Rainbow Cocksuckers

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Tell us something we don't know. Other than the fact that you agree that it is in bad taste (though you said it is not in good taste), I think most of us know that stuff. Which affects this how? FYI, one member of that detail was a Navy Corpsman.

Don't be a dick.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

There is a perfectly good reason why gays should be restricted from marrying. For one thing it goes against the biological order of things. Whether you want to accept it or not homosexuals have a loose wire somewhere. People are not suppose to be romantically attracted to members of the same sex, but because the way our society is changing, and for the worse I might add. The law thinks we should accept it, which is bullshit.

More unsupported horseshit.

What is the "perfectly good reason" for restricting gay from marrying? You seem to know it, but you won't say it.

Even if gays are different - even if they go against the "biological order" or have a "loose wire" - HOW does that justify discrimination? Explain it, don't just assert it like it is indisputable. Because it is not.

Old people can't have kids, but yet they can marry. There is no "biological order" involved in elder marriage. So why can they marry and get the legal protections of marriage, but gays cannot?

It is irrelevant that people are "not supposed" to be attracted to people of the same gender. Gays ARE so attracted. It is a FACT.

So, how does that FACT lead you to the conclusion that they should not, for example, be allowed to inherit property from their partner if their partner dies?

I will ask you again: What governmental or societal purpose is advanced by barring gays from marriage? If you can't identify it, just be honest and say so.

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

The basic premise of this argument was, is it a right or a privilege to marry. The definitive answer is marriage is a provisionary right. Because a license is granted, marriage also has some privileged qualities.

NO, the basic premise of the argument is NOT whether it is a right or a privilege.

Because either way, the government cannot deny equal protection of the law without good reason.

So what is the reason?

And what the hell is a "provisionary right"?

So, even if I accept that marriage has some privileged qualities because a license is required, why does that give government the right to discriminate?

Is it OK to bar interracial marriage because marriage requires a license and therefore has some privileged qualities? If not, then why is it OK to do it to gays?

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The 1st and 5th amendment rights are political in nature while the idea of marriage is religious at its root.

Says who? Religious people? Is that their way of declaring themselves in control of an issue?

You are an idiot. But we already knew that.

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

Religion does not get to control marriage, any more than it gets to control divorce, or sex, or dietary laws, or clothing.

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Marriage is fundamental to the understanding of a religion. Each religion has slightly different rules but just about every mainstream religion does share one thing; marriage is between a man and a woman.

SO WHAT?

The fact that a religion has some set of rules that it follows regarding marriage does NOT mean that society cannot make up its own, different rules. Have you not heard of the First Amendment? Separation of church and state?

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Government intruded for tax and property reasons and should be out of that business.

Who cares WHY government intruded? It has the power to do so, plain and simple.

What is your alternative, asshole? Let's say government gets out of the marriage business - whatever that means.

What happens when a married man dies? Does his property go to his wife? How so? Government - and its laws - are out of the marriage business, right?

So if the siblings of the deceased don't like the widow, can they just reclaim their brother's property? Because that is what could happen to a gay spouse?

What about if a man is arrested and the cops want to interrogate the wife? Can she assert spousal privileges NOT to talk to the police if the government is out of the marriage business?

If government is not in the marriage business and a man who lives in an apartment dies, can the landlord evict the widow without restriction?

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Let each church decide if they believe or want to recognize gay marriage. Leave that up to the worshippers and not some judge with an agenda.

Strawman argument once again.

This isn't about what churches want or believe.

It is about what the law permits and protects. The LAW decides inheritance rights, NOT churches. The LAW decides spousal immunity, NOT churches. The LAW decides tenants rights, NOT churches. The LAW decides who insurance companies and healthcare companies have to cover under their policies, NOT churches.

Try to remember that the First Amendment is a double edged sword. Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion.

Your particular set of beliefs about what the invisible man in the clouds wants does NOT control the laws of society.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

It's more than the flag. It is the theft of the pose itself. An iconic statement of heroism is in that pose and a bunch of peter puffers is going to steal that honor??? That's what it is.... theft of honor.

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.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Don't be a dick.

Please don't limit JD's options! Other than being an Idiot, JD does not know how to "be" anything else.

JDIdiot will forever be known as the dullest knife in the drawer.

But Jimbo seems to be running a very close second! (See post #'s 47, 48 and 49 above)

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

The biological order of things? Thousands of species have been observed engaging in same-sex behavior, so I'm not sure what biological order you're talking about. I think what you meant to say is you think it's gross and can't imagine it, so it must not be biologically proper. Complete bullshit. Who are YOU to say what sex someone should be attracted to?

Homosexual behavior isn't normal so cut your bullshit.


Jim

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

The biological order of things? Thousands of species have been observed engaging in same-sex behavior, so I'm not sure what biological order you're talking about. I think what you meant to say is you think it's gross and can't imagine it, so it must not be biologically proper. Complete bullshit. Who are YOU to say what sex someone should be attracted to?

You tell him, cum guzzler ! You and shammy would have to find a new line of "work" if you weren't attracted to the male customers at all the glory holes you two have " worked ". Think of all the free facials you would have missed out on ! And all those times that they packed your fudge for an "upcharge" ? Oh ! The Horrors !

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Homosexual behavior isn't normal so cut your bullshit.


Jim

Says who? You? You and your fear and your 'good book' don't get to make the rules.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

You tell him, cum guzzler ! You and shammy would have to find a new line of "work" if you weren't attracted to the male customers at all the glory holes you two have " worked ". Think of all the free facials you would have missed out on ! And all those times that they packed your fudge for an "upcharge" ? Oh ! The Horrors !

You think every whooooore you bang is actually attracted to you? Yeah, a short-dick mexican with Doritos Ranch breath and a crotch that smells like cheese is every girls' dream

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

You think every whooooore you bang is actually attracted to you? Yeah, a short-dick mexican with Doritos Ranch breath and a crotch that smells like cheese is every girls' dream

Uh how do you know it smells like cheese?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

You just got your ass handed to you, ..

You can't hand your ass to someone, much less someone else's.

Are their age limits on getting married?

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Don't be a dick.

Then give navy corpsman some credit.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Homosexual behavior isn't normal so cut your bullshit.

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Says who?

Mojo ... did you forget to whom you were addressing your thoughts?

Want-a-be-a-Womb ... the "Godless person" ....

...thinks two rams butting heads are trying to fuck each other ....

[JD Barleycorn]

[QUOTE=ExNYer;1056910213]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?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

It is about what the law permits and protects. The LAW decides inheritance rights, NOT churches. The LAW decides spousal immunity, NOT churches. The LAW decides tenants rights, NOT churches. The LAW decides who insurance companies and healthcare companies have to cover under their policies, NOT churches.

You should probably qualify some of these broad statements.

You are correct as opposed to "churches" ... but the fact of the matter is most of the criminal and civil laws in our country are based on the ethics and principles established by Christianity ... that's one of the "conflicts" existing in the debate about allowing ethics and principles of the Muslim faith to be influence our behavior in this country.... and/or protect Muslims from the constraints of the laws in this country. So it is "normal" for people who have strong Christian influences to be disturbed to angry about a disregard for those ethics and principles upon which their lives have been based all of these years to appease a small number of people in this country.