Not 1, not 2, not 3, but 7 Carrie Prejean sex tapes floating around the Internet(s), photos, too!
Taylor
a.) Doing these tapes and thinking she could go on to even
*auditioning for Miss America.
b.) Doing so on a conservative platform.
Perhaps she's craftier than we think. Perhaps her goal all long was to
become a high profile porn store and the Miss America Pageant was just
a rouse to make her more lucrative for what she appears to love to do
best (besides thinking and talking like an idiot).
[plural on the word 'Internet' for George W. Bush's benefit]
===
7 Carrie Prejean Sex Tapes, More Topless Photos Discovered
Friday November 13, 2009 5:52 p.m
http://airamerica.com/imagecache/uploads/0-prejean_display.jpg
Photo Credit: hollywoodlame.com
By Verena von Pfetten
A new report reveals that there are as many as 7 other sex tapes and
dozens of topless and nude photos of former Miss California Carrie
Prejean.
According to Radar:
Now a RadarOnline.com investigation has uncovered that there are SEVEN
more “biggest mistakes” of her life – all of them solo performances,
just like the one sex tape that the religious beauty queen has
admitted to. And there are 30 photos of Carrie, most topless, some
showing everything, and most taken by Carrie using her reflection in a
mirror.
On one tape Carrie is wearing just a flowing white blouse as she
touches her own body in an alluring manner. Carrie can be heard
moaning on a few of the tapes.
On Wednesday, Prejean attempted (and failed) to storm off the set of
"Larry King Live," and just yesterday Christianity Today published an
interview with the former beauty queen in which she defended herself
as both a role model and a Christian.
Read more from Radar here...
http://airamerica.com/entertainment/11-13-2009/report-7-more-prejean-sex-tapes-30-topless-photos/
---
Carrie Prejean Sex Tape Stream: Anyone Can See the Lies Carrie Prejean
Told
November 13, 2009 by Meg C. | www.MetromediaSquare.com/CarriePrejean
Carrie Prejean Sex Tape Stream Centers on Sex, Lies, and a Video
Stream
The Carrie Prejean sex tape stream is hot, even though the sex tape
stream is based on lies. The Carrie Prejean sex tape stream was
allegedly taken when the former Miss California was underage. She told
the media that she was 17 at the time that the videos were made, and
that they were for a boyfriend of hers at the time.
Newser reports that not only were there "15, 20" videos made, but that
the videos were made when Prejean was over the age of 18. This made
many seekers of the Carrie Prejean sex tape stream happy, because they
no longer had to worry about child pornography charges for viewing the
sex tape.
Carrie Prejean accused Larry King of being "inappropriate" when
interviewing her on his show. All Larry King wanted to know was what
role did the sex tape play in her decision to settle her pending
lawsuit with the Miss California pageant.
Carrie Prejean replied back that the terms of the settlement were
"confidential." When Larry King explained, or clarified, that he
wanted to know WHY she settled, not the terms of her settlement she
exploded, calling him "inappropriate."
When you add this incident in with the allegations brought about by
Newser, you realize that we are only scratching the surface of Carrie
Prejean's lies. She's held herself up to be a model citizen, a woman
with high morals - and all we see are sex tapes and lies.
Granted, the Carrie Prejean sex tape stream doesn't feature anyone but
Carrie pleasuring herself. I guess one way to look at it was that
Carrie wasn't engaging in pre-marital or extra-marital affairs - at
least not in her sex tape. I bet if you go digging though, you will
find some pretty good dirt.
Ironically, as people are frantically searching for the Carrie Prejean
sex tape video stream, her book was just released. The title of her
book is what is ironic. It's "Still Standing". I don't think Carrie
Prejean is still standing now that all of her dirty laundry and lies
have been aired.
The bright side to the Carrie Prjean sex tape video stream is that
maybe the hype surrounding the video will make people purchase her
book. People love controversy, and they might want to hear what Ms.
Prejean has to say, just because we have heard so much negativity
about her.
Still, one should be careful when trying to download the Carrie
Prejean sex tape video stream. Many Web sites promise the sex tape
download, and then install viruses, spyware, and other nasty things on
your computer. Make sure your anti-virus is up to date before
downloading anything - especially a sex tape.
Sources:
Newser.com: http://www.newser.com/story/73871/carrie-prejean-was-over-18-in-sex-tape-ex.html
Will
>"Taylor" <micr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:dbe32b86-df21-47c7...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>7 Carrie Prejean Sex Tapes, More Topless Photos >Discovered
7 tapes, 7 deadly sins. Coincidence?
seastew
>
> http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2388800/carrie_prejean_sex_t...
This is so funny. Wonder how she's going to rationalize this and make
it the liberal medias fault?
Taylor
> >"Taylor" <micros...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:dbe32b86-df21-47c7...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> >7 Carrie Prejean Sex Tapes, More Topless Photos >Discovered
>
> 7 tapes, 7 deadly sins. Coincidence?
Gotta have one for each day of the week that ends in 'y'.
Keith Olbermann's going to have field day with this. Her "biggest
mistake of her life" 7 times???
Rich
news:dbe32b86-df21-47c7...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
> She is a DUMB FUCKING CUNT for
>
> a.) Doing these tapes and thinking she could go on to even
> *auditioning for Miss America.
>
> b.) Doing so on a conservative platform.
Anyone catch the Russian pimp's theory of these women on CSI the other
night? I don't think he was too far off.
Anlatt the Builder
trying to turn herself in to a Christian-virtues martyr, but I have to
say that 7 tapes doesn't sound very different to me than one.
Apparently that's what she was in to during that (relatively young)
part of her life.
Pity that, even after she gave it up, it didn't leave her with any
sympathy or compassion for people who live their lives differently
than the mainstream might expect of them.
SoCally
17 is young, not "relatively young" - She was just a kid basically.
She apparently did a bunch of stuff for that one boyfriend who turned
out to be a sleazebag. It's the first time I actually have compassion
for her.
Taylor
> x-no-archive: yes"SoCally" <foaa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:656eb5a3-d4e4-4e51...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> But she wasn't 17. Multiple articles are reporting that she was actually
> over 18 in all of them.
And if she were 17, that would be Prejean manufacturing and
distributing child pornography. The law is clear regarding minors
(((NOT))) appearing in porn. That's why all porn sites are required to
provide a proof of legal age on file. She's _such_ a ditz, she thought
she could get away wi/ this disaster by copping a plea of being a
minor _not_ knowing that opens up a WORSE whole new can of worms.
Knowing her, she probably DID do some tapes when she was 16 or 17 and
they just haven't surfaced yet.
Obveeus
"Taylor" <micr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dbe32b86-df21-47c7...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
She is a DUMB FUCKING CUNT for
>a.) Doing these tapes and thinking she could go on to even
>*auditioning for Miss America.
>
>b.) Doing so on a conservative platform.
>
>Perhaps she's craftier than we think. Perhaps her goal all long was to
>become a high profile porn store and the Miss America Pageant was just
>a rouse to make her more lucrative for what she appears to love to do
>best (besides thinking and talking like an idiot).
I find it more likely that the 'Conservative Christian' bit is just a ruse.
She was genuinely working hard at becoming a beauty queen. She was
apparently genuinely working hard at having fun with her cell phone's
photo/video option. The 'Religious Conservative' thing just sort of fell
into her lap as 'an opportunity' because of a judges question in the final
event of the pageant. It seems like the 'Conservatives' were so quick to
jump on her situation as proof that they are discriminated against that they
didn't even bother to check into her actual background. The situation
reminds me of how Sarah Palin was chosen for the Vice Presidential ticket.
People with an agenda need to be more careful about grabbing ahold of a
spokesperson out of the blue.
Obveeus
"Taylor" <lukeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Knowing her, she probably DID do some tapes when she was 16 or 17 and
>they just haven't surfaced yet.
Given that those pictures/videos would qualify as 'child porn', it seems
unlikely that anyone in possession of such material would distribute it.
Some of these police jurisdictions going after girls/boys for sending each
other 'naughty pictures' of themselves and trying to criminally prosecute
these kids as 'sex offenders' is ridiculous. However, I am certain that no
one wants to go to the Supreme Court to challenge that ridiculousness with
Carrie Prejean as the defendant.
ArmyOfDorkness
"explorer" <a...@123.com> wrote in message
news:ZtydnTRT6fX70GPX...@centurytel.net...
>
> x-no-archive: yes
> "SoCally" <foa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:656eb5a3-d4e4-4e51...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> ~~~~~
>
> But she wasn't 17. Multiple articles are reporting that she was actually
> over 18 in all of them.
They just said she was 17 so hopefully they wouldn't be posted everywhere.
Anonymous Remailer (austria)
In article <9d73395a-638e-4a52-b070-
89f134...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
Taylor <lukeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 14, 1:25�am, "explorer" <a...@123.com> wrote:
> > x-no-archive: yes"SoCally" <foaa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:656eb5a3-d4e4-4e51...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> > On Nov 13, 9:20 pm, Anlatt the Builder <tirh...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I have no great regard for Carrie, a breast-enhanced beauty queen
> > > trying to turn herself in to a Christian-virtues martyr, but I have to
> > > say that 7 tapes doesn't sound very different to me than one.
> > > Apparently that's what she was in to during that (relatively young)
> > > part of her life.
> >
> > > Pity that, even after she gave it up, it didn't leave her with any
> > > sympathy or compassion for people who live their lives differently
> > > than the mainstream might expect of them.
> >
> > 17 is young, not "relatively young" - She was just a kid basically.
> >
> > She apparently did a bunch of stuff for that one boyfriend who turned
> > out to be a sleazebag. It's the first time I actually have compassion
> > for her.
> >
> > ~~~~~
> >
> > But she wasn't 17. �Multiple articles are reporting that she was actual
> ly
> > over 18 in all of them.
>
> And if she were 17, that would be Prejean manufacturing and
> distributing child pornography.
You're full of it. Your dad's jizz up your asshole that is.
M'Balz Es-Hari
news:6e21ab75-b73c-4402...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Olbermann's a jizzhead.
ArmyOfDorkness
"M'Balz Es-Hari" <texa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hdp5tg$aie$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> "Taylor" <lukeb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6e21ab75-b73c-4402...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 13, 7:27 pm, "Will" <w...@will.net> wrote:
>> >"Taylor" <micros...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:dbe32b86-df21-47c7...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> >7 Carrie Prejean Sex Tapes, More Topless Photos >Discovered
>>
>> 7 tapes, 7 deadly sins. Coincidence?
>
> Gotta have one for each day of the week that ends in 'y'.
Compared to the days of the week that don't end in Y. LOL
lab~rat >:-)
<tir...@aol.com> puked:
Damn, all it takes is a hot chick to make all the gays fall all over
themselves whining.
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
lab~rat >:-)
Bottom line is she, like a majority of Americans, don't think fags
should marry. Nothing more or less.
The Greyhound & Jessica Biel
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:20:55 -0800 (PST), Anlatt the Builder
Really. If this chick said she was for gay marriage, no one would
have ever heard of her. Now these fags are tripping over themselves
trying to fuck her over. Funny, I didn't see the outrage when Obama
said the same thing.
lab~rat >:-)
Biel" <Graa...@aol.com> puked:
>On Nov 16, 7:31ÔøΩam, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:20:55 -0800 (PST), Anlatt the Builder
>> <tirh...@aol.com> puked:
>>
>> >I have no great regard for Carrie, a breast-enhanced beauty queen
>> >trying to turn herself in to a Christian-virtues martyr, but I have to
>> >say that 7 tapes doesn't sound very different to me than one.
>> >Apparently that's what she was in to during that (relatively young)
>> >part of her life.
>>
>> >Pity that, even after she gave it up, it didn't leave her with any
>> >sympathy or compassion for people who live their lives differently
>> >than the mainstream might expect of them.
>>
>> Damn, all it takes is a hot chick to make all the gays fall all over
>> themselves whining.
>> --
>> lab~rat ÔøΩ>:-)
>> Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
>
>Really. If this chick said she was for gay marriage, no one would
>have ever heard of her. Now these fags are tripping over themselves
>trying to fuck her over. Funny, I didn't see the outrage when Obama
>said the same thing.
I for one am glad she made a sex tape and hope to see it. The one
where she's over 18, of course...
Major Debacle
It's the hypocrisy, stupid.
Prejean said that her answer was motivated by her "passion for the Lord"
and that it was "biblically correct".
However, she seems to have no problem ignoring the biblical injunctions
in 1 Peter 3:3-5 and 1 Timothy 2:9 that instruct that a woman should
dress modestly and not adorn herself with jewels and fine clothing.
It's the hypocrisy, stupid.
--
When asked, years afterward, why his charge at Gettysburg failed,
General Pickett said: "I've always thought the Yankees had something to
do with it."
Major Debacle
Bottom line is she said her answer was motivated by her "passion for the
Lord" and that her answer was biblically correct. It has become obvious
that her religious cover has been blown and that she is just a hypocrite
with fake boobs.
lab~rat >:-)
<major_debacle@The_Pentagon.invalid> puked:
Yeah, kind of like the religion of peace. Maybe you should stop
looking to bleached blonde beauty contestants for enlightenment.
lab~rat >:-)
<major_debacle@The_Pentagon.invalid> puked:
>lab~rat >:-) wrote:
Bottom line, that's not what she said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMvviFbkf0
KK
> "M'Balz Es-Hari" <texa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hdp5tg$aie$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> "Taylor" <lukeb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:6e21ab75-
b73c-4402-9c5...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>> On Nov 13, 7:27 pm, "Will" <w...@will.net> wrote:
>>> >"Taylor" <micros...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> >news:dbe32b86-df21-47c7-9a29-
bba3c5...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>> >7 Carrie Prejean Sex Tapes, More Topless Photos >Discovered
>>>
>>> 7 tapes, 7 deadly sins. Coincidence?
>>
>> Gotta have one for each day of the week that ends in 'y'.
>
> Compared to the days of the week that don't end in Y. LOL
(psst: that was the joke, dummy)
KK
> On Nov 13, 9:20�pm, Anlatt the Builder <tirh...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I have no great regard for Carrie, a breast-enhanced beauty queen
>> trying to turn herself in to a Christian-virtues martyr, but I have to
>> say that 7 tapes doesn't sound very different to me than one.
>> Apparently that's what she was in to during that (relatively young)
>> part of her life.
>>
>> Pity that, even after she gave it up, it didn't leave her with any
>> sympathy or compassion for people who live their lives differently than
>> the mainstream might expect of them.
>
> 17 is young, not "relatively young" - She was just a kid basically.
It's above the age of consent in most places in the US.
KK
> x-no-archive: yes
> "SoCally" <foa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:656eb5a3-d4e4-4e51...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> ~~~~~
>
> But she wasn't 17. Multiple articles are reporting that she was
> actually over 18 in all of them.
That's the best news I've heard all day. That means they'll eventually
be available on the interwebs.
KK
> "explorer" <a...@123.com> wrote in message
> news:ZtydnTRT6fX70GPX...@centurytel.net...
>>
>> x-no-archive: yes
>> "SoCally" <foa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:656eb5a3-
d4e4-4e51-8fe...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> On Nov 13, 9:20�pm, Anlatt the Builder <tirh...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> I have no great regard for Carrie, a breast-enhanced beauty queen
>>> trying to turn herself in to a Christian-virtues martyr, but I have to
>>> say that 7 tapes doesn't sound very different to me than one.
>>> Apparently that's what she was in to during that (relatively young)
>>> part of her life.
>>>
>>> Pity that, even after she gave it up, it didn't leave her with any
>>> sympathy or compassion for people who live their lives differently
>>> than the mainstream might expect of them.
>>
>> 17 is young, not "relatively young" - She was just a kid basically.
>>
>> She apparently did a bunch of stuff for that one boyfriend who turned
>> out to be a sleazebag. It's the first time I actually have compassion
>> for her.
>>
>> ~~~~~
>>
>> But she wasn't 17. Multiple articles are reporting that she was
>> actually over 18 in all of them.
>
> They just said she was 17 so hopefully they wouldn't be posted
> everywhere.
"hopefully" for who??
KK
> Bottom line is she, like a majority of Americans, don't think fags
> should marry. Nothing more or less.
Right! Just like the majority of Americans who believed that slavery
should continue, and that blacks and whites shouldn't be allowed to
marry. And those people, like she is, are entitles to their opinion, no
matter how stupid or how little it would impact them.
The Greyhound & Jessica Biel
wrote:
Again, if she stated that gay marriage was OK, no one would know who
the fuck she was. Instead, Perez Hilton, Taylor & the rest of the
pillowbiters went out of their way to trash & demean her. All that
did was get her a book deal & will probably make more money off that
than Hilton & Taylor will see in their collective lives.
Speaking of hypocrisy, stupid, would you care to address where Obama
said he was for gay marriage before he wasn't? Seems to me if it was
a big deal that an airheaded beauty contestant was against it, than it
should as big a deal if the democrat (i.e. progressive) POTUS was
against it.
I enclosed a link, from a liberal site no less, so you can't cry the
usual Fox news, Rush, Beck, etc. rebuttal.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabriel-rotello/obamas-gay-marriage-flip_b_158009.html
rm...@my-deja.com
wrote:
Yes she's a hypocritical idiot.
lab~rat >:-)
>On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:22:43 -0600, ArmyOfDorkness wrote:
>
>> "explorer" <a...@123.com> wrote in message
>> news:ZtydnTRT6fX70GPX...@centurytel.net...
>>>
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>> "SoCally" <foa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:656eb5a3-
>d4e4-4e51-8fe...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Nov 13, 9:20?pm, Anlatt the Builder <tirh...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> I have no great regard for Carrie, a breast-enhanced beauty queen
>>>> trying to turn herself in to a Christian-virtues martyr, but I have to
>>>> say that 7 tapes doesn't sound very different to me than one.
>>>> Apparently that's what she was in to during that (relatively young)
>>>> part of her life.
>>>>
>>>> Pity that, even after she gave it up, it didn't leave her with any
>>>> sympathy or compassion for people who live their lives differently
>>>> than the mainstream might expect of them.
>>>
>>> 17 is young, not "relatively young" - She was just a kid basically.
>>>
>>> She apparently did a bunch of stuff for that one boyfriend who turned
>>> out to be a sleazebag. It's the first time I actually have compassion
>>> for her.
>>>
>>> ~~~~~
>>>
>>> But she wasn't 17. Multiple articles are reporting that she was
>>> actually over 18 in all of them.
>>
>> They just said she was 17 so hopefully they wouldn't be posted
>> everywhere.
>
>"hopefully" for who??
Fags.
lab~rat >:-)
>On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 00:25:20 -0600, explorer wrote:
>
>> x-no-archive: yes
>> "SoCally" <foa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:656eb5a3-d4e4-4e51...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> On Nov 13, 9:20?pm, Anlatt the Builder <tirh...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> I have no great regard for Carrie, a breast-enhanced beauty queen
>>> trying to turn herself in to a Christian-virtues martyr, but I have to
>>> say that 7 tapes doesn't sound very different to me than one.
>>> Apparently that's what she was in to during that (relatively young)
>>> part of her life.
>>>
>>> Pity that, even after she gave it up, it didn't leave her with any
>>> sympathy or compassion for people who live their lives differently than
>>> the mainstream might expect of them.
>>
>> 17 is young, not "relatively young" - She was just a kid basically.
>>
>> She apparently did a bunch of stuff for that one boyfriend who turned
>> out to be a sleazebag. It's the first time I actually have compassion
>> for her.
>>
>> ~~~~~
>>
>> But she wasn't 17. Multiple articles are reporting that she was
>> actually over 18 in all of them.
>
>
>That's the best news I've heard all day. That means they'll eventually
>be available on the interwebs.
Inevitably they'll probably be a disappointment. Those semi nude
pictures of her weren't, though. I think she looked a hundred times
hotter when she looked natural opposed to that dolled up beauty
contest look. I hate that shit.
lab~rat >:-)
Biel" <Graa...@aol.com> puked:
>On Nov 17, 9:18ÔøΩam, Major Debacle <major_debacle@The_Pentagon.invalid>
>wrote:
>> The Greyhound & Jessica Biel wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 16, 7:31 am, "lab~rat ÔøΩ>:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:20:55 -0800 (PST), Anlatt the Builder
>> >> <tirh...@aol.com> puked:
>>
>> >>> I have no great regard for Carrie, a breast-enhanced beauty queen
>> >>> trying to turn herself in to a Christian-virtues martyr, but I have to
>> >>> say that 7 tapes doesn't sound very different to me than one.
>> >>> Apparently that's what she was in to during that (relatively young)
>> >>> part of her life.
>> >>> Pity that, even after she gave it up, it didn't leave her with any
>> >>> sympathy or compassion for people who live their lives differently
>> >>> than the mainstream might expect of them.
>> >> Damn, all it takes is a hot chick to make all the gays fall all over
>> >> themselves whining.
>> >> --
>> >> lab~rat ÔøΩ>:-)
>> >> Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
>>
>> > Really. ÔøΩ If this chick said she was for gay marriage, no one would
>> > have ever heard of her. ÔøΩNow these fags are tripping over themselves
>> > trying to fuck her over. ÔøΩ Funny, I didn't see the outrage when Obama
>> > said the same thing.
>>
>> It's the hypocrisy, stupid.
>>
>> Prejean said that her answer was motivated by her "passion for the Lord"
>> and that it was "biblically correct".
>>
>> However, she seems to have no problem ignoring the biblical injunctions
>> in 1 Peter 3:3-5 and 1 Timothy 2:9 that instruct that a woman should
>> dress modestly and not adorn herself with jewels and fine clothing.
>>
>> It's the hypocrisy, stupid.
>> --
>
>Again, if she stated that gay marriage was OK, no one would know who
>the fuck she was. Instead, Perez Hilton, Taylor & the rest of the
>pillowbiters went out of their way to trash & demean her.
It wasn't just the flaming homos. It was the liberals in general,
which of course include flaming homos. They all have a problem with
women that are attractive and speak their minds. They say they're for
equality, but they thought Sarah Palin should be in the kitchen
cooking breakfast instead of having a political career.
Look at any instance, Palin, Prejean, Coulter, Malkin, Hasselbeck,
etc. The mere mention of their names sends them into a mindless
hateful retarded posting spree.
All that
>did was get her a book deal & will probably make more money off that
>than Hilton & Taylor will see in their collective lives.
>
>Speaking of hypocrisy, stupid, would you care to address where Obama
>said he was for gay marriage before he wasn't? Seems to me if it was
>a big deal that an airheaded beauty contestant was against it, than it
>should as big a deal if the democrat (i.e. progressive) POTUS was
>against it.
>
>I enclosed a link, from a liberal site no less, so you can't cry the
>usual Fox news, Rush, Beck, etc. rebuttal.
>
>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabriel-rotello/obamas-gay-marriage-flip_b_158009.html
--
lab~rat >:-)
>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:32:39 -0500, lab~rat >:-) wrote:
>
>> Bottom line is she, like a majority of Americans, don't think fags
>> should marry. Nothing more or less.
>
>
>Right! Just like the majority of Americans who believed that slavery
<snip>
An argument could be made that a majority of Americans DIDN'T believe
slavery should continue considering the number of troops that squared
off during the civil war.
In any event, we aren't talking about slavery, we're talking about a
handful of perverts using a wedge issue to further their gay agenda.
Nothing more.
KK
> However, she seems to have no problem ignoring the biblical injunctions
> in 1 Peter 3:3-5 and 1 Timothy 2:9 that instruct that a woman should
> dress modestly and not adorn herself with jewels and fine clothing.
Or the verse (I forget which exact one) which forbids playing with your
twat to get off on camera to send to your boyfriend so he can jack it
when you're not together and can't fuck.
KK
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:13:27 GMT, KK <_K...@furburger.net> puked:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:32:39 -0500, lab~rat >:-) wrote:
>>
>>> Bottom line is she, like a majority of Americans, don't think fags
>>> should marry. Nothing more or less.
>>
>>
>>Right! Just like the majority of Americans who believed that slavery
>
> <snip>
>
> An argument could be made that a majority of Americans DIDN'T believe
> slavery should continue considering the number of troops that squared
> off during the civil war.
An argument could be made that squares are round, too, but that wouldn't
make it so.
The main priority of the North, and its troops, and, for that matter,
President Lincoln, was *not* to free the slaves. It was to keep the
South from seceeding.
> In any event, we aren't talking about slavery, we're talking about a
> handful of perverts using a wedge issue to further their gay agenda.
And there were just as dimwitted pro-slavery arguments then, and just as
dimwitted arguments against interracial marriage more recently.
> Nothing more.
lab~rat >:-)
Well that sounds like safe sex and abstinence to me. Isn't there some
religion that's all for that?
lab~rat >:-)
>On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:04:31 -0500, lab~rat >:-) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:13:27 GMT, KK <_K...@furburger.net> puked:
>>
>>>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:32:39 -0500, lab~rat >:-) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bottom line is she, like a majority of Americans, don't think fags
>>>> should marry. Nothing more or less.
>>>
>>>
>>>Right! Just like the majority of Americans who believed that slavery
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> An argument could be made that a majority of Americans DIDN'T believe
>> slavery should continue considering the number of troops that squared
>> off during the civil war.
>
>An argument could be made that squares are round, too, but that wouldn't
>make it so.
>
>The main priority of the North, and its troops, and, for that matter,
>President Lincoln, was *not* to free the slaves. It was to keep the
>South from seceeding.
That's true, but somewhere before the end of the war, slavery was made
an issue of the north.
>> In any event, we aren't talking about slavery, we're talking about a
>> handful of perverts using a wedge issue to further their gay agenda.
>
>
>And there were just as dimwitted pro-slavery arguments then, and just as
>dimwitted arguments against interracial marriage more recently.
You really do a disservice to our coloured brothers when you compare
their plight to some silly homos that get off sticking their dicks in
each other...
KK
I'm all for Miss California sending me a video of her playing with
herself.
KK
So you keep saying. But you can't choose to be black or white, and you
can't choose to be attracted to the same or the opposite sex.
lab~rat >:-)
And like I said, she looks much hotter off the stage than on.
lab~rat >:-)
Well, that's up for debate. But if I acquiesce that point, be aware
that sucking cock is one hundred percent choice.
KK
And so is getting married if you're black.
Monica Lewinsky
Not according to fags. They claim they are biologically
compelled to suck cocks after they have been in their own anuses.
KK
I'd like to see some supporting literature for your assertion, please.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
> Not 1, not 2, not 3, but 7 Carrie Prejean sex tapes floating
> around the Internet(s), photos, too!
Good deal!! If anyone can find 'em and forward them to me,
I'll include that in a special page in my website, to be made readily
available to one and all as a PERMANENT embarassment to that
loathsome bigot!
Forward to: Craig Chilton at xanadupu...@yahoo.com
Major Debacle
Hey... yer the one defending her, not me.
> --
> lab~rat >:-)
> Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
--
When asked, years afterward, why his charge at Gettysburg failed,
General Pickett said: "I've always thought the Yankees had something to
do with it."
Major Debacle
Bottom line is that is *exactly* what she said.
Just because she didn't say in the video you posted is proof of nothing
and you know it.
> --
> lab~rat >:-)
> Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
Sales Dept.
<x...@m.com> posted some news:fh09g59mdh4s77qvk...@4ax.com:
Forwarded for consideration and appropriate action.
lab~rat >:-)
<major_debacle@The_Pentagon.invalid> puked:
What she said in the contest is what caused all the gays to lose their
erections, and it isn't what you cited.
lab~rat >:-)
Who is saying blacks shouldn't get married? Just because 70% of their
kids are born out of wedlock doesn't mean there's a law against it.
lab~rat >:-)
Major Debacle
Putting yer obsession with gay boners aside and getting back to yer
denial of what Ms Prejean said, I rub yer nose in the following:
"I knew there were secular judges, but I felt I needed to express my
passion for the Lord."
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=D53FE0EC-18FE-70B2-A82837AC2725885E
"It’s not about being politically correct; for me, it was being
biblically correct"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30322005/
KK
Nobody.
You're saying gays sucking each others cocks is a choice while being
black isn't. But wanting to marry a white woman certainly is.
KK
You perv. Support for those claims, not for the act itself!
lab~rat >:-)
<major_debacle@The_Pentagon.invalid> puked:
>"ItÔøΩs not about being politically correct; for me, it was being
>biblically correct"
>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30322005/
Yeah, that was after the fact. But what got all your gay sphincters
in a bunch was what she said that day.
As an atheist, I wouldn't fall back on scripture to defend my
position, but I don't think that xtians claim to be perfect. In fact,
the main tenant of christianity is the known fact that man sins.
If people were perfect, there wouldn't be a reason for religion. Now,
was she a hypocrite? You could argue that. Or you could say that
homosexuality is different to her than heterosexuality with regards to
morality.
Now, I would say she were a TOTAL hypocrite if she made tapes AFTER
the comment. That's entirely different.
Face it, she's a hot chick that hates fags. Not that uncommon.
lab~rat >:-)
So is wanting to fuck a goat. What's your point?
KK
The similarities between the two cases.
lab~rat >:-)
KK
Because you choose not to.
You've all but conceded that people don't have a choice to whom they're
attracted.
Black people can choose not to marry white people, and gays can also
choose not to act on their feelings.
Bill Taylor
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Bill Taylor <nob...@nymu.eu> wrote:
> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>>> Not 1, not 2, not 3, but 7 Carrie Prejean sex tapes floating
>>> around the Internet(s), photos, too!
>> Good deal!! If anyone can find 'em and forward them to me,
>> I'll include that in a special page in my website, to be made readily
>> available to one and all as a PERMANENT embarassment to that
>> loathsome bigot!
>>
>> Forward to: Craig Chilton at xanadupu...@yahoo.com
> Your grandchildren will be so proud.
Some of my grandchildren are in high school. And they ARE!
They are all sensible, fair-minded, & intelligent egalitarians.
Just like my kids, who are raising them to be such.
Not Sure
" <x...@m.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:13:37 +0100,
>
> Bill Taylor <nob...@nymu.eu> wrote:
> > (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
> >>> Not 1, not 2, not 3, but 7 Carrie Prejean sex tapes floating
> >>> around the Internet(s), photos, too!
> >> Good deal!! If anyone can find 'em and forward them to me,
> >> I'll include that in a special page in my website, to be made readily
> >> available to one and all as a PERMANENT embarassment to that
> >> loathsome bigot!
>
> > Your grandchildren will be so proud.
>
> Some of my grandchildren are in high school. And they ARE!
>
> They are all sensible, fair-minded, & intelligent egalitarians.
> Just like my kids, who are raising them to be such.
The farm animals you've copulated with aren't capable of bearing your
children, let alone grandchildren. Better luck lying next time.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Bill Taylor <nob...@nymu.eu> wrote:
> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>>> Not 1, not 2, not 3, but 7 Carrie Prejean sex tapes floating
>>> around the Internet(s), photos, too!
>> Good deal!! If anyone can find 'em and forward them to me,
>> I'll include that in a special page in my website, to be made readily
>> available to one and all as a PERMANENT embarassment to that
>> loathsome bigot!
>>
>> Forward to: Craig Chilton at xanadupu...@yahoo.com
lab~rat >:-)
I think that I've reconsidered that. I used to be WAY attracted to
Asian chicks, but now I look at them and find big time flaws with the
way they look and every time I see them in profile it completely turns
me off. So being locked into a certain type of attraction isn't
necessarily something that is hardwired and not able to change.
Example number two is my sister in law that was married and after that
had a lot of boyfriends and is now gay. Sorry, don't see how people
HAVE to be gay.
>Black people can choose not to marry white people, and gays can also
>choose not to act on their feelings.
And after all that, gays still can't marry members of the same sex
because that isn't marriage. They can marry members of the opposite
sex like everyone else, they don't get a special rule for their
fetish.
KK
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:08:56 GMT, KK <_K...@furburger.net> puked:
>>>>
>>>>The similarities between the two cases.
>>>
>>> Bah, I don't see it.
>>
>>Because you choose not to.
>>
>>You've all but conceded that people don't have a choice to whom they're
>>attracted.
>
> I think that I've reconsidered that.
How convenient.
>
>>Black people can choose not to marry white people, and gays can also
>>choose not to act on their feelings.
>
> And after all that, gays still can't marry members of the same sex
> because that isn't marriage.
And blacks couldn't marry members of the other race before, either.
> They can marry members of the opposite sex
> like everyone else,
Right,and there have always been plenty of other blacks for blacks to
marry.
> they don't get a special rule for their fetish.
Nobody's asking for a "special" rule.
Major Debacle
After what "fact"?
I never claimed that her quotes came before, during or after any "fact".
> But what got all your gay sphincters
> in a bunch was what she said that day.
Why are you obsessed with gay boners going into gay sphincters?
Why are you obsessed with such disgusting imagery?
>
> As an atheist, I wouldn't fall back on scripture to defend my
> position, but I don't think that xtians claim to be perfect. In fact,
> the main tenant of christianity is the known fact that man sins.
>
> If people were perfect, there wouldn't be a reason for religion. Now,
> was she a hypocrite? You could argue that. Or you could say that
> homosexuality is different to her than heterosexuality with regards to
> morality.
>
> Now, I would say she were a TOTAL hypocrite if she made tapes AFTER
> the comment. That's entirely different.
>
> Face it, she's a hot chick that hates fags. Not that uncommon.
So now you are the spokesrat for Carrie Prejean's inner spiritual
condition and you are relaying to all of us telepathically challenged
mortals what and who she hates?
Is she aware that you speak for her?
Does she really hate all fags? Even the lovable ones on America's Next
Top Model?
Bill Taylor
"(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x...@m.com>
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:13:37 +0100,
> Bill Taylor <nob...@nymu.eu> wrote:
> > (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>> Not 1, not 2, not 3, but 7 Carrie Prejean sex tapes floating
> >>> around the Internet(s), photos, too!
>
> >> Good deal!! If anyone can find 'em and forward them to me,
> >> I'll include that in a special page in my website, to be made readily
> >> available to one and all as a PERMANENT embarassment to that
> >> loathsome bigot!
> >>
> >> Forward to: Craig Chilton at xanadupu...@yahoo.com
>
> > Your grandchildren will be so proud.
>
> Some of my grandchildren are in high school. And they ARE!
Hang in there. Not everyone can be fifth year freshmen.
> They are all sensible, fair-minded, & intelligent egalitarians.
> Just like my kids, who are raising them to be such.
You mean drones who do the bidding of their elected masters.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Bill Taylor <nob...@nymu.eu> wrote:
> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>>> Not 1, not 2, not 3, but 7 Carrie Prejean sex tapes floating
>>> around the Internet(s), photos, too!
>> Good deal!! If anyone can find 'em and forward them to me,
>> I'll include that in a special page in my website, to be made readily
>> available to one and all as a PERMANENT embarassment to that
>> loathsome bigot!
>>
>> Forward to: Craig Chilton at xanadupu...@yahoo.com
> Your grandchildren will be so proud.
Some of my grandchildren are in high school. And they ARE!
They are all sensible, fair-minded, & intelligent egalitarians.
lab~rat >:-)
<major_debacle@The_Pentagon.invalid> puked:
>> Face it, she's a hot chick that hates fags. Not that uncommon.
>
>So now you are the spokesrat for Carrie Prejean's inner spiritual
>condition and you are relaying to all of us telepathically challenged
>mortals what and who she hates?
More or less.
lab~rat >:-)
The black situation is entirely different because it about their
COLOR, not where they stick their dongs.
The gay thing is all about where they stick their dongs or bump their
donuts.
>
>
>> they don't get a special rule for their fetish.
>
>
>Nobody's asking for a "special" rule.
Of course they are. You don't see it because you, for some reason
that makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever, see a same sex couple as
being the same as an opposite sex couple. Nothing could be further
from the truth. The psychological aspect of pairing, as well as the
biological reasons, are in no way the same. Even to consider
legitimizing this ridiculous bullshit is ludicrous.
The entire crux of this movement is twofold, financial, and mostly, to
create a wedge issue for the gay activist community. Like the way
that they have admittedly used the idea that "gays are endangered" by
the straight community to position their organizations into schools
recruiting and legitimizing gayness to preadolescent kids.
Sorry, I'm not falling for the bullshit the way others might. I
don't know how it is where you live, but Broward county is literally
infested with fags, and they're doing whatever they can to make S.
Florida a gay mecca. Maybe I see the ugliness of what they are trying
to do a little more clearly than most people.
Remember that story where they tried to paint the mayor of Broward as
a homophobe for trying to crack down on gay cruising in the public
bathrooms? I mean, REALLY.
KK
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:07:49 GMT, KK <_K...@furburger.net> puked:
>
>>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:32:56 -0500, lab~rat >:-) wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:08:56 GMT, KK <_K...@furburger.net> puked:
>>
>>
>>>>>>The similarities between the two cases.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bah, I don't see it.
>>>>
>>>>Because you choose not to.
>>>>
>>>>You've all but conceded that people don't have a choice to whom
>>>>they're attracted.
>>>
>>> I think that I've reconsidered that.
>>
>>How convenient.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Black people can choose not to marry white people, and gays can also
>>>>choose not to act on their feelings.
>>>
>>> And after all that, gays still can't marry members of the same sex
>>> because that isn't marriage.
>>
>>And blacks couldn't marry members of the other race before, either.
>>
>>
>>> They can marry members of the opposite sex like everyone else,
>>
>>
>>Right,and there have always been plenty of other blacks for blacks to
>>marry.
>
> The black situation is entirely different because it about their COLOR,
> not where they stick their dongs.
The gay "situation" isn't where they "stick their dongs" any more than
the "black situation" is about "where they stick their dongs".
It's about to whom a person is attracted.
>
> The gay thing is all about where they stick their dongs or bump their
> donuts.
>
>
>>
>>> they don't get a special rule for their fetish.
>>
>>
>>Nobody's asking for a "special" rule.
>
> Of course they are. You don't see it because you, for some reason that
> makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever, see a same sex couple as being the
> same as an opposite sex couple.
No, I don't see that all. I would not in any way be able to have any
intimate physical contact with a guy, because that's not how my head is
wired.
> Nothing could be further from the
> truth. The psychological aspect of pairing, as well as the biological
> reasons, are in no way the same. Even to consider legitimizing this
> ridiculous bullshit is ludicrous.
Emotional blathering does not a rational point make. I'll again point to
the drooling tards who equated interracial marriage with bestiality.
>
> The entire crux of this movement is twofold, financial,
It's not financial. Many or most large companies provide same-sex
partner benefits without being requried to.
> and mostly, to
> create a wedge issue for the gay activist community.
Again you're assigning motive to people you don't know or interact with.
First of all, if it's right then it doesn't fucking matter if it's an
"activist wedge issue" - you can't deny someone their right because you
don't like somsone else who supports it. Again, since you turn into a
broken record every time we go down this path, to refuse gay people a
right because "gay activists" want to use it as an issue would be the
same as opposing laws forbidding "separate but equal" because the Black
Panthers supported them.
> Like the way that
> they have admittedly used the idea that "gays are endangered" by the
> straight community to position their organizations into schools
> recruiting and legitimizing gayness to preadolescent kids.
Teaching homosexuality in school is a different issue.
> Sorry, I'm not falling for the bullshit the way others might. I don't
> know how it is where you live, but Broward county is literally infested
> with fags, and they're doing whatever they can to make S. Florida a gay
> mecca. Maybe I see the ugliness of what they are trying to do a little
> more clearly than most people.
>
> Remember that story where they tried to paint the mayor of Broward as a
> homophobe for trying to crack down on gay cruising in the public
> bathrooms? I mean, REALLY.
And again, that has nothing to do with gay marriage. Among the friends I
have who want and support gay marriage are a lawyer, a catering business
owner, a manager at a shipping firm, and a bank exec. All have been in
monogamous relationships for years, none are flamboyantly gay or at all
what I'd call "activist". None of them, if I know them at all, would
oppose a crackdown on "cruising" in public rest rooms.
It's like you're refusing to support interracial marriage because Al
Sharpton defended Tawana Brawley.
lab~rat >:-)
>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:45:07 -0500, lab~rat >:-) wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:07:49 GMT, KK <_K...@furburger.net> puked:
>>
>>>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:32:56 -0500, lab~rat >:-) wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:08:56 GMT, KK <_K...@furburger.net> puked:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>The similarities between the two cases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bah, I don't see it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Because you choose not to.
>>>>>
>>>>>You've all but conceded that people don't have a choice to whom
>>>>>they're attracted.
>>>>
>>>> I think that I've reconsidered that.
>>>
>>>How convenient.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Black people can choose not to marry white people, and gays can also
>>>>>choose not to act on their feelings.
>>>>
>>>> And after all that, gays still can't marry members of the same sex
>>>> because that isn't marriage.
>>>
>>>And blacks couldn't marry members of the other race before, either.
>>>
>>>
>>>> They can marry members of the opposite sex like everyone else,
>>>
>>>
>>>Right,and there have always been plenty of other blacks for blacks to
>>>marry.
>>
>> The black situation is entirely different because it about their COLOR,
>> not where they stick their dongs.
>
>The gay "situation" isn't where they "stick their dongs" any more than
>the "black situation" is about "where they stick their dongs".
>
>It's about to whom a person is attracted.
Yeah, because a person has the right to marry anyone they're attracted
to right? It's in the constitution and shit. The pedophiles are
thrilled with that logic and will be fighting to lower the age of
consent to 13 like it is in many parts of the world.
>>
>> The gay thing is all about where they stick their dongs or bump their
>> donuts.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> they don't get a special rule for their fetish.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nobody's asking for a "special" rule.
>>
>> Of course they are. You don't see it because you, for some reason that
>> makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever, see a same sex couple as being the
>> same as an opposite sex couple.
>
>No, I don't see that all. I would not in any way be able to have any
>intimate physical contact with a guy, because that's not how my head is
>wired.
It's how your head is conditioned. You probably couldn't see yourself
sticking pins in a bunny rabbit's eyeballs or keying someone's brand
new Mercedes for doing it or a hundred other examples of fringe
behavior.
>
>
>
>> Nothing could be further from the
>> truth. The psychological aspect of pairing, as well as the biological
>> reasons, are in no way the same. Even to consider legitimizing this
>> ridiculous bullshit is ludicrous.
>
>Emotional blathering does not a rational point make. I'll again point to
>the drooling tards who equated interracial marriage with bestiality.
Ok, then explain the psychological and biological aspects of gay
pairing.
>
>
>>
>> The entire crux of this movement is twofold, financial,
>
>It's not financial. Many or most large companies provide same-sex
>partner benefits without being requried to.
It is financial. They bitch about not getting the same tax relief as
real married people as well.
>
>> and mostly, to
>> create a wedge issue for the gay activist community.
>
>Again you're assigning motive to people you don't know or interact with.
I assign it to organized groups, especially ones in my area, that have
been exposed as admitting these things.
>First of all, if it's right then it doesn't fucking matter if it's an
>"activist wedge issue" - you can't deny someone their right because you
>don't like somsone else who supports it. Again, since you turn into a
>broken record every time we go down this path, to refuse gay people a
>right because "gay activists" want to use it as an issue would be the
>same as opposing laws forbidding "separate but equal" because the Black
>Panthers supported them.
You turn into a broken record repeating the ridiculous assumption that
this is related to civil rights issues. The fact is that most gays
fly completely under the radar and aren't activists. They live at
home with their partners and their private life is private. And it's
all they need.
Then there's the group of hysterical activists that crusade to make
their "lifestyle" acceptable to everyone.
There's such a thing as being a professional gay.
>
>
>
>> Like the way that
>> they have admittedly used the idea that "gays are endangered" by the
>> straight community to position their organizations into schools
>> recruiting and legitimizing gayness to preadolescent kids.
>
>Teaching homosexuality in school is a different issue.
So ultimately this is the crux of my problem with gays. To be honest,
I don't care about them being together, or being gay for that matter.
I don't want them to be pushing their agenda in schools.
So maybe it's unfair, but I feel like it's incumbent on me to fight
them on every front to keep them from this one. Ultimately, if they
push through more legislation, the PC crowd that serves on the school
boards across the country will condone this kind of program.
GLSEN brought their pack of bullshit to Broward, and we wouldn't
tolerate it after we learned about the content and the history of the
group.
>
>
>> Sorry, I'm not falling for the bullshit the way others might. I don't
>> know how it is where you live, but Broward county is literally infested
>> with fags, and they're doing whatever they can to make S. Florida a gay
>> mecca. Maybe I see the ugliness of what they are trying to do a little
>> more clearly than most people.
>>
>> Remember that story where they tried to paint the mayor of Broward as a
>> homophobe for trying to crack down on gay cruising in the public
>> bathrooms? I mean, REALLY.
>
>And again, that has nothing to do with gay marriage. Among the friends I
>have who want and support gay marriage are a lawyer, a catering business
>owner, a manager at a shipping firm, and a bank exec. All have been in
>monogamous relationships for years, none are flamboyantly gay or at all
>what I'd call "activist". None of them, if I know them at all, would
>oppose a crackdown on "cruising" in public rest rooms.
>
>It's like you're refusing to support interracial marriage because Al
>Sharpton defended Tawana Brawley.
--
KK
Well, the other person has to agree. Then, yes. You talk about making a
special exception for gays, but the 'special' unnecessary qualification
is in the law codifying marriage that limits it to the opposite sex.
> It's in the constitution and shit. The pedophiles are
> thrilled with that logic and will be fighting to lower the age of
> consent to 13 like it is in many parts of the world.
It was 13 in delaware not long ago. And by that logic, they'd be using
existing marriage laws for it also. You're really getting hysterical
here.
>
>
>
>>> The gay thing is all about where they stick their dongs or bump their
>>> donuts.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> they don't get a special rule for their fetish.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nobody's asking for a "special" rule.
>>>
>>> Of course they are. You don't see it because you, for some reason
>>> that makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever, see a same sex couple as
>>> being the same as an opposite sex couple.
>>
>>No, I don't see that all. I would not in any way be able to have any
>>intimate physical contact with a guy, because that's not how my head is
>>wired.
>
> It's how your head is conditioned. You probably couldn't see yourself
> sticking pins in a bunny rabbit's eyeballs or keying someone's brand new
> Mercedes for doing it or a hundred other examples of fringe behavior.
You just described two actions which involved a non-consenting victim.
Gay marriage does not include that.
>
>>
>>
>>> Nothing could be further from the
>>> truth. The psychological aspect of pairing, as well as the biological
>>> reasons, are in no way the same. Even to consider legitimizing this
>>> ridiculous bullshit is ludicrous.
>>
>>Emotional blathering does not a rational point make. I'll again point
>>to the drooling tards who equated interracial marriage with bestiality.
>
> Ok, then explain the psychological and biological aspects of gay
> pairing.
Do what, exactly?
>
>
>>
>>
>>> The entire crux of this movement is twofold, financial,
>>
>>It's not financial. Many or most large companies provide same-sex
>>partner benefits without being requried to.
>
> It is financial. They bitch about not getting the same tax relief as
> real married people as well.
Good. Ideally - like marriage - the government wouldn't be at all
involved. I don't think a couple should get a break on their taxes that
a single person isn't allowed.
But, if they are, it shouldn't be restricted to people who have to jump
through other people's religious hoops to share a household with someone
else.
>
>>> and mostly, to
>>> create a wedge issue for the gay activist community.
>>
>>Again you're assigning motive to people you don't know or interact with.
>
> I assign it to organized groups, especially ones in my area, that have
> been exposed as admitting these things.
Maybe so, but that leaves 99% of the rest of them that you have know
knowledge or interaction with.
>>First of all, if it's right then it doesn't fucking matter if it's an
>>"activist wedge issue" - you can't deny someone their right because you
>>don't like somsone else who supports it. Again, since you turn into a
>>broken record every time we go down this path, to refuse gay people a
>>right because "gay activists" want to use it as an issue would be the
>>same as opposing laws forbidding "separate but equal" because the Black
>>Panthers supported them.
>
> You turn into a broken record repeating the ridiculous assumption that
> this is related to civil rights issues.
When government makes something available to some people but not others,
it's a civil rights issue.
> The fact is that most gays fly
> completely under the radar and aren't activists. They live at home with
> their partners and their private life is private. And it's all they
> need.
Who the fuck are you to tell them what they need?
Bush (Sr) said that atheists shouldn't be allowed to be citizens. You
could get by, I'm sure, without that US passport, right? You could be a
man wihtout a country, but that's all you'd need, right?
> Then there's the group of hysterical activists that crusade to make
> their "lifestyle" acceptable to everyone.
>
> There's such a thing as being a professional gay.
And they're the analogue of the Black Panthers I keep pointing out.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Like the way that
>>> they have admittedly used the idea that "gays are endangered" by the
>>> straight community to position their organizations into schools
>>> recruiting and legitimizing gayness to preadolescent kids.
>>
>>Teaching homosexuality in school is a different issue.
>
> So ultimately this is the crux of my problem with gays. To be honest, I
> don't care about them being together, or being gay for that matter. I
> don't want them to be pushing their agenda in schools.
Then focus on that.
lab~rat >:-)
No, I'm clearly making a parallel between people that are "attracted"
getting married.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> The gay thing is all about where they stick their dongs or bump their
>>>> donuts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> they don't get a special rule for their fetish.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Nobody's asking for a "special" rule.
>>>>
>>>> Of course they are. You don't see it because you, for some reason
>>>> that makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever, see a same sex couple as
>>>> being the same as an opposite sex couple.
>>>
>>>No, I don't see that all. I would not in any way be able to have any
>>>intimate physical contact with a guy, because that's not how my head is
>>>wired.
>>
>> It's how your head is conditioned. You probably couldn't see yourself
>> sticking pins in a bunny rabbit's eyeballs or keying someone's brand new
>> Mercedes for doing it or a hundred other examples of fringe behavior.
>
>You just described two actions which involved a non-consenting victim.
>Gay marriage does not include that.
I'm not suggesting that it does. I'm showing that there are ways
you're head can be conditioned in unacceptable ways. There are people
that are into scat. Do you think there's a genetic predisposition to
eat shit? Of course not, it's learned.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Nothing could be further from the
>>>> truth. The psychological aspect of pairing, as well as the biological
>>>> reasons, are in no way the same. Even to consider legitimizing this
>>>> ridiculous bullshit is ludicrous.
>>>
>>>Emotional blathering does not a rational point make. I'll again point
>>>to the drooling tards who equated interracial marriage with bestiality.
>>
>> Ok, then explain the psychological and biological aspects of gay
>> pairing.
>
>
>Do what, exactly?
Explain the the purpose.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The entire crux of this movement is twofold, financial,
>>>
>>>It's not financial. Many or most large companies provide same-sex
>>>partner benefits without being requried to.
>>
>> It is financial. They bitch about not getting the same tax relief as
>> real married people as well.
>
>Good. Ideally - like marriage - the government wouldn't be at all
>involved. I don't think a couple should get a break on their taxes that
>a single person isn't allowed.
Nice, but gays think that they should.
>
>
>But, if they are, it shouldn't be restricted to people who have to jump
>through other people's religious hoops to share a household with someone
>else.
Yeah, and we should lower the age of consent. My ten year old's
pretty smart, maybe ten is the appropriate age. And ya know, my dogs
are pretty bright. They show tendencies of giving approval toward
certain acts, they don't like to be brushed and they like to be
scratched. They give their consent in each case.
Maybe that line needs to be blurred a little, too.
>>
>>>> and mostly, to
>>>> create a wedge issue for the gay activist community.
>>>
>>>Again you're assigning motive to people you don't know or interact with.
>>
>> I assign it to organized groups, especially ones in my area, that have
>> been exposed as admitting these things.
>
>Maybe so, but that leaves 99% of the rest of them that you have know
>knowledge or interaction with.
Right. As well as 100% of pedophiles and murderers. What's your
point?
>>>First of all, if it's right then it doesn't fucking matter if it's an
>>>"activist wedge issue" - you can't deny someone their right because you
>>>don't like somsone else who supports it. Again, since you turn into a
>>>broken record every time we go down this path, to refuse gay people a
>>>right because "gay activists" want to use it as an issue would be the
>>>same as opposing laws forbidding "separate but equal" because the Black
>>>Panthers supported them.
>>
>> You turn into a broken record repeating the ridiculous assumption that
>> this is related to civil rights issues.
>
>
>When government makes something available to some people but not others,
>it's a civil rights issue.
That's nuts, it's available to everyone.
>
>> The fact is that most gays fly
>> completely under the radar and aren't activists. They live at home with
>> their partners and their private life is private. And it's all they
>> need.
>
>Who the fuck are you to tell them what they need?
>
>Bush (Sr) said that atheists shouldn't be allowed to be citizens. You
>could get by, I'm sure, without that US passport, right? You could be a
>man wihtout a country, but that's all you'd need, right?
My convictions aren't strong enough about being an atheist to crusade
in the streets and go into elementary schools and try to convert
children into atheists. I can quietly not believe in god and be
tolerant of other's opinion of me.
In fact, with the exception of my friends and some folks on the
internet, I really don't go out of my way to make it known to anyone.
I'm happy to live my life with my beliefs without finding it
necessary to draw attention to myself or define myself by my
"lifestyle".
And I would point out, since you brought it up, there are a lot of
places in the world, a disproportionate amount in S. Florida perhaps,
that think that atheists are worse than homosexuals.
>> Then there's the group of hysterical activists that crusade to make
>> their "lifestyle" acceptable to everyone.
>>
>> There's such a thing as being a professional gay.
>
>And they're the analogue of the Black Panthers I keep pointing out.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Like the way that
>>>> they have admittedly used the idea that "gays are endangered" by the
>>>> straight community to position their organizations into schools
>>>> recruiting and legitimizing gayness to preadolescent kids.
>>>
>>>Teaching homosexuality in school is a different issue.
>>
>> So ultimately this is the crux of my problem with gays. To be honest, I
>> don't care about them being together, or being gay for that matter. I
>> don't want them to be pushing their agenda in schools.
>
>Then focus on that.
>
Exactly. And that's what I'm doing. Ya know, I pride myself in
looking at a problem like a game of chess rather than checkers.
The progression of the gay agenda is like weeds in the garden, they
progress in small steps until they become insurmountable.
KK
Not with that example, you aren't.
>>>>> The gay thing is all about where they stick their dongs or bump
>>>>> their donuts.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> they don't get a special rule for their fetish.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nobody's asking for a "special" rule.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course they are. You don't see it because you, for some reason
>>>>> that makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever, see a same sex couple as
>>>>> being the same as an opposite sex couple.
>>>>
>>>>No, I don't see that all. I would not in any way be able to have any
>>>>intimate physical contact with a guy, because that's not how my head
>>>>is wired.
>>>
>>> It's how your head is conditioned. You probably couldn't see yourself
>>> sticking pins in a bunny rabbit's eyeballs or keying someone's brand
>>> new Mercedes for doing it or a hundred other examples of fringe
>>> behavior.
>>
>>You just described two actions which involved a non-consenting victim.
>>Gay marriage does not include that.
>
> I'm not suggesting that it does. I'm showing that there are ways you're
> head can be conditioned in unacceptable ways. There are people that are
> into scat. Do you think there's a genetic predisposition to eat shit?
> Of course not, it's learned.
I don't know. Has someone done a twin study on coprophagia?
>>>>> Nothing could be further from the
>>>>> truth. The psychological aspect of pairing, as well as the
>>>>> biological reasons, are in no way the same. Even to consider
>>>>> legitimizing this ridiculous bullshit is ludicrous.
>>>>
>>>>Emotional blathering does not a rational point make. I'll again point
>>>>to the drooling tards who equated interracial marriage with
>>>>bestiality.
>>>
>>> Ok, then explain the psychological and biological aspects of gay
>>> pairing.
>>
>>
>>Do what, exactly?
>
> Explain the the purpose.
A predisposition doesn't require a purpose. There's great genetic
variation for traits that have neither rhyme nor reason.
>>>>> The entire crux of this movement is twofold, financial,
>>>>
>>>>It's not financial. Many or most large companies provide same-sex
>>>>partner benefits without being requried to.
>>>
>>> It is financial. They bitch about not getting the same tax relief as
>>> real married people as well.
>>
>>Good. Ideally - like marriage - the government wouldn't be at all
>>involved. I don't think a couple should get a break on their taxes that
>>a single person isn't allowed.
>
> Nice, but gays think that they should.
Most people think couples should. And refusing a same-sex couple a
government benefit granted different-sex couples is discriminatory and
not equal protection under the law.
>
>
>>
>>But, if they are, it shouldn't be restricted to people who have to jump
>>through other people's religious hoops to share a household with someone
>>else.
>
> Yeah, and we should lower the age of consent.
You keep bringing that failed hysterical argument up, and it's not at all
analagous.
> My ten year old's pretty
> smart, maybe ten is the appropriate age. And ya know, my dogs are
> pretty bright. They show tendencies of giving approval toward certain
> acts, they don't like to be brushed and they like to be scratched. They
> give their consent in each case.
>
> Maybe that line needs to be blurred a little, too.
You go fight for that.
>
>
>>>>> and mostly, to
>>>>> create a wedge issue for the gay activist community.
>>>>
>>>>Again you're assigning motive to people you don't know or interact
>>>>with.
>>>
>>> I assign it to organized groups, especially ones in my area, that have
>>> been exposed as admitting these things.
>>
>>Maybe so, but that leaves 99% of the rest of them that you have know
>>knowledge or interaction with.
>
> Right. As well as 100% of pedophiles and murderers. What's your point?
Are you claiming to know the inner motives and political strategies of
all pedophiles and murderers also?
>>>>First of all, if it's right then it doesn't fucking matter if it's an
>>>>"activist wedge issue" - you can't deny someone their right because
>>>>you don't like somsone else who supports it. Again, since you turn
>>>>into a broken record every time we go down this path, to refuse gay
>>>>people a right because "gay activists" want to use it as an issue
>>>>would be the same as opposing laws forbidding "separate but equal"
>>>>because the Black Panthers supported them.
>>>
>>> You turn into a broken record repeating the ridiculous assumption that
>>> this is related to civil rights issues.
>>
>>
>>When government makes something available to some people but not others,
>>it's a civil rights issue.
>
> That's nuts, it's available to everyone.
No, it's not. Not any more than interracial marriange made marriage
"available to everyone".
>
>
>>> The fact is that most gays fly
>>> completely under the radar and aren't activists. They live at home
>>> with their partners and their private life is private. And it's all
>>> they need.
>>
>>Who the fuck are you to tell them what they need?
>>
>>Bush (Sr) said that atheists shouldn't be allowed to be citizens. You
>>could get by, I'm sure, without that US passport, right? You could be a
>>man wihtout a country, but that's all you'd need, right?
>
> My convictions aren't strong enough about being an atheist to crusade in
> the streets and go into elementary schools and try to convert children
> into atheists. I can quietly not believe in god and be tolerant of
> other's opinion of me.
An excellent example. You're seeking to curtail the rights of *all* gays
based on the behavior of the minority of them who "crusade in the
streets" and "try to convert children".
> In fact, with the exception of my friends and some folks on the
> internet, I really don't go out of my way to make it known to anyone.
>
> I'm happy to live my life with my beliefs without finding it
> necessary to draw attention to myself or define myself by my
> "lifestyle".
Wanting to have the legal benefits of marriage is not "drawing attention
to" oneself.
> And I would point out, since you brought it up, there are a lot of
> places in the world, a disproportionate amount in S. Florida perhaps,
> that think that atheists are worse than homosexuals.
I'm sure there are.
>
>>> Then there's the group of hysterical activists that crusade to make
>>> their "lifestyle" acceptable to everyone.
>>>
>>> There's such a thing as being a professional gay.
>>
>>And they're the analogue of the Black Panthers I keep pointing out.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Like the way that
>>>>> they have admittedly used the idea that "gays are endangered" by the
>>>>> straight community to position their organizations into schools
>>>>> recruiting and legitimizing gayness to preadolescent kids.
>>>>
>>>>Teaching homosexuality in school is a different issue.
>>>
>>> So ultimately this is the crux of my problem with gays. To be honest,
>>> I don't care about them being together, or being gay for that matter.
>>> I don't want them to be pushing their agenda in schools.
>>
>>Then focus on that.
>>
>>
> Exactly. And that's what I'm doing. Ya know, I pride myself in looking
> at a problem like a game of chess rather than checkers.
By denying people rights they should be accorded because you don't like a
subset of them.
> The progression of the gay agenda is like weeds in the garden, they
> progress in small steps until they become insurmountable.
Wow.
lab~rat >:-)
>>>Who the fuck are you to tell them what they need?
>>>
>>>Bush (Sr) said that atheists shouldn't be allowed to be citizens. You
>>>could get by, I'm sure, without that US passport, right? You could be a
>>>man wihtout a country, but that's all you'd need, right?
>>
>> My convictions aren't strong enough about being an atheist to crusade in
>> the streets and go into elementary schools and try to convert children
>> into atheists. I can quietly not believe in god and be tolerant of
>> other's opinion of me.
>
>An excellent example. You're seeking to curtail the rights of *all* gays
>based on the behavior of the minority of them who "crusade in the
>streets" and "try to convert children".
Again, the gays aren't looking for equal rights, they're looking for
exceptional rights. And in doing so, they are incorporating wedge
issues for the purpose of furthering their agenda.
My question is why can't gays, realizing that their lifestyle and
beliefs are outside of the mainstream (such as atheism), quietly go
about their business as I do mine happy with the knowledge of what I
am and not try to shove THEIR idiosyncracies down everyone else's
throats?
I know that there are atheists that do just that, and I think they're
fucking assholes of the caliber of Jehovah's Witnesses.
>
>
>
>> In fact, with the exception of my friends and some folks on the
>> internet, I really don't go out of my way to make it known to anyone.
>>
>> I'm happy to live my life with my beliefs without finding it
>> necessary to draw attention to myself or define myself by my
>> "lifestyle".
>
>Wanting to have the legal benefits of marriage is not "drawing attention
>to" oneself.
>
The only legal benefit is tax related.
KK
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:27:32 GMT, KK <_K...@furburger.net> puked:
>
>>>>Who the fuck are you to tell them what they need?
>>>>
>>>>Bush (Sr) said that atheists shouldn't be allowed to be citizens. You
>>>>could get by, I'm sure, without that US passport, right? You could be
>>>>a man wihtout a country, but that's all you'd need, right?
>>>
>>> My convictions aren't strong enough about being an atheist to crusade
>>> in the streets and go into elementary schools and try to convert
>>> children into atheists. I can quietly not believe in god and be
>>> tolerant of other's opinion of me.
>>
>>An excellent example. You're seeking to curtail the rights of *all*
>>gays based on the behavior of the minority of them who "crusade in the
>>streets" and "try to convert children".
>
> Again, the gays aren't looking for equal rights, they're looking for
> exceptional rights.
And again, no they're not. They're looking to *remove* the part of the
sentence that limits marriage. As is, they're specifically excluded.
> And in doing so, they are incorporating wedge
> issues for the purpose of furthering their agenda.
And again, most gays aren't. And those that are are free to pursue
whatever agenda they want, and you're free to disagree.
> My question is why can't gays, realizing that their lifestyle and
> beliefs are outside of the mainstream (such as atheism), quietly go
> about their business as I do mine happy with the knowledge of what I am
> and not try to shove THEIR idiosyncracies down everyone else's throats?
They're not! *you* are pushing *your* anti-gay agenda on all gays,
including the majority of them who do exactly that: go quietly about
their business.
> I know that there are atheists that do just that, and I think they're
> fucking assholes of the caliber of Jehovah's Witnesses.
How? What do they do? I don't think the Ten Commandments belong in a
courtroom, and I don't think "under God" belongs in our Pledge of
Allegiance. Am I one of those?
>
>>
>>
>>> In fact, with the exception of my friends and some folks on the
>>> internet, I really don't go out of my way to make it known to anyone.
>>>
>>> I'm happy to live my life with my beliefs without finding it
>>> necessary to draw attention to myself or define myself by my
>>> "lifestyle".
>>
>>Wanting to have the legal benefits of marriage is not "drawing attention
>>to" oneself.
>>
>>
> The only legal benefit is tax related.
Wrong. Adoption. Medical decisions. Hospital visitation. Estate
issues. Medical insurance. 401(k) benefits.