are here. We've had quite a few homosexual-related hate crimes. Have you ever seen the movie "Boys Don't Cry"? It was based on the real life story of a transsexual (not the same as a homosexual, but often lumped together with homosexuals.)

There's a lot more to being gay than just who you fuck, but I suppose you don't want to talk about any of that because it's going to make you look like an idiot and you know that.


Like what?

Well, LGBT people have some rights now, but I guess some people didn't expect them to get so far, so they're trying to crush them again. Pretty sad, isn't it? The pendulum will swing back eventually, but not before a lot of people's lives are ruined because of ignorance and bigotry.

Like what?
You're not actually asking this question, are you?

Seriously. I mean why is there such a big deal surrounding whether a person is gay or not? Why do people honestly care if they get married, adopt children, or join the military? It makes no sense to me! Can some one please explain it???
Because its icky and I dont want catch the gayness. No, in all serious I have no idea either. Its crazy, but so is religion which is where much of the fear comes from. Rational, secular people tend not to worry about homosexuality.

You're not actually asking this question, are you?

I am.

It's my understanding that gay people are like everyone else, except they like people of the same gender.

So what's "the lot more to being gay than just who you fuck" part?

People are trying to get a way to channel some homo energy out of their system. :p

I am.

It's my understanding that gay people are like everyone else, except they like people of the same gender.

So what's "the lot more to being gay than just who you fuck" part?

You know there ARE gay people who have meaningful loving relationships...

Seriously. I mean why is there such a big deal surrounding whether a person is gay or not? Why do people honestly care if they get married, adopt children, or join the military? It makes no sense to me! Can some one please explain it???

Elections in November.

Republicans have been having a pretty bad term, thus far - and a lot of people are likely to withhold a vote... on issues like "Is the President doing a good job", or Iraq, the economy, oil prices...

So - the Republicans are hammering one group they KNOW will get out and vote - the religious right.

That's why all this pressure right now to push the 'gay marriage' ban - it's not ABOUT passing it - it's about being SEEN to be pushing the issue.


I'll also be expecting at least one big issue about abortion, before November.

I am.

It's my understanding that gay people are like everyone else, except they like people of the same gender.

So what's "the lot more to being gay than just who you fuck" part?
Are you heterosexual? Does that mean that the only thing that defines you as a human being is the fact that you like to have sex with people of the opposite sex? Or is there more to you than that?

Are you heterosexual? Does that mean that the only thing that defines you as a human being is the fact that you like to have sex with people of the opposite sex? Or is there more to you than that?

Gay or straight is not a defining label, although they are labels labelling whether or not you like those of the same or opposite sex. But being gay or straight alone doesn't mean anything else.

Are you heterosexual? Does that mean that the only thing that defines you as a human being is the fact that you like to have sex with people of the opposite sex? Or is there more to you than that?

You said;


There's a lot more to being gay than just who you fuck,

To me that means that there's alot more to being gay than having sex with the same gender.

So besides having sex with the same gender what is the lot more part of being gay?

Gay or straight is not a defining label, although they are labels labelling whether or not you like those of the same or opposite sex. But being gay or straight alone doesn't mean anything else.

That's what I was trying to say.

No idea. I can't quite understand the attraction of being homosexual, but that doesn't stop me being friends with some homo- or bisexual people. I don't like/understand what's good about it, but i don't dislike them cos of what they choose to be...

Adoption for gay couples is something i disagree with, i can't see how it gives the same environment that a stable marriage does... However, since stable marriages are so rare these days anyway i'm not sure that'll really hold up as an argument in the future...

One question though. Without meaning to offend anyone, but why do so many gays speak "camp"? Surely that can't be a genetic thing...

That's what I was trying to say.
I know. I was supporting your argument.

No idea. I can't quite understand the attraction of being homosexual, but that doesn't stop me being friends with some homo- or bisexual people. I don't like/understand what's good about it, but i don't dislike them cos of what they choose to be...

Adoption for gay couples is something i disagree with, i can't see how it gives the same environment that a stable marriage does... However, since stable marriages are so rare these days anyway i'm not sure that'll really hold up as an argument in the future...

One question though. Without meaning to offend anyone, but why do so many gays speak "camp"? Surely that can't be a genetic thing...
Maybe try not listening to the media so much … at least around here “Campy” homosexuals are non existent

No idea. I can't quite understand the attraction of being homosexual, but that doesn't stop me being friends with some homo- or bisexual people. I don't like/understand what's good about it, but i don't dislike them cos of what they choose to be...

Adoption for gay couples is something i disagree with, i can't see how it gives the same environment that a stable marriage does... However, since stable marriages are so rare these days anyway i'm not sure that'll really hold up as an argument in the future...

One question though. Without meaning to offend anyone, but why do so many gays speak "camp"? Surely that can't be a genetic thing...

Why shouldn't gay couples adopt? We don't take children away when a parent 'comes out'. We leave children with single parents. Most states have no problems with 'communal' living - none of which are the stereotypical 'nuclear family'.

Surely the most important thing is that the child is raised in a loving family.... by whoever?

Why shouldn't gay couples adopt? We don't take children away when a parent 'comes out'. We leave children with single parents. Most states have no problems with 'communal' living - none of which are the stereotypical 'nuclear family'.

Surely the most important thing is that the child is raised in a loving family.... by whoever?
According to Loose Booty's logic, single parents shouldn't be allowed to adopt.

Maybe try not listening to the media so much … at least around here “Campy” homosexuals are non existent

I know one. From... like a dozen homosexual friends. I think he does it to deliberately try to match some perceived model. Claiming his 'colours', maybe...?

Why shouldn't gay couples adopt? We don't take children away when a parent 'comes out'. We leave children with single parents. Most states have no problems with 'communal' living - none of which are the stereotypical 'nuclear family'.

Surely the most important thing is that the child is raised in a loving family.... by whoever?

We remove children from gay single parents in Virginia. It was done a few years ago by the mother and father of a woman who "came out" after divorcing her husband, and began to live with her lover (another woman).

Went all the way to the Virginia Supreme Court, where the woman lost and the grandparents are now raising the child.

Not saying that was the right thing to do - governments shouldn't even be involved in this sort of thing. But the world is more cruel than you imagine.

I'm not sure I'm going to be able to sleep soundly until I hear the President come down strongly against gay marriage. Just the idea that there may be a gay couple within 10 miles of my house is enough to cause such severe distress that I'm not sure I can function. It's good to know which priorities the Republican party and our greatest President, the Honorable George W. Bush, hold closest to their hearts.

You forgot about the whole "Do unto others..." thing.
Oh and "Let he who is without sin..."
Oh and "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake."

Oh yes, don't forget "Judge not, lest ye be judged"

I'm not sure I'm going to be able to sleep soundly until I hear the President come down strongly against gay marriage. Just the idea that there may be a gay couple within 10 miles of my house is enough to cause such severe distress that I'm not sure I can function. It's good to know which priorities the Republican party and our greatest President, the Honorable George W. Bush, hold closest to their hearts.
Good thing most people know you're just snarking on this. ;)

Good thing most people know you're just snarking on this. ;)
Good thing you can recognize when some of the conservatives are trying to be funny.

Oh yes, don't forget "Judge not, lest ye be judged"
And a half dozen other quotes...
like, "the measure you give will be the measure you get"
or "Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when there is the log in your own eye?"
(both of those and your own can be found in Matt 7, verses 1-5)

Good thing you can recognize when some of the conservatives are trying to be funny.
Some things--like bigotry--deserve to be mocked and treated with disdain, and that stretches across all political boundaries.

I know. I was supporting your argument.

Love you baby!

We remove children from gay single parents in Virginia. It was done a few years ago by the mother and father of a woman who "came out" after divorcing her husband, and began to live with her lover (another woman).

Went all the way to the Virginia Supreme Court, where the woman lost and the grandparents are now raising the child.

Not saying that was the right thing to do - governments shouldn't even be involved in this sort of thing. But the world is more cruel than you imagine.

No... not more cruel than I can imagine, but more cruel than I can comfortably admit.

If a 'straight' single woman can raise a child... (and, let's be serious... the reason the law won't touch THAT one, is because it is on it's way to becoming the norm... and what would you do with ALL those kids)... then the ONLY reason why a 'gay' woman should have her children taken away, is prejudice.

Yeah, I figured it had something to do with those darn republicans :).

Meh, it makes no since though, why homosexuality is so bad.. I mean, why do Conservative Christians and just Conservatives in general, think that it is such a wrong thing?

Because the whole point of being a conservitive is that you don't want things to change. With Christians it challenges every belief they have adn if some versus in the bible are wrong (the ones that say homosexuality is a sin) what's to say that the other versus and everything in the bible isn't wrong. Besides it's better in some of there minds to just shun it all inseed of having to pick and choose and re-alter their faith.

Good thing most people know you're just snarking on this. ;)
I just can't think of a single thing that is less important. Not for the federal government, at any rate.

I just can't think of a single thing that is less important. Not for the federal government, at any rate.

What about the signs that OSHA demands be placed in every piggery, which warn farmers that "pig manure can be slippery" ?

What about the signs that OSHA demands be placed in every piggery, which warn farmers that "pig manure can be slippery" ?

Just like Reagan ignored AIDS, I am going to ignore all injuries/deaths from pig-shit-slippage.

What about the signs that OSHA demands be placed in every piggery, which warn farmers that "pig manure can be slippery" ?
No, I think Myrmidonisia is right on this--bashing gays is less important as a federal matter than pig shit is.

No, I think Myrmidonisia is right on this--bashing gays is less important as a federal matter than pig shit is.

Well, it seems that if we get a Democratic administration, things like snail darters and spotted owls take precedence, and if Republican, where people stick their sexual organs goes to the top of the list.

Go figure.

Well, it seems that if we get a Democratic administration, things like snail darters and spotted owls take precedence, and if Republican, where people stick their sexual organs goes to the top of the list.

Go figure.

Wow all politicians are retards? That's news to me!

So...yeah... I was watching this documentary last night and it mentioned this experiment that they conducted somewhere in the US about men and arousal with gay pornography.

So basically these two groups of men completed a survey and were put into two categories (they were straight guys): homophobes and non-homophobes.

They were then taken to a room where they had to attach a device to their penis to measure blood flow into it and were required to watch some videos of hawt man sex.

Low and behold... the non-homophobes had no reaction, whereas the homophobes had some crazy blood flow activity in their penises.

They then had to answer another survey and were asked the question "were you aroused by the pornographic images?" The non-homophobes answered no. The homophobes, answered no as well. Imagine that...

So then, is it safe to say that homophobes are essentially trying to hide something because they are insecure about themselves? :eek:

Wow all politicians are retards? That's news to me!
Not only are they retards, they think that "progress" is defined as fucking with the lives of people they don't know.

What about the signs that OSHA demands be placed in every piggery, which warn farmers that "pig manure can be slippery" ?
I don't know, now. The fed is so stupid, where does it end? Does this mean that I am violating the law because I don't have a sign up to warn me not to step in Orville and Wilbur's shit?

Seriously. I mean why is there such a big deal surrounding whether a person is gay or not? Why do people honestly care if they get married, adopt children, or join the military? It makes no sense to me! Can some one please explain it???
Two words, and since I'm not bothering to actually read the thread, they might have been mentioned before:

"Brokeback mountain"

Ok, I'm done here.

Two words, and since I'm not bothering to actually read the thread, they might have been mentioned before:

"Brokeback mountain"

Ok, I'm done here.
Winner of Best Kiss at the recent MTV Movie Awards, I might add.

People don't feel the need to project their religion to other people but maybe it's a lot of peoples actual belief that homosexuality is a bad thing and they need to take a stand for it. If you're a religious person, then you know in the bible it says that homosexual activity is a sin and it also says that one of the reasons God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Ghamora was that he was distigusted by the homosexual acts that were going on. That's just one view.

People don't feel the need to project their religion to other people but maybe it's a lot of peoples actual belief that homosexuality is a bad thing and they need to take a stand for it. If you're a religious person, then you know in the bible it says that homosexual activity is a sin and it also says that one of the reasons God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Ghamora was that he was distigusted by the homosexual acts that were going on. That's just one view.

I seem to remember that he destroyed Sodom because of the homosexuality and adultery, and Gomorrha because of the ungodliness :rolleyes:

But dont let me stand in anyone's way of using religion to fagbash...

I seem to remember that he destroyed Sodom because of the homosexuality and adultery, and Gomorrha because of the ungodliness :rolleyes:

But dont let me stand in anyone's way of using religion to fagbash...
Nope... we have no idea what the crimes of each were, just sodomy became attached to buggery... and it became the crime of Sodom despite contrary evidence.

I seem to remember that he destroyed Sodom because of the homosexuality and adultery, and Gomorrha because of the ungodliness :rolleyes:

But dont let me stand in anyone's way of using religion to fagbash...

The sin of Sodom was inhospitablity to strangers. Jesus references it later.

The sin of Sodom was inhospitablity to strangers. Jesus references it later.

The prophet Isaiah said that Sodom was destroyed because its inhabitants were lazy, not gay.

The prophet Isaiah said that Sodom was destroyed because its inhabitants were lazy, not gay.
So we should start calling lazy people sodommites? Next time I have a lazy day I'm gonna call it a day of sodomy.

The prophet Isaiah said that Sodom was destroyed because its inhabitants were lazy, not gay.

Which verse?

Personally... if Christians are going to cite Sodom as a reason for anything... wouldn't Jesus be the better authority?

In the US, it's an issue because the Republican party insists on using it to drive out their fundamentalist base to vote. It's understandable, because they don't have much else to drive their party to the polls with. Plus, there's the fact that with all the other really important shit to deal with in the world, the President has decided to make a speech today on "protecting the sanctity of marriage" to show his fundy base that he can act like he gives a shit about a constitutional amendment that doesn't have nearly enough votes to pass.

Yeah, I thought the comments of Dobson were simply hilarious - that Bush talked about gay marriage in the '04 elections, but then he got back into office and it was 'all about Social Security, energy, and the economy.' It absolutely cracked me up. Yes, the economy, the future of the nation's aging generations, and the fundamental fuel of the world's industrial system are such petty and trivial concerns before the overriding necessity of keeping gay rights out of policy. Damn, but these people are so stupid. It's just hysterical. The total incongruency of people seriously placing such a realistically trivial issue ahead of massively more important ones, and acting like politicians are somehow irrational or wrong for not doing the same, is like some sort of great ironic joke.

Yeah, I thought the comments of Dobson were simply hilarious - that Bush talked about gay marriage in the '04 elections, but then he got back into office and it was 'all about Social Security, energy, and the economy.' It absolutely cracked me up. Yes, the economy, the future of the nation's aging generations, and the fundamental fuel of the world's industrial system are such petty and trivial concerns before the overriding necessity of keeping gay rights out of policy. Damn, but these people are so stupid. It's just hysterical. The total incongruency of people seriously placing such a realistically trivial issue ahead of massively more important ones, and acting like politicians are somehow irrational or wrong for not doing the same, is like some sort of great ironic joke.
Yeah, if I were challenging a Republican incumbent who was trying to make a big deal out of this, I can picture my ad already--opening shot would be the debt clock spinning wildly, second shot would be old people opening a can of dogfood because it was that or their prescriptions, third would be a picture of Osama Bin laden, and then the voice over would ask, "but what was Congresscritter Blah's biggest worry this summer?" Cut to a cartoony caricature of the opponent saying "gay people want to get married!" Finish with the candidate looking straight into the camera and saying "we have more important things to worry about right now."

Democrats need to straight up ridicule the Republicans for making this an issue right now.

I just want to say that I think Stephen Harper* deserves a swift kick to the nuts for reopening the gay marriage 'issue'. Leave it the hell alone...we didn't riot, we as a nation mostly support it, so frick off you attention-wanting, US ass-licking douchebag!

The Prime Minister of Canada, and leader of the federal Conservatives.

I just want to say that I think Stephen Harper deserves a swift kick to the nuts for reopening the gay marriage 'issue'. Leave it the hell alone...we didn't riot, we mostly support it, so frick off you attention-wanting douchebag!
I have no idea who Stephen Harper is, but wooooo Sinuhue :fluffle:

I have no idea who Stephen Harper is, but wooooo Sinuhue :fluffle:
Canadian PM, right? Governing like he's got a conservative majority when he's only there because the Liberals self-destructed, if I recall correctly.

Canadian PM, right? Governing like he's got a conservative majority when he's only there because the Liberals self-destructed, if I recall correctly.

As its been said many times:

You get what you vote for.

As its been said many times:

You get what you vote for.
And it's also been said many times...

No you don't.

I certainly didn't vote Conservative, but I happen to be in a riding that is so in love with the Conservative candidate, that he could defecate on main street and still win hands down. I would've loved to vote Green, but there is no candidate in my riding. Even if by some miracle, everyone here went blind or insane and voted Liberal or NDP, we STILL would've ended up with Harper and the Conservatives. You don't get what you vote for...you get what other people vote for, and this time, it was that suck-ass Harper. Next election, it'll be another suck-ass.

As its been said many times:

You get what you vote for.

In this case, finally the fools of our country chose a leader with some spine.

In this case, finally the fools of our country chose a leader with some spine.
Which country are you speaking for here? Because in Harper's case, there is a difference between 'spine' and 'being a total asshat'. He is of course, the latter.

If you are referring to George W. Bush as "having a spine", I could contest that on several points. The first one is from early 2001..."mommy, can I have some more arsenic in my drinking water?" (I.E., when Bush tried to strike down Clinton-era restrictions on the amount of arsenic allowed in drinking water and was forced to back away in the massive public outcry).

Seriously? I respect the Canadians more than I respect my own fellow Americans at this point. Canada has different values, but I think the Canadian people overall live happier lives than we Americans do. Why? Because they made different decisions when it came time to make policies.

In this case, finally the fools of our country chose a leader with some spine.
Yes, he had the spine to use an emotional issue to rouse people to ignore reason as their guide in political choices. That particular tactic is called demagoguery. He'd much rather have people "just believe" than think it through.

He had plenty of help from those other "spinal" folk: the Halliburton folks and crowd of other war economy profiteers - just what we needed to rebound after 9/11. Of course, throwing sops to the religious right is just "business" for getting elected, and re-elected, and keeping control of the government as long as possible. (If you really get the hang of a pin-ball game, you can "fuck" it out of free plays endlessly ... you get the idea.)

In the extreme form, demagogue nationalism is called jingoism. Go look it up.

Not all of the people of this country elected GWB. What was his "mandate" percentage? LOL! And based on his current polls, it's not only the people who voted against him who now wish a different choice had been made.


I have to laugh .. Bush has spine? As if he's the one running the show there! I would say that GWB is the "Aw shucks" poster boy for a government run by Dick Cheney and his pals .. including George's daddy.

Good luck with the delusions, by the way. Medication might help.

It's this week's theme, the mot du jour.

In this case, finally the fools of our country chose a leader with some spine.

Which is somehow preferable to a brain?

Shalrirorchia and The Realm of The Realm,

I like the way you guys think. :)

In this case, finally the fools of our country chose a leader with some spine.

Spine? He hasnt accomplished one thing worthwhile.