posted on January 24, 2004 12:59:18 PM new
Nope I can honestly say I have never been "hit" upon by a queer, I have been hit on by a queer...
Of course I no longer frequent bars and have only been in one queer bar that I know of, me and 8 friends.... in Bridgeport CT, Us in our uniforms spreading the "Word" about getting away from the gay life... that was a fun time.
Police let us go back to the ship...
Fags went to jail overnight...
Where do you come across with "fear" kraft? Explain that...
Why is it that liberals just don't have a concept of right and wrong and label their perversions that good people don't agree with as "fear"? I assure you there is no "fear". Queers are to be pitied as they know not what they do and need some from of medical attention, if they do not decide to take that route, anything that happens to them is ok.
But to you it is ok to keep having sex with family members, dead bodies, animals? No less deviant behavior than having sex with the same sex.
Would I really care of tom butt f*cks dave in the privacy of their own home? Nope...
I do care when these deviants think they deserve the same considerations of a man and woman in marriage or anything else.
Yes I have been to the sh*thole to the north... have to say only thing good about it was the easiness it was to get the women to bed...
Men up there must be lacking in necessary skills...
Guess to busy take care of each other...
posted on January 24, 2004 01:36:45 PM new
Hey, thanks for the welcome!
This is an interesting board to say the least. lol
And Twelvepole, please, don't hold back, just say what's on your mind, ok?
posted on January 24, 2004 02:14:44 PM new
You're right, Twelve. The men here don't treat us very well because we all know they are secretly thinking about other men. That's why most female Kanadians are pot-smoking, socialist ho's.
posted on January 24, 2004 02:32:43 PM new
But, in all fairness to Twelve, he DID have a trusting, solid 2 year relationship with an obedient blow-up doll.
posted on January 24, 2004 02:43:20 PM new
plsmith, but if he would have found out she got pregnant after he satisfied his crazed lust he would have blamed her and called her one of those sneaky little bitches.
posted on January 24, 2004 03:40:34 PM new
Just giving you a hard time, Twelve. You're (not very often) a good sport.
Where do you come across with "fear" kraft? Explain that...
I just think your hatred (or whatever you call it) towards gays is aimed at the sexual aspects of the relationship, which you can't get past. If gays didn't have sex with each other, would you still feel the same about not wanting them to get married legally?
posted on January 24, 2004 04:26:10 PM new
I've admitted I've been sneaky on occasion in my life, twelvepole. At times it's the best strategy.
But not when it comes to pregnancy or to harm anyone. I've never been sneaky and posted under another ID at Vendio like some have. What you see is what you get.
If you mellowed out a bit about some issues that you'll never be able to change, even if you can't accept them, you may be happier. I've had to do that myself.
posted on January 26, 2004 09:20:01 PM newAmid Cheers and Balloons, Domestic Partner Registry Opens By Thomas J. Sheeran Associated Press Writer
Published: Jan 26, 2004
CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, Ohio (AP) - Balloons decorated City Hall as unmarried couples, gay and straight, lined up Monday to be among the first to sign up for the city's domestic partner registry, the first in the nation created by voters.
Sixteen gay couples, about evenly split between pairs of men and women, signed up during the first hour before the first heterosexual couple got in line, sending up a cheer in the atrium of City Hall in this well-to-do Cleveland suburb.
"It's OK. We accept you," laughed Nancy Thrams, 59, who with her partner, Fran Twomey, 47, had worked to gain approval of the registry and got the chance to be first to sign up. "It just feels great. It feels equalizing," Twomey said.
When the office closed at 3 p.m., 26 couples had registered - far fewer than the 100 the mayor had predicted. Two of the couples were heterosexual, said Susanna Niermann O'Neil, director of community services.
The recognition is not binding on courts, governments or companies. But supporters hope registration will make it easier for couples to share employment benefits, inherit property and get hospital visiting rights.
The registry, which passed with 55 percent of the vote in November in this community of 50,000, was the first such measure adopted by way of the ballot, according to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
John Gibbon, the city's attorney, said he was asked by opponents to try to block the registry, but he does not believe there is a legitimate legal reason to sue.
The first heterosexual couple, Cameron Kissel, 34, and Standish Stewart, 29, of Cleveland, said they decided to register because they are not ready for marriage.
"We're getting our act together," said Kissel, a Web developer. He said he hoped the registry would ensure them the opportunity to visit each other if hospitalized.
Outside City Hall, a lone protester denounced the registry as promoting immorality.
Partners, under penalty of perjury, must specify that they share a home, have a "relationship of mutual interdependence," are at least 18 years old and do not have a married, civil union or domestic partnership relationship with a third person.
The registry comes less than a week after the Ohio Legislature passed one of the country's most-far reaching bans on gay marriage.
Domestic registries have been created by city councils and state legislatures elsewhere. The Vermont Legislature passed the nation's first law creating civil unions for same-sex couples, and California created a statewide registry for gay couples that gives them some of the legal rights of married couples.
posted on January 27, 2004 09:49:11 AM new
If you read his posts carefully Twelve intimates that he condones violence against gays.
Personally I find buggery disgusting.
But what I find personally disgusting - and there is a lot more than buggery that disgusts me - does not give me license to assault people.
People like Twelve want religeous law to have the force of civil law. Yet if you exaimine their lives they often would be sanctioned by such a theocracy themselves. I really think they have no vision of how far reaching and intrusive the priests would be if we lived under a system like the Taliban. And that is true no matter which religeous system would have the upper hand. They all want to suppress behaviors that are common.
Twelve - just be aware that along with the other misconceptions you have about gays - they are not all limp wristed little girls who will shreik in terror at any violence. They bridge the full spectrum of human personality and temperment. Some of them are the sort that would cut your guts out and choke you to death with a length of your own intestines if you look cross eyed at them. Don't make a big mistake and die thinking - "Wait a minute you're supposed to be terrified of me."
posted on January 27, 2004 10:56:26 AM newspreading the "Word" about getting away from the gay life... that was a fun time.
Not sure if I'm reading that right, Twelvepole. Does that sentence mean that you were once involved in the gay life and you went there to spread the word that you were now getting away from it?
posted on January 27, 2004 11:30:57 AM new
That's what I thought you meant - you beat up gays to help them realize who the real men are. I bet they changed into heterosexuals after the fight.
posted on January 27, 2004 12:01:02 PM new
Kraft, I bet they did too!
Okay, now I understand what you meant by that, Twelvepole. I've seen and heard of bar fights where guys took on other guys, sometimes where girls fought also. I've never yet heard a guy who bragged about gay bashing as being the best fight they'd ever been in.
opponent
rival in a contest: a person or team faced in a competition, debate, battle, or other contest
So you consider gays as your opponents?
You should be happy, the more gay guys there are, the less competition there is for you when it comes to finding a woman.
posted on January 27, 2004 01:22:28 PM new
Instead of states approving anti-gay marriage bans, they should be more concerned with not allowing married couples to get a divorce. Where is the sanctity of marriage in that? Aren't the wedding vovs "until death do us part"?
Isn't it something like 2/3 of all marriages end in divorce. If straight people will stop getting divorces at the drop of a hat, then I will say gays are not allowed to get married. Until then, any 2 persons that are in a loving relationship should be allowed to married.
It is time for people to wake up and start questioning what the real definition of "marriage" is all about. If you are going to say is should strictly be between a man and a woman, then dont stop there. This "union" should be a life long commitment until both people have died.
I guess the catholic church and politicians have forgotten about that part of this so-called sacred event.
To make matters worse, it is people like Britney Spears and other celebrities who get married for the fun of it. Why isn't the Catholic Church and the government condeming their actions? I guess it is ok since it was between a man and a women. Let us make the sacrament of marriage more of a joke by allowing this to continue.
Yeah, this whole gay marriage ban is making more sense to me now.
Hey Tweleve, I wonder how many gays are actually serving in the military today? How many have died in Iraq protecting our country from terrorists?
"An Army of One"
posted on January 27, 2004 01:37:26 PM newInstead of states approving anti-gay marriage bans, they should be more concerned with not allowing married couples to get a divorce.
Why stop there? We all know it's a good thing for an abusive relationship to continue. It's great for the kiddies - watching daddy beat up on mommy (or visa versa in my niece's case). It's great that two people who now hate each other are forced to stay together because our now fascist government says they have to. So, why stop there? Surely, we can mention some other things the government ought to forbid.
Let's have the government ban some books religious right-wingers think are unholy and bad for the soul. Let's outlaw using God's name in vane. Punishable by 10-20 years behind bars? Let's not forget to also ban birth control because we know that all men and women have the potential to be wonderful parents. In fact, let's outlaw everything that doesn't involve staying at home and reading your Bible.
posted on January 27, 2004 02:07:04 PM new
CBlev65252,
No, I was not kidding when I said they should be concerned with not allowing married people to get a divorce.
I am referring to the fact that many people take marriage to be a joke today. Let's get married and if it doesnt work out then let's divorce. Perhaps if more people were not given the choice to divorce they would think long and hard about entering into a life long commitment.
If for some reason two people do get married and it doesnt work out, they are legally married for the rest of their lives. They dont have continue living together, but in the eyes of God they are still legally married.
My point to this entire argument is that if the Church and the Republicans are going to uphold the sanctity of marriage, then they need to uphold the entire part of what constitutes marriage, not just the part of it being between a man and a woman.
I agree the government is involved in to many issues that doesnt concern them. This is one issue. There should not be any laws defining what marriage is all about. Rather there should be laws providing equal treatment to all people - period.
