Rainbow Cocksuckers

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

No, you're the frightened little boy who hates everything he can't understand.

That would make you the stupid piece of shit, Jimbola.

Sorry to disappoint you slop jaw. I am not afraid of homosexuals, nor am I obligated to understand their lifestyle. I don't have to support the idea of marriage equality. Especially since it's not even really equal.

Jim

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Hey dipshit, what if one of the men in the real photo was gay?

I mean, we don't really know that much about any of them, do we? Most of them were probably only 18-20 years old and back in those days pretty much all gays had to live in the closet. So it is not like they would have publicly "out".

So, it is entirely possible that one of them was gay. So, would his act of heroism also be a theft of honor at the same time?

In fact, let's do the math. Let's assume that gays represent 4% of the population - 1 out of every 25 people.

So the odds that any random guy you meet is straight is 24/25 = 96%.

The odds that two random guys are straight is just the product of those probabilities 24/25 x 24/25 = 92.16%. Or the square of the probability

The odds that three random guys are straight is the probability cubed - (24/25)^3 = 88.47%. And so forth.

Now, 6 men raised that flag on Iwo Jima. So in order for none of them to be gay, straights must run the table.

So the odds that all 6 were straight is 24/25 multiplied by itself SIX times. That is about 78.3%.

But that means that the odds that at least one was gay is about 21.7 %. Better than one in five.

So, it is not a remote possibility.

What kind of fucked up nonsense is this? You're actually doing the math for the probability that one of the flag raisers in Joe Rosenthal's famous photo was gay? Who gives a fuck? Even if you're right, what makes you think a gay Iwo Jima veteran wouldn't angrily object to the LGBT misuse of the photo? He would have experienced the hell and carnage of the Iwo Jima battle with all its casualties, including his buddies. Were 7,000 queers killed in the gay rights movement? Of course not! It's absurd even to suggest the comparison. Putting the rainbow flag in that photo is offensive to all Americans and especially to WWII vets because it trivializes their sacrifices. Anyone who denies that either hates our military or is trying to stir up shit.

.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Don't pass value judgments on me you stupid piece of shit.

Jim

So you're the only one who gets to pass those, huh? I'll pass any goddamn thing I want to. You're a piece of subhuman filth. Did your parents have any children that lived?

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

What kind of fucked up nonsense is this? You're actually doing the math for the probability that one of the flag raisers in Joe Rosenthal's famous photo was gay? Who gives a fuck? Even if you're right, what makes you think a gay Iwo Jima veteran wouldn't angrily object to the LGBT misuse of the photo? He would have experienced the hell and carnage of the Iwo Jima battle with all its casualties, including his buddies. Were 7,000 queers killed in the gay rights movement? Of course not! It's absurd even to suggest the comparison. Putting the rainbow flag in that photo is offensive to all Americans and especially to WWII vets because it trivializes their sacrifices. Anyone who denies that either hates our military or is trying to stir up shit.

.

You forgot the third option. They're a homophobic piece of shit like you. What makes him think a gay veteran would be against the use of the photo in this way? Maybe because he has to live in a country with low-life pieces of shit like you who are hateful scumbags. What's absurd is your fucking point of view, you besotted cocktard. You don't think 7K gay men have died for being gay in the 20th century? It does nothing to trivialize the sacrifices of those brave men on that island. They died for a country where people should be treated equally. If anything, it's a nod to the sacrifice they made and a sign of respect. You're the one trying to stir up shit, you shiteater.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by lustylad

What kind of fucked up nonsense is this? You're actually doing the math for the probability that one of the flag raisers in Joe Rosenthal's famous photo was gay? Who gives a fuck?

Apparently, you do and so does JDB.

My point is not that one of them was gay, but merely that it was not a remote possibility that one of them might have been gay. So "straights" don't own the Iwo Jima image. Gays are just as entitled to use it to make a political point. And if they do, it is no more a "desescration" that it would be if straights appropriated it for political purposes.

Originally Posted by lustylad

Even if you're right, what makes you think a gay Iwo Jima veteran wouldn't angrily object to the LGBT misuse of the photo? He would have experienced the hell and carnage of the Iwo Jima battle with all its casualties, including his buddies.

What makes you think a gay veteran would object? Maybe a gay Iwo Jima veteran would look at the image and say "Well, it's about time we got our chance".

Originally Posted by lustylad

Were 7,000 queers killed in the gay rights movement? Of course not! It's absurd even to suggest the comparison.

No, 7,000 gays did not die in the gay rights movement, but so what? What the fuck is your point?

Is there a law somewhere specifying a threshold number of deaths that must occur before some group can appropriate the flag picture for some political purpose? If so, can you cite it for us?

I am pretty sure I have seen a LOT of modified versions of the Iwo Jima flag picture used for all kinds of political, satirical and even commercial purposes. I don't recall anyone ever talking about desecration before the gay rights movement used it.

So spare me the phony outrage.

Originally Posted by lustylad

Putting the rainbow flag in that photo is offensive to all Americans and especially to WWII vets because it trivializes their sacrifices. Anyone who denies that either hates our military or is trying to stir up shit.

ALL Americans? Really? Can you cite a statistic somewhere? Or did you mean all gay hating Americans find the modified photo offensive?

And I deny it and I love our military. And I'm not trying to stir up shit. The person who started this dopey thread was trying to stir up shit. And you are too.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Apparently, you do and so does JDB.

My point is not that one of them was gay, but merely that it was not a remote possibility that one of them might have been gay. So "straights" don't own the Iwo Jima image. Gays are just as entitled to use it to make a political point. And if they do, it is no more a "desescration" that it would be if straights appropriated it for political purposes.


What makes you think a gay veteran would object? Maybe a gay Iwo Jima veteran would look at the image and say "Well, it's about time we got our chance".


No, 7,000 gays did not die in the gay rights movement, but so what? What the fuck is your point?

Is there a law somewhere specifying a threshold number of deaths that must occur before some group can appropriate the flag picture for some political purpose? If so, can you cite it for us?

I am pretty sure I have seen a LOT of modified versions of the Iwo Jima flag picture used for all kinds of political, satirical and even commercial purposes. I don't recall anyone ever talking about desecration before the gay rights movement used it.

So spare me the phony outrage.


ALL Americans? Really? Can you cite a statistic somewhere? Or did you mean all gay hating Americans find the modified photo offensive?

And I deny it and I love our military. And I'm not trying to stir up shit. The person who started this dopey thread was trying to stir up shit. And you are too.

Hear, Hear!

Lusty is nothing more than a butthurt closet queen. He doesn't have the nuts to stand up for who he really is. He's a shit-stirrer of the first order.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

So you're the only one who gets to pass those, huh? I'll pass any goddamn thing I want to. You're a piece of subhuman filth. Did your parents have any children that lived?

Look it's obvious you have issues. Spewing out insults isn't going to get you any fame. Whatever your problems are get some therapy ok. Now go make some phone calls, and don't forget to mention that cheap second rate healthcare insurance the government duped you into signing up for. Ya two bit nothing.
Jim

[DSK]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Marriage predates all of the Abrahamic religions. Even prehistoric tribes with no recognizable religious principles had marriage as an institution.

What percentage of those pre-Abrahamic marriages were to same sex partners?

How did they define marriage?

[DSK]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

But all of those things involve harm to others. Gay marriage is consensual activity that does NO HARM to anyone else.

So, once again, please tell me a real, legitimate governmental or societal interest that is advanced by NOT allowing gays to get married.

The redefining of marriage by gays and their supporters is a monumental change in our society causing massive societal upheaval and discord.

It is particularly demoralizing to me that someone as smart as you has been emotionally inured to the idea and so hatefully and venomously supports it. The Muslims are going to overrun us if guys like you waste their time defending homosexual dicksuckers while in Muslim countries they get tossed off tall structures via Forced Gay Base Jumping™.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

No, you're the frightened little boy who hates everything he can't understand.

That would make you the stupid piece of shit, Jimbola.

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Because if one of them was gay, you would have to explain why it is OK for him to get killed in the Marine Corps fighting for his country, but not be allowed to get married in that same country to someone he loves because he is gay.

Try not to forget they were actively drummed out of the military until don't ask don't tell - and no, I don't want them fighting for me or dying for me.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by DSK

no, I don't want them fighting for me or dying for me.

That sounds like something JLIdiot would have said!

JLIdiot, errr DSKIdiot, could it be that the reason you feel that way is because you personally feel that a gay man or woman is not capable of being patriotic enough to fight for and possibly die for their country?

Perhaps you should consider defecting (once again) to Tel Aviv!

Adios MoFo!

[timpage]

They're not "soldiers" you lying sack of shit. Those were U.S. Marines. You referring to them as "soldiers" tells me pretty much all I need to know about your claims of having served in the Navy. Fucking poser.


[QUOTE=JD Barleycorn;1056910898]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Hey dipshit, what if one of the men in the real photo was gay?

I mean, we don't really know that much about any of them, do we? Most of them were probably only 18-20 years old and back in those days pretty much all gays had to live in the closet. So it is not like they would have publicly "out".

So, it is entirely possible that one of them was gay. So, would his act of heroism also be a theft of honor at the same time?

In fact, let's do the math. Let's assume that gays represent 4% of the population - 1 out of every 25 people.

So the odds that any random guy you meet is straight is 24/25 = 96%.

The odds that two random guys are straight is just the product of those probabilities 24/25 x 24/25 = 92.16%. Or the square of the probability

The odds that three random guys are straight is the probability cubed - (24/25)^3 = 88.47%. And so forth.

Now, 6 men raised that flag on Iwo Jima. So in order for none of them to be gay, straights must run the table.

So the odds that all 6 were straight is 24/25 multiplied by itself SIX times. That is about 78.3%.

But that means that the odds that at least one was gay is about 21.7 %. Better than one in five.

So, it is not a remote possibility.[/QUOT

A few numerical changes and a couple of points. I've read that incidence of gay people is less than 2%. So cut everything in half. Statistically speaking a certain number of gay men would never make it in something like the marines so further reduce the number. Not all gay men are equal. So your 21.7% will drop to 10.85%. To be generous let's say that third would not be able to exist in the service. So we go from 1 in 5 to 1 in 10 and then even further down. So it is much more likely that all six men were straight.

My question is why is it so important for one them to be gay? I see them as soldiers and you see them as what?

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

I'm guessing you never played a lot of sports.

Well I have played considerable organized sports, but in all of them to include wrestling, I never had my face close enough to know what another players balls smell like. Now I am not sure what kind of sports are played in the LGBT community so I will have to defer to you on that .

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Look it's obvious you have issues. Spewing out insults isn't going to get you any fame. Whatever your problems are get some therapy ok. Now go make some phone calls, and don't forget to mention that cheap second rate healthcare insurance the government duped you into signing up for. Ya two bit nothing.
Jim

Fame? What the fuck are you even talking about

Go fuck yourself with a hobo's dirty dick, you bitch tits cum guzzler. Choke on a bum's ropey load.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

Well I have played considerable organized sports, but in all of them to include wrestling, I never had my face close enough to know what another players balls smell like. Now I am not sure what kind of sports are played in the LGBT community so I will have to defer to you on that .

You don't have to have your balls in someone's face to know what a lockerroom smells like, cheesedick. Although I bet you'd like to try, wouldn't you?