The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Rebel Yell on February 13, 2008, 11:51:04 AM
-
Let's see how deep it gets
lionesspriyanka (1000+ posts) Tue Feb-12-08 10:41 AM
Original message
Back to Basics Questions (Since there are a lot of newbies now)
1. What is your first name?
2. How old are you?
3. What is your sexual orientation?
4. Tell us something interesting about yourself
5. Did you go to college/grad school? If so where and what was your major?
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Some of the more interesting ones....
Qanisqineq (1000+ posts) Tue Feb-12-08 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
1. .
1. it starts with a "J" and rhymes with "messy"
2. 34
3. straight female
4. I've lived in Korea for the past 2 years (husband is military). I've named and described over 70 new species of insects and two new genera. I don't know if that's interesting but other than that I am pretty boring. I like cats and have 4. I plan on being the crazy old cat lady some day.
5. B.S.: NDSU, zoology; MS: UIUC, entomology
Hope to return to school for PhD some day, if I'm not too old and busy taking care of my cat collection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
OK, we believe you. :uhsure:
lionesspriyanka (1000+ posts) Tue Feb-12-08 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
3. here we go
1. What is your first name?
priyanka
2. How old are you?
29
3. What is your sexual orientation?
pansexual
4. Tell us something interesting about yourself
my first vote ever was at 29 for hillary rodham clinton! i left india right before i turned 18 and couldnt vote. i accepted american citizenship last year. i wanted to vote for spitzer but they could find my voter registration etc.
5. Did you go to college/grad school? If so where and what was your major?
nyu--psychology
baruch: ms in industrial organizational psychology
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
A pansexual?
Accepted citizenship? What was she, a blue chip recruit?
ceile (1000+ posts) Tue Feb-12-08 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
4. .
1. Starts w/ "E"
2. 32
3. straight
4. my ex step-dad is also my cousin (wrap your head around that one)
5. St. Edward's Univ. BA history w/ German minor
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
I don't wanna know.
northzax (1000+ posts) Tue Feb-12-08 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
14. ohhhkayy
1: Josh
2: 33
3: yes.
4: I have been arrested on 4 continents.
5: colby BA Government/East Asian Studies, Johns Hopkins, MS environmental science
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Imagine In Texas (292 posts) Tue Feb-12-08 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
16. Mine
Linda
46
Straight
I work three jobs right now, and just put all of my money in the bank (besides my current living expenses). When I have $50,000 saved, I am going to quit my job, spend six months (approximately) hiking the Appalachain Trail, and then move into an intentional living community.
I have been to several colleges, and still take community classes in various subjects, but I dont have a degree in anything. I was an English/Journalism major.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Great plan. :whatever:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x7461210 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x7461210)
-
Gotta love how question #3 is "sexual orientation."
They're obsessed! :whatever:
-
WTF is an "Intentional Living Community"?
Nevermind, it's a f'n commune.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_community
:whatever:
-
Yeah, really, wtf is a "pansexual" :???: :???:
And, she also said that she "accepted" US citizenship last year (how arrogant, she sounds JUST like an extremely arrogant, loathsome moonbat from a MIL message board), so how is it that she voted for Hillary when she first ran as a NY Senator?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansexuality
Leave it to wiki to have the definition...probably submitted by the same DUmmie :lmao:
It is a synonym for bisexual, so BadCat was right.
-
OK....WTF is an "intentional living community" ?????
Maybe Wikipedia knows.
northzax (1000+ posts) Tue Feb-12-08 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
14. ohhhkayy
1: Josh
2: 33
3: yes.
4: I have been arrested on 4 continents.
Since he's free to post, I'm guessing South America, Africa and Asia weren't among them.
And an aside to LadyLiberty.... are you thinking of purplerain? bahahahaha
-
Yeah, really, wtf is a "pansexual" :???: :???:
And, she also said that she "accepted" US citizenship last year (how arrogant, she sounds JUST like an extremely arrogant, loathsome moonbat from a MIL message board), so how is it that she voted for Hillary when she first ran as a NY Senator?
I noticed that too LL...instead of US citizenship being an honored privelege that she obtained earerly, she accepted it, almost begrudgingly it sounded like...
-
And an aside to LadyLiberty.... are you thinking of purplerain? bahahahaha
Damn straight, that's who I'm talking about :-) Doesn't that sound JUST like her???? I "accepted" US citizenship :bigbird: Then she goes on to complain about everything that is "wrong" with this country.
I'm keeping my eye on Priyanka.
She says she went to school in NY...TurtleBrain acclaims to live in Cali, but that doesn't mean she didn't go to school in NY.
-
Yeah, really, wtf is a "pansexual" :???: :???:
Pansexual is someone who will have a relationship with- - men, women, intergender, transfolk, crossdressers. . .etc.
A Bisexual has relationships with - - men, women.
Sometimes it's best to just ask someone instead of Wiki.
*TKay*
(Probably a good someone to ask)
-
Pansexual is someone who will have a relationship with- - men, women, intergender, transfolk, crossdressers. . .etc.
Sounds like a fruit to me.
As for the Angry Indian, I get sick and f'n tired of foreigners coming here and bashing this country. I have a simple concept, don't like it, stay the **** home.
-
Pansexual is someone who will have a relationship with- - men, women, intergender, transfolk, crossdressers. . .etc.
Sounds like a fruit to me.
As for the Angry Indian, I get sick and f'n tired of foreigners coming here and bashing this country. I have a simple concept, don't like it, stay the **** home.
Yeah... if Lioness doesn't like the US , she CAN be pansexual somewhere else... and see where that gets her.
BUT- - (Being pansexual) more than just being dismissed as a "Fruit".
Sexuality involves more than what is dreamed up in this universe, tellyouwhut.
*TKay*
-
Yeah... if Lioness doesn't like the US , she CAN be pansexual somewhere else... and see where that gets her.
BUT- - (Being pansexual) more than just being dismissed as a "Fruit".
Sexuality involves more than what is dreamed up in this universe, tellyouwhut.
*TKay*
So if someone decides they want to **** dogs, they're not to be viewed as fruits either? Sorry, cross-dressing, unless it's done theatrically or for humor, is a whacked-out behavior. Intergender? Transfolk? Don't know what the hell that is, unless you're talking about transgendered, and yes, that deviates from normal as well.
Look, I have no problem some girl who wants to get it on with another girl. Nor do I have a problem with a guy and another guy, just keep it out of my face. However, we have to draw the f'n line somewhere and call certain things what they are, f'n whacked out lifestyles that border on a mental illness.
-
So if someone decides they want to **** dogs, they're not to be viewed as fruits either? Sorry, cross-dressing, unless it's done theatrically or for humor, is a whacked-out behavior. Intergender? Transfolk? Don't know what the hell that is, unless you're talking about transgendered, and yes, that deviates from normal as well.
Look, I have no problem some girl who wants to get it on with another girl. Nor do I have a problem with a guy and another guy, just keep it out of my face. However, we have to draw the f'n line somewhere and call certain things what they are, f'n whacked out lifestyles that border on a mental illness.
Beastiality and Pansexuality are different things, Rebel . . .seriously, get a grip on some logic.
Like I said, there are alot of things about sexuality we as a species don't understand about ourselves. So, unless you know everything there is to know about human sexual behavior, I don't think you're in a position to judge transgendered people as "whacked out".
Some days, I really don't know what is worse. The hypocrisies of the left (Because they call Transfolk crazy too while trying to keep them in line for the latest protest march) or the straight out contempt of the right.
*TKay*
-
Beastiality and Pansexuality are different things, Rebel . . .seriously, get a grip on some logic.
Like I said, there are alot of things about sexuality we as a species don't understand about ourselves. So, unless you know everything there is to know about human sexual behavior, I don't think you're in a position to judge transgendered people as "whacked out".
Oh, there are many dynamics involved in human sexuality. Just as there are human emotions, human learning abilities, and so forth. However, they're not all normal, and that's what we're talking about here. Normal vs. Abnormal. Homosexuality produces nothing but sexual and emotional satisfaction presumably by the participants and sorry, human life isn't sustained by sexual and emotional satisfaction. For a species to survive, it is instinctive that we breed. Instinctive being what is normal. Hell, someone could tell me they like beating off 20 times a day, and while it brings them satisfaction, it isn't normal.
Some days, I really don't know what is worse. The hypocrisies of the left (Because they call Transfolk crazy too while trying to keep them in line for the latest protest march) or the straight out contempt of the right.
*TKay*
What contempt? I've already stated I do not give a rat's ass about someone's personal lifestyle, but when some tells me it's normal, it's trashing "my" beliefs. It's not contempt on my part, that I assure you. It's contempt on the homosexual's part for trying to force me to believe something that I know is a biological oddity.
-
Beastiality and Pansexuality are different things, Rebel . . .seriously, get a grip on some logic.
Like I said, there are alot of things about sexuality we as a species don't understand about ourselves. So, unless you know everything there is to know about human sexual behavior, I don't think you're in a position to judge transgendered people as "whacked out".
Oh, there are many dynamics involved in human sexuality. Just as there are human emotions, human learning abilities, and so forth. However, they're not all normal, and that's what we're talking about here. Normal vs. Abnormal. Homosexuality produces nothing but sexual and emotional satisfaction presumably by the participants and sorry, human life isn't sustained by sexual and emotional satisfaction. For a species to survive, it is instinctive that we breed. Instinctive being what is normal. Hell, someone could tell me they like beating off 20 times a day, and while it brings them satisfaction, it isn't normal.
Some days, I really don't know what is worse. The hypocrisies of the left (Because they call Transfolk crazy too while trying to keep them in line for the latest protest march) or the straight out contempt of the right.
*TKay*
What contempt? I've already stated I do not give a rat's ass about someone's personal lifestyle, but when some tells me it's normal, it's trashing "my" beliefs. It's not contempt on my part, that I assure you. It's contempt on the homosexual's part for trying to force me to believe something that I know is a biological oddity.
Like I said... until you know everything there is to know about human sexual behavior, you are in no position to judge transfolk as well as others as "whacked out". The spectrum of human sexual behavior is more vast than you think . . .as this point, humanity as a species has more on the "to-do" list than to breed at this point (unless you're a non-Muslim in Continental Europe).
How will respecting someone by not calling them crazy trash your beliefs? How will giving someone the basic human respect they deserve violate your convictions?
*TKay*
-
Like I said... until you know everything there is to know about human sexual behavior, you are in no position to judge transfolk as well as others as "whacked out". The spectrum of human sexual behavior is more vast than you think . . .as this point, humanity as a species has more on the "to-do" list than to breed at this point (unless you're a non-Muslim in Continental Europe).
How will respecting someone by not calling them crazy trash your beliefs? How will giving someone the basic human respect they deserve violate your convictions?
*TKay*
There are basic elements to sustaining life that don't require a PhD to figure out, TK. Homosexuality isn't one of them. Homosexuality is nothing but sexual and emotional satisfaction for the participants. It is a biological oddity.
-
Like I said... until you know everything there is to know about human sexual behavior, you are in no position to judge transfolk as well as others as "whacked out". The spectrum of human sexual behavior is more vast than you think . . .as this point, humanity as a species has more on the "to-do" list than to breed at this point (unless you're a non-Muslim in Continental Europe).
How will respecting someone by not calling them crazy trash your beliefs? How will giving someone the basic human respect they deserve violate your convictions?
*TKay*
There are basic elements to sustaining life that don't require a PhD to figure out, TK. Homosexuality isn't one of them. Homosexuality is nothing but sexual and emotional satisfaction for the participants. It is a biological oddity.
Okay...agree to disagree...
BUT... I asked this question - -to me, this is a very important one.
How will respecting someone by not calling them crazy trash your beliefs? How will giving someone the basic human respect they deserve violate your convictions?
*TKay*
-
As for the Angry Indian, I get sick and f'n tired of foreigners coming here and bashing this country. I have a simple concept, don't like it, stay the **** home.
:rocker2: I HATE that too. They CHOSE to come here for crying out loud. If it was SO bad where they emigrated from, you would think they would be grateful. If they don't like it, they can emigrate their sorry asses right on back.
-
How will respecting someone by not calling them crazy trash your beliefs? How will giving someone the basic human respect they deserve violate your convictions?
How would, "Leave me the **** out of it as I do not care about the homosexual lifestyle" violate their convictions?
-
Yeah... if Lioness doesn't like the US , she CAN be pansexual somewhere else... and see where that gets her.
*TKay*
If the FREEDOM for her to be a pansexual is just ONE of the things that brought her here, then she really has NO room to be complaining.
You come here of your own free will, you don't come in and try to mold this place to your standards--you take it or leave it.
-
Yeah... if Lioness doesn't like the US , she CAN be pansexual somewhere else... and see where that gets her.
BUT- - (Being pansexual) more than just being dismissed as a "Fruit".
Sexuality involves more than what is dreamed up in this universe, tellyouwhut.
*TKay*
So if someone decides they want to **** dogs, they're not to be viewed as fruits either? Sorry, cross-dressing, unless it's done theatrically or for humor, is a whacked-out behavior. Intergender? Transfolk? Don't know what the hell that is, unless you're talking about transgendered, and yes, that deviates from normal as well.
Look, I have no problem some girl who wants to get it on with another girl. Nor do I have a problem with a guy and another guy, just keep it out of my face. However, we have to draw the f'n line somewhere and call certain things what they are, f'n whacked out lifestyles that border on a mental illness.
I agree, Rebel.
Everyone except for NAMBLA seems to draw the line with pedophiles. That is viewed as sick and deranged. I think incest and beastiality is disgusting as well.
I can "understand" homosexuality, but I just don't understand pedophilia or beastiality.
-
How will respecting someone by not calling them crazy trash your beliefs? How will giving someone the basic human respect they deserve violate your convictions?
How would, "Leave me the **** out of it as I do not care about the homosexual lifestyle" violate their convictions?
You answer mine first, Rebel.
*TKay*
-
Like I said... until you know everything there is to know about human sexual behavior, you are in no position to judge transfolk as well as others as "whacked out". The spectrum of human sexual behavior is more vast than you think . . .as this point, humanity as a species has more on the "to-do" list than to breed at this point (unless you're a non-Muslim in Continental Europe).
How will respecting someone by not calling them crazy trash your beliefs? How will giving someone the basic human respect they deserve violate your convictions?
*TKay*
Then why did you tell him to "get a grip on some logic" when he brought up beastiality? Is that "whacked out" to you, it sounds like it was...like you disqualify that as being "accepted", tolerated, and condoned.
-
Like I said... until you know everything there is to know about human sexual behavior, you are in no position to judge transfolk as well as others as "whacked out". The spectrum of human sexual behavior is more vast than you think . . .as this point, humanity as a species has more on the "to-do" list than to breed at this point (unless you're a non-Muslim in Continental Europe).
How will respecting someone by not calling them crazy trash your beliefs? How will giving someone the basic human respect they deserve violate your convictions?
*TKay*
Then why did you tell him to "get a grip on some logic" when he brought up beastiality? Is that "whacked out" to you, it sounds like it was...like you disqualify that as being "accepted", tolerated, and condoned.
Consensual sex between two humans isn't the same as sex between a human being and another species.
The animal isn't capable of consent. The human being is.
Consent. . .whether it is the age of consent or a simple "Yes, we may proceed". . .it's a wonderful thing.
*TKay*
-
How will respecting someone by not calling them crazy trash your beliefs? How will giving someone the basic human respect they deserve violate your convictions?
How would, "Leave me the **** out of it as I do not care about the homosexual lifestyle" violate their convictions?
You answer mine first, Rebel.
*TKay*
My facilities security manager here, a retired CW3, is a lesbian. I give her all the respect she's earned. I do not identify her as a lesbian. I identify her as a retired CW3 and our security officer. So, to answer your question, I do give respect to homosexuals. The ones that don't demand that I respect them for being a damn homosexual. Do you see me demanding respect because I'm a heterosexual? Do you see heterosexual rallies anywhere? Heterosexual parades? The homosexual community is becoming nothing more than another victim group. If they, for the most part, want to be identified by their sexuality alone, why should they not be criticized?
-
How will respecting someone by not calling them crazy trash your beliefs? How will giving someone the basic human respect they deserve violate your convictions?
How would, "Leave me the **** out of it as I do not care about the homosexual lifestyle" violate their convictions?
You answer mine first, Rebel.
*TKay*
My facilities security manager here, a retired CW3, is a lesbian. I give her all the respect she's earned. I do not identify her as a lesbian. I identify her as a retired CW3 and our security officer. So, to answer your question, I do give respect to homosexuals. The ones that don't demand that I respect them for being a damn homosexual. Do you see me demanding respect because I'm a heterosexual? Do you see heterosexual rallies anywhere? Heterosexual parades? The homosexual community is becoming nothing more than another victim group. If they, for the most part, want to be identified by their sexuality alone, why should they not be criticized?
I actually was talking about transgendered people...but it's nice to know.
*TKay*
-
Like I said... until you know everything there is to know about human sexual behavior, you are in no position to judge transfolk as well as others as "whacked out". The spectrum of human sexual behavior is more vast than you think . . .as this point, humanity as a species has more on the "to-do" list than to breed at this point (unless you're a non-Muslim in Continental Europe).
How will respecting someone by not calling them crazy trash your beliefs? How will giving someone the basic human respect they deserve violate your convictions?
*TKay*
Then why did you tell him to "get a grip on some logic" when he brought up beastiality? Is that "whacked out" to you, it sounds like it was...like you disqualify that as being "accepted", tolerated, and condoned.
Consensual sex between two humans isn't the same as sex between a human being and another species.
The animal isn't capable of consent. The human being is.
Consent. . .whether it is the age of consent or a simple "Yes, we may proceed". . .it's a wonderful thing.
*TKay*
So polygamy and polyandry are OK? Father/Daughter? Father/Son? Mother/Son? Mother/Father/Son/Daughter? Any number of people in any possible combination. Why can't someone live with their Mom and put her on their Health Insurance? Sex defines a "partnership?"
These are just a few of the issues "special justice" open.
-
Like I said... until you know everything there is to know about human sexual behavior, you are in no position to judge transfolk as well as others as "whacked out". The spectrum of human sexual behavior is more vast than you think . . .as this point, humanity as a species has more on the "to-do" list than to breed at this point (unless you're a non-Muslim in Continental Europe).
How will respecting someone by not calling them crazy trash your beliefs? How will giving someone the basic human respect they deserve violate your convictions?
*TKay*
Then why did you tell him to "get a grip on some logic" when he brought up beastiality? Is that "whacked out" to you, it sounds like it was...like you disqualify that as being "accepted", tolerated, and condoned.
Consensual sex between two humans isn't the same as sex between a human being and another species.
The animal isn't capable of consent. The human being is.
Consent. . .whether it is the age of consent or a simple "Yes, we may proceed". . .it's a wonderful thing.
*TKay*
Then if a 13 year old boy is willing to let a 40 year old man have at him, then that is OK? I just want to be sure.
-
Did you not see Age of Consent in my post?
Did your senses take leave of you in that you would think that I believe paedophilia is okay simply because I'm saying that maybe, just maybe there is more to sexual drive than we know?
*TKay*
-
Like I said... until you know everything there is to know about human sexual behavior, you are in no position to judge transfolk as well as others as "whacked out". The spectrum of human sexual behavior is more vast than you think . . .as this point, humanity as a species has more on the "to-do" list than to breed at this point (unless you're a non-Muslim in Continental Europe).
How will respecting someone by not calling them crazy trash your beliefs? How will giving someone the basic human respect they deserve violate your convictions?
*TKay*
Then why did you tell him to "get a grip on some logic" when he brought up beastiality? Is that "whacked out" to you, it sounds like it was...like you disqualify that as being "accepted", tolerated, and condoned.
Consensual sex between two humans isn't the same as sex between a human being and another species.
The animal isn't capable of consent. The human being is.
Consent. . .whether it is the age of consent or a simple "Yes, we may proceed". . .it's a wonderful thing.
*TKay*
So polygamy and polyandry are OK? Father/Daughter? Father/Son? Mother/Son? Mother/Father/Son/Daughter? Any number of people in any possible combination. Why can't someone live with their Mom and put her on their Health Insurance? Sex defines a "partnership?"
These are just a few of the issues "special justice" open.
Though I was talking about BEASTIALITY in that post, let me cover whatever your limited reading comprehension is lacking...
No... Because existing law covers that. . .
I swear... one person says. . ."Hey! Maybe we shouldn't treat transgendered people like sh!t." or "There's alot more to being pansexual than fvcking everything that moves.", and you think I'm for a debauch on Caligulaic proportions.
Like I said...I'm not sure what's worse- - being stabbed in the back or slapped across the face.
*TKay*
-
Though I was talking about BEASTIALITY in that post, let me cover whatever your limited reading comprehension is lacking...
No... Because existing law covers that. . .
I swear... one person says. . ."Hey! Maybe we shouldn't treat transgendered people like sh!t." or "There's alot more to being pansexual than fvcking everything that moves.", and you think I'm for a debauch on Caligulaic proportions.
Like I said...I'm not sure what's worse- - being stabbed in the back or slapped across the face.
*TKay*
Please. :whatever:
That CW3 I keep talking about is pretty much transgendered and looks kinda like Pat with short, straight hair. The respect she gets has not a damn thing to do with her sexuality. What are you missing here? Want respect? Fine. Just don't use your sexuality as a purpose for that respect.
-
Yeah, really, wtf is a "pansexual" :???: :???:
She screws flute-playing, half-goat, Greek mythological figures?:???:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_%28mythology%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_%28mythology%29)
-
There is existing law against polygamy simply because it is considered immoral, which I am not surprised you are not outraged by. You aren't being consistent with your own views if you aren't outraged by that.
Why is it OK to outlaw polygamy but not outlaw being a pansexual?
And, yes, I see where you made a broad sweep by including "age of consent" in with your statement about consensual sex, however, that too is not congruent with your sexual belief system. If 2 people want to get it on and are willing, why should a thing like age be a limit?
Why should there be a law against incest? Especially if they are 2 people "of age" that are willing and attracted to each other?
Saying with indignance, "But there is a LAW against it!" doesn't explain your logic and "sense", because someone with your philosophy and openness about human sexuality would advocate freedom for ALL types of sexuality to exist.
-
There is existing law against polygamy simply because it is considered immoral, which I am not surprised you are not outraged by. You aren't being consistent with your own views if you aren't outraged by that.
Why is it OK to outlaw polygamy but not outlaw being a pansexual?
And, yes, I see where you made a broad sweep by including "age of consent" in with your statement about consensual sex, however, that too is not congruent with your sexual belief system. If 2 people want to get it on and are willing, why should a thing like age be a limit?
Why should there be a law against incest? Especially if they are 2 people "of age" that are willing and attracted to each other?
Saying with indignance, "But there is a LAW against it!" doesn't explain your logic and "sense", because someone with your philosophy and openness about human sexuality would advocate freedom for ALL types of sexuality to exist.
What am I not being consistent with. . .the idea that human beings are free to enter into whatever contracts they are legally eligible to enter? The idea that all people deserve equal treatment, no matter their sexual preference?
You REALLY don't have an idea what is it like to be bisexual or pansexual, do you? When did following the law not become part of this?
You have no idea what my sexual belief system is, all you know is that I'm advocating something it seems you don't understand or agree with, so you're going off your own stereotypes and fears.
*TKay*
-
Though I was talking about BEASTIALITY in that post, let me cover whatever your limited reading comprehension is lacking...
No... Because existing law covers that. . .
I swear... one person says. . ."Hey! Maybe we shouldn't treat transgendered people like sh!t." or "There's alot more to being pansexual than fvcking everything that moves.", and you think I'm for a debauch on Caligulaic proportions.
Like I said...I'm not sure what's worse- - being stabbed in the back or slapped across the face.
*TKay*
Please. :whatever:
That CW3 I keep talking about is pretty much transgendered and looks kinda like Pat with short, straight hair. The respect she gets has not a damn thing to do with her sexuality. What are you missing here? Want respect? Fine. Just don't use your sexuality as a purpose for that respect.
Let's start over...
you dismissed the concept of pansexualism as simply being a "fruit".
I argued there was alot more to that.
You countered that and threw in about transgendered people being "whacked out"
I countered THAT- - we later decided to agree to disagree about the normalcy of it.
The bolded part is where I had a problem. You may respect that CW3, but it's (correct me if I'm wrong) like you expect me to forget the rest of that - - it's like some dumbass liberal telling me not to notice their insults of Condi Rice because they have a black friend. Just like how you wouldn't call a person with Down's Syndrome "retarded", is how I'm seeing you calling transgendered people "whacked out". I'm talking about basic human dignity and sensitivity... not about sex...as much as you'd like to say otherwise.
*TKay*
-
Though I was talking about BEASTIALITY in that post, let me cover whatever your limited reading comprehension is lacking...
No... Because existing law covers that. . .
I swear... one person says. . ."Hey! Maybe we shouldn't treat transgendered people like sh!t." or "There's alot more to being pansexual than fvcking everything that moves.", and you think I'm for a debauch on Caligulaic proportions.
Like I said...I'm not sure what's worse- - being stabbed in the back or slapped across the face.
*TKay*
Please. :whatever:
That CW3 I keep talking about is pretty much transgendered and looks kinda like Pat with short, straight hair. The respect she gets has not a damn thing to do with her sexuality. What are you missing here? Want respect? Fine. Just don't use your sexuality as a purpose for that respect.
Let's start over...
you dismissed the concept of pansexualism as simply being a "fruit".
I argued there was alot more to that.
You countered that and threw in about transgendered people being "whacked out"
I countered THAT- - we later decided to agree to disagree about the normalcy of it.
The bolded part is where I had a problem. You may respect that CW3, but it's (correct me if I'm wrong) like you expect me to forget the rest of that - - it's like some dumbass liberal telling me not to notice their insults of Condi Rice because they have a black friend. Just like how you wouldn't call a person with Down's Syndrome "retarded", is how I'm seeing you calling transgendered people "whacked out". I'm talking about basic human dignity and sensitivity... not about sex...as much as you'd like to say otherwise.
*TKay*
I call "transgendered" people more than "whacked out".... I call them mentally ****ed up beyond help. I don't buy into that whole "I'm a man, but I feel like a woman!" shit, and then they go and **** some dude and a lesbo chick feels like a guy, and she goes an has an adadictomy. :-)
It's just ****ed up.
-
The bolded part is where I had a problem. You may respect that CW3, but it's (correct me if I'm wrong) like you expect me to forget the rest of that - - it's like some dumbass liberal telling me not to notice their insults of Condi Rice because they have a black friend. Just like how you wouldn't call a person with Down's Syndrome "retarded", is how I'm seeing you calling transgendered people "whacked out". I'm talking about basic human dignity and sensitivity... not about sex...as much as you'd like to say otherwise.
*TKay*
Wrong. It is NOTHING like the analogy you posted. Why? I do not respect the person I'm talking about because she's a lesbian or because she's transgendered and you're proving my point that the entire f'n community is becoming nothing more than another victim group. You'll see hell freeze over before I respect someone because of their f'n gender and Damn if someone's going to tell me to respect someone because they ARE transgendered. I do not give a rat's ass if a person ****s a woman, a man, 2 women, a cross-dresser, etc., just don't tell me me it's normal. They can live their lives without interfering in mine because, and this I can assure you, I won't ask. The entire backlash on this homosexual community is one of their making. Ask yourself this, TK, everyone on here knows you're a bisexual. Has anyone ostracized you for it? Has anyone done anything other than accept you as a fellow conservative? I.e., we don't CARE. What we DO care about is people throwing it up in our faces that we're wrong and homosexuality is normal. It should be a non-f'n-issue, but nooooo, homosexuals and bi-sexuals can't live with that.
-
The bolded part is where I had a problem. You may respect that CW3, but it's (correct me if I'm wrong) like you expect me to forget the rest of that - - it's like some dumbass liberal telling me not to notice their insults of Condi Rice because they have a black friend. Just like how you wouldn't call a person with Down's Syndrome "retarded", is how I'm seeing you calling transgendered people "whacked out". I'm talking about basic human dignity and sensitivity... not about sex...as much as you'd like to say otherwise.
*TKay*
Wrong. It is NOTHING like the analogy you posted. Why? I do not respect the person I'm talking about because she's a lesbian or because she's transgendered and you're proving my point that the entire f'n community is becoming nothing more than another victim group. You'll see hell freeze over before I respect someone because of their f'n gender and Damn if someone's going to tell me to respect someone because they ARE transgendered. I do not give a rat's ass if a person ****s a woman, a man, 2 women, a cross-dresser, etc., just don't tell me me it's normal. They can live their lives without interfering in mine because, and this I can assure you, I won't ask. The entire backlash on this homosexual community is one of their making. Ask yourself this, TK, everyone on here knows you're a bisexual. Has anyone ostracized you for it? Has anyone done anything other than accept you as a fellow conservative? I.e., we don't CARE. What we DO care about is people throwing it up in our faces that we're wrong and homosexuality is normal. It should be a non-f'n-issue, but nooooo, homosexuals and bi-sexuals can't live with that.
One--I'm not seeing it as a victim's issue here. What I'm saying is, I don't care if you don't think they're normal, but you don't have to freaking tell them that or communicate that attitude. Just like how the "n-word" isn't okay, or assuming all black people are criminal isn't okay. . .pejorative terms/speculation about the mental state of Gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered aren't okay either! That is the heart of the issue for me.
Two-- Other than LibertyLady's post making assumptions about my sexual ethics...for the most part, no.
Figured I'd reproduce it.
There is existing law against polygamy simply because it is considered immoral, which I am not surprised you are not outraged by. You aren't being consistent with your own views if you aren't outraged by that.
Why is it OK to outlaw polygamy but not outlaw being a pansexual?
And, yes, I see where you made a broad sweep by including "age of consent" in with your statement about consensual sex, however, that too is not congruent with your sexual belief system. If 2 people want to get it on and are willing, why should a thing like age be a limit?
Why should there be a law against incest? Especially if they are 2 people "of age" that are willing and attracted to each other?
Saying with indignance, "But there is a LAW against it!" doesn't explain your logic and "sense", because someone with your philosophy and openness about human sexuality would advocate freedom for ALL types of sexuality to exist.
*TKay*
-
One--I'm not seeing it as a victim's issue here. What I'm saying is, I don't care if you don't think they're normal, but you don't have to freaking tell them that or communicate that attitude. Just like how the "n-word" isn't okay, or assuming all black people are criminal isn't okay. . .pejorative terms/speculation about the mental state of Gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered aren't okay either! That is the heart of the issue for me.
Tell them that? I never even f'n mention the shit unless one of these dumbass posts by a DUmmie is made. Do you see me going around posting about how whacked out Pansexuals are out of the blue?
-
One--I'm not seeing it as a victim's issue here. What I'm saying is, I don't care if you don't think they're normal, but you don't have to freaking tell them that or communicate that attitude. Just like how the "n-word" isn't okay, or assuming all black people are criminal isn't okay. . .pejorative terms/speculation about the mental state of Gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered aren't okay either! That is the heart of the issue for me.
Tell them that? I never even f'n mention the shit unless one of these dumbass posts by a DUmmie is made. Do you see me going around posting about how whacked out Pansexuals are out of the blue?
So, what exactly are the public policy issues here? Should we remove all tax differentials related to marriage and children? And what about the documented facts that children do better in a stable home with a Father and a Mother (witness the massive crime and incarceration rate in the Black community which has 65%+ fatherless homes). Is there a public policy issue promoting stable households and children who don't become criminals?
And, as I asked, why can a lesbian couple file for partnership benefits but a mother/daughter can't? Isn't that "special justice?" Why is it just in sets of 2? If it isn't about creating a stable home for children (whether people do this or not), then what is the point? In the same way the Interstate Highway System was designed first for moving nukes. second for interstate commerce but people use it for their own purposes, Marriage between a man and a woman is based on a principle.
This isn't being asked toward you, Rebel, but more like added on to what you said...
-
What am I not being consistent with. . .the idea that human beings are free to enter into whatever contracts they are legally eligible to enter? The idea that all people deserve equal treatment, no matter their sexual preference?
*Ok, your second statement contradicts your first statement. Rather, your first statement sounds like you are saying "legally" to cover your ass so you can easily justify your detesting of polygamy, incest, and pedophilia. Your second statement sounds very honest. If you truly feel that all people deserve equal treatment no matter their sexual preference, then why are YOU discriminating against those whose sexual preferences and lifestyles are illegal ?
You REALLY don't have an idea what is it like to be bisexual or pansexual, do you? When did following the law not become part of this?
*Honestly, I have had many friends that are gay. I have been in their subculture. That's right, it is a subculture, a hedonistic one at that. I can pass that judgment since I have witnessed it first-handed. I have been hit on by lesbians,and it was probably the most uncomfortable situation I have been in, and they didn't seem to care that I was straight and offended by their advances. So, I have much exposure to the gay culture. That doesn't mean that I know what it is "like" to BE gay, bisexual, or "pansexual", just like someone who is any of those has any idea what it is like to be straight. No need to make it about victimhood, either. One of my best friends in high school was/is gay. So what? I didn't care.
The law comes into it when YOU say that all people deserve equal treatment regardless of their sexual preference....so long as they are following the law :whatever:, so long as the law says you aren't allowed to have X,Y, or Z sexual preference. What would you say if the law prohibited your sexual lifestlye? What do you think about the most states disallowing gay marriage, or civil unions? Are you satisfied with that law?
You have no idea what my sexual belief system is, all you know is that I'm advocating something it seems you don't understand or agree with, so you're going off your own stereotypes and fears.
*I don't "disagree" with homosexuality, or being pansexual. It's not for me to disagree with. I had never heard of "pansexual" until today, and truthfully that is something I don't really understand. I "understand" homosexuality, but being a pansexual is a bit difficult for me to understand, and it is sexual deviance that is now part of a sexual underground subculture.
*TKay*
-
What am I not being consistent with. . .the idea that human beings are free to enter into whatever contracts they are legally eligible to enter? The idea that all people deserve equal treatment, no matter their sexual preference?
*Ok, your second statement contradicts your first statement. Rather, your first statement sounds like you are saying "legally" to cover your ass so you can easily justify your detesting of polygamy, incest, and pedophilia. Your second statement sounds very honest. If you truly feel that all people deserve equal treatment no matter their sexual preference, then why are YOU discriminating against those whose sexual preferences and lifestyles are illegal ?
You REALLY don't have an idea what is it like to be bisexual or pansexual, do you? When did following the law not become part of this?
*Honestly, I have had many friends that are gay. I have been in their subculture. That's right, it is a subculture, a hedonistic one at that. I can pass that judgment since I have witnessed it first-handed. I have been hit on by lesbians,and it was probably the most uncomfortable situation I have been in, and they didn't seem to care that I was straight and offended by their advances. So, I have much exposure to the gay culture. That doesn't mean that I know what it is "like" to BE gay, bisexual, or "pansexual", just like someone who is any of those has any idea what it is like to be straight. No need to make it about victimhood, either. One of my best friends in high school was/is gay. So what? I didn't care.
The law comes into it when YOU say that all people deserve equal treatment regardless of their sexual preference....so long as they are following the law :whatever:, so long as the law says you aren't allowed to have X,Y, or Z sexual preference. What would you say if the law prohibited your sexual lifestlye? What do you think about the most states disallowing gay marriage, or civil unions? Are you satisfied with that law?
You have no idea what my sexual belief system is, all you know is that I'm advocating something it seems you don't understand or agree with, so you're going off your own stereotypes and fears.
*I don't "disagree" with homosexuality, or being pansexual. It's not for me to disagree with. I had never heard of "pansexual" until today, and truthfully that is something I don't really understand. I "understand" homosexuality, but being a pansexual is a bit difficult for me to understand, and it is sexual deviance that is now part of a sexual underground subculture.
*TKay*
1) Equal treatment under the law is a foreign idea to you? Right now, as far as I know-- due to Lawrence v. Texas. . .being homosexual, bisexual or even pansexual is legal. You may not be able to marry that person, but you CAN fvck them. Marriage/Civil Unions isn't the issue I'm discussing right now. . .nice misdirection.
2)You "witnessed" gay culture. That's like a gay person going to mardi gras or spring break and saying they witnessed "straight" culture. Don't lecture me about playing the victim card when you've done so yourself...see bolded. You wouldn't take that crap from a liberal. Why should I take it from you?
3) Why are you doubting my sincerity when I am talking about following the law. . .Answer my questions: Why are you assuming I am condoning these behaviors? Are you pursuing this idea based on what I have actually said, or are you interpreting it through the lens of your own prejudices?
*TKay*
-
1) Equal treatment under the law is a foreign idea to you? Right now, as far as I know-- due to Lawrence v. Texas. . .being homosexual, bisexual or even pansexual is legal. You may not be able to marry that person, but you CAN fvck them. Marriage/Civil Unions isn't the issue I'm discussing right now. . .nice misdirection.
2)You "witnessed" gay culture. That's like a gay person going to mardi gras or spring break and saying they witnessed "straight" culture. Don't lecture me about playing the victim card when you've done so yourself...see bolded. You wouldn't take that crap from a liberal. Why should I take it from you?
3) Why are you doubting my sincerity when I am talking about following the law. . .Answer my questions: Why are you assuming I am condoning these behaviors? Are you pursuing this idea based on what I have actually said, or are you interpreting it through the lens of your own prejudices?
*TKay*
1. Of course equal treatment under the law isn't a foreign concept to me. You are using the law to fit your argument and to defend your sexuality from not being bizarre. It is. BTW, pedophiles aren't supposed to fvck children, but they still do....because it is their sexual preference. There was no "misdirection" intended in bringing gay marriage into it. I would think that if you are sincere in your statements and feelings on sexaul preference differing from the norm, that you would be a proponent of gay marriage. If you are not, oh well....that just tells me that you are satisfied "fvcking" anybody of any sexual orientation, but don't care to have a legally binding commitment to that person. That is your perogative. I can guarantee you ALL the hoomosexuals that I have known want nothing more than for gay marriage to be legal, because they are true to themselves and what they are. I also brought gay marriage up because it is a controversial legal issue among the gay community.
2. My witnessing gay culture is first-handed experience with homosexuals, period. You got all upset and accused me of not knowing and understanding what it is like to be bisexual or pansexual or whatever...of course I don't know what it is "like" to BE any of those things, just as a person with a deviating sexual preference doesn't knows what it is like to be straight :whatever: My point is that I have spent time with homosexuals, who are often shunned in society. I did not do that. If homosexuals were to shun straight people, they would live in a bubble. I wasn't nearly as closed-minded as you seem to think I am.
You've been the playing the victim ever since you've jumped into this thread by waxing indignant about none of us understanding what it is like to be you....all because some of us didn't even KNOW what a "pansexual" is. Your reaction to this in this thread IS like that of a liberal.
Sure, I was the victim of the lesbians in some situations...a situation that I put myself in, of which case I take full responsibility for. I can't BE the victim of that of which I willingly placed myself in, now can I?
3. Your sincerity is in check here because you say in one breath that you feel that all people deserve equal treatment, no matter their sexual preference...then say "so long as they are following the law" in another breath. Sexual deviance is sexual deviance. I can see why it is illegal for some, as others can be exploited, but sexual preference is also sexual preference. Your paremeters also conveniently cover just you, and they come off as a bit disingenuous to me...a bit inconsistent.
-
T'Kay, don't even bother. I've fought this fight plenty of times myself, and it's just led to me doing this. :banghead:
The idea of something other then "conservative sexuality" (and I say that in reference to the regular, straight up 1 man with 1 woman, and never anything else type of sexuality) is a little to much for some people to handle, and your not gonna win any fights with them about it.
It's best to just ignore it.
-
Can you point out to me how homosexuals aren't being treated equally under the law?
To answer your question Freedumb, I'm a proponent of the Fair Tax. The government shouldn't be in the marriage business anyway.
-
Can you point out to me how homosexuals aren't being treated equally under the law?
Maybe because sodomy is illegal in several states :rotf: :rotf:
-
Can you point out to me how homosexuals aren't being treated equally under the law?
Maybe because sodomy is illegal in several states :rotf: :rotf:
There is only one case that I know of that was prosecuted. Hell, if I have sex with a woman in public, I'm arrested as well, so, I guess what I'm trying to say is, who the hell is going to know if you keep it behind closed doors.....where it SHOULD be?
-
Can you point out to me how homosexuals aren't being treated equally under the law?
Maybe because sodomy is illegal in several states :rotf: :rotf:
There is only one case that I know of that was prosecuted. Hell, if I have sex with a woman in public, I'm arrested as well, so, I guess what I'm trying to say is, who the hell is going to know if you keep it behind closed doors.....where it SHOULD be?
I guess that's my point too....there are all kinds of sexual acts that are "illegal" happening that we don't know about.
-
I guess that's my point too....there are all kinds of sexual acts that are "illegal" happening that we don't know about.
IMO, what happens behind closed door between two consenting adults isn't the business of the government. As for sodomy, I don't remember seeing anything or any law that says "Sodomy between two homosexuals is against the law".
-
I guess that's my point too....there are all kinds of sexual acts that are "illegal" happening that we don't know about.
IMO, what happens behind closed door between two consenting adults isn't the business of the government. As for sodomy, I don't remember seeing anything or any law that says "Sodomy between two homosexuals is against the law".
Come on Reb. Now your playing with the semantics.
I'll give you one thing though, those laws aren't really enforced. Hell, according to the UCMJ, it's illegal to have sex unless your married.
-
I guess that's my point too....there are all kinds of sexual acts that are "illegal" happening that we don't know about.
IMO, what happens behind closed door between two consenting adults isn't the business of the government. As for sodomy, I don't remember seeing anything or any law that says "Sodomy between two homosexuals is against the law".
Those laws are out there.
-
I guess that's my point too....there are all kinds of sexual acts that are "illegal" happening that we don't know about.
IMO, what happens behind closed door between two consenting adults isn't the business of the government. As for sodomy, I don't remember seeing anything or any law that says "Sodomy between two homosexuals is against the law".
Those laws are out there.
No, sodomy laws are out there. Laws against sodomy by homosexuals are not. I.e., where sodomy is illegal, it's illegal for all.
-
No, sodomy laws are out there. Laws against sodomy by homosexuals are not. I.e., where sodomy is illegal, it's illegal for all.
Right, I see what you are saying...the law isn't exclusionary to just homosexuals, because heterosexuals are barred from sodomy in the few states where that law still exists.
BTW, I think that law changed in 2003 by the Supreme Court, which was the case that TKay posted (Lawrence v. WhateverItWas). Up until that point in time, there were anti-sodomy laws in 14 states or something. That law changed dramatically due to the influence of homosexual sex and wanting more people to accept it, so the law changed because "the people" wanted it to change., because the law had to change with the times.
This happens, the law changes with "the times", because it is what certain people want. With that in mind, who is to say that in 20 years, polygamy won't be legalized (after all, the law is discriminating against a religious doctrine) and/or incest won't be legalized? Gay marriage might be legal in most states by then, too.
My point here is that the law can easily be changed with the times based on the fact that more people are doing it, so it is to be accepted and not to be "illegal" anymore. The law isn't a constant.
-
If I liked to eat sh1t sandwiches, it would be my right. I could eat all the sh1t sandwiches I wanted. But that still would not be considered normal.
-
If I liked to eat sh1t sandwiches, it would be my right. I could eat all the sh1t sandwiches I wanted. But that still would not be considered normal.
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
-
I agree with Rebels comment that the government should not be involved in the marriage business. IMHO the entire problem stems from government meddling, as is often the case. :censored:
-
If I liked to eat sh1t sandwiches, it would be my right. I could eat all the sh1t sandwiches I wanted. But that still would not be considered normal.
And I'd be well within my rights to call you a wackjob if you had a "sh!t sandwich awareness march."
Why can't people who have these alternative feelings just live their own lives? Why do they need to be validated by me? Do your thing! Leave me out of it and leave the laws the way they are.
-
If I liked to eat sh1t sandwiches, it would be my right. I could eat all the sh1t sandwiches I wanted. But that still would not be considered normal.
And I'd be well within my rights to call you a wackjob if you had a "sh!t sandwich awareness march."
Why can't people who have these alternative feelings just live their own lives? Why do they need to be validated by me? Do your thing! Leave me out of it and leave the laws the way they are.
Until you understand the full scope of the human taste buds, you have no right to
disrespect my preference for the taste of a fresh turd on whole wheat. I swear, the level of intolerance on this board apalls me at times. I WILL be respected for the sh1t-eater I am. Anyone who disagrees is a closed minded sh1taphobe.
-
I agree with Rebels comment that the government should not be involved in the marriage business. IMHO the entire problem stems from government meddling, as is often the case. :censored:
No matter how much they try to change things, the nuclear family unit -- 2 parents, one man and one woman and kids -- continues to be the most stable and best way to raise children. There is a public policy issue in encouraging that stability. If you don't think such things matter, then I agree with your conclusion -- no more marriage, just property contracts between 2 to n adults of any and/or all sexes.
-
If I liked to eat sh1t sandwiches, it would be my right. I could eat all the sh1t sandwiches I wanted. But that still would not be considered normal.
And I'd be well within my rights to call you a wackjob if you had a "sh!t sandwich awareness march."
Why can't people who have these alternative feelings just live their own lives? Why do they need to be validated by me? Do your thing! Leave me out of it and leave the laws the way they are.
Until you understand the full scope of the human taste buds, you have no right to
disrespect my preference for the taste of a fresh turd on whole wheat. I swear, the level of intolerance on this board apalls me at times. I WILL be respected for the sh1t-eater I am. Anyone who disagrees is a closed minded sh1taphobe.
Not to worry -- I am making you a new sandwich in a few minutes. Where do I mail it to?
-
If I liked to eat sh1t sandwiches, it would be my right. I could eat all the sh1t sandwiches I wanted. But that still would not be considered normal.
And I'd be well within my rights to call you a wackjob if you had a "sh!t sandwich awareness march."
Why can't people who have these alternative feelings just live their own lives? Why do they need to be validated by me? Do your thing! Leave me out of it and leave the laws the way they are.
Until you understand the full scope of the human taste buds, you have no right to
disrespect my preference for the taste of a fresh turd on whole wheat. I swear, the level of intolerance on this board apalls me at times. I WILL be respected for the sh1t-eater I am. Anyone who disagrees is a closed minded sh1taphobe.
Not to worry -- I am making you a new sandwich in a few minutes. Where do I mail it to?
Wait about 10 months and send it to:
1600 Pennsylvania Ave
Washington D.C.
-
If I liked to eat sh1t sandwiches, it would be my right. I could eat all the sh1t sandwiches I wanted. But that still would not be considered normal.
And I'd be well within my rights to call you a wackjob if you had a "sh!t sandwich awareness march."
Why can't people who have these alternative feelings just live their own lives? Why do they need to be validated by me? Do your thing! Leave me out of it and leave the laws the way they are.
Until you understand the full scope of the human taste buds, you have no right to
disrespect my preference for the taste of a fresh turd on whole wheat. I swear, the level of intolerance on this board apalls me at times. I WILL be respected for the sh1t-eater I am. Anyone who disagrees is a closed minded sh1taphobe.
:rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
-
I'm still waitin gfor TiT to show up on this one. Can't wait to haer what interesting things he's done.
Speaking of which, has anyone seen him around lately?