because of the boobs

Also, vote yes because there are many people who have a direct personal stake in it, who care deeply about it, and whose lives would be substantially improved by a "yes" outcome.

Mike Mac is totes gay.

only for you

and saberopus

Let me rephrase from the beginning. I'll be very explicit because I'm not being right in expressing myself.

Anal sex isn't healthy. I do not condone an action that is ultimately self destructive. Most people I know call homosexual sexual acts homosexuality - I read up and I guess that's not how people use that term nationally.

A man and a man can love each other and not **** each other in the butts.

Reid, do you also think homosexuality is a choice?

Why not? Do you have some medical literature to back up this statement? What are the consequences? If proper precautions are taken (i.e. you can't just ram it up there first time) it's perfectly safe.

Also you realize most gay couples have anal sex rarely if at all, right? What about lesbian couples?

You care so much that you want to protect them against themselves? Are against other recreational activities that are potentially harmful like Drinking and Smoking?

Straight people never have anal sex.

Only the gay ones.

I hate to say it Reid, but that sounds like special pleading to me. If your kid "caught the gay" because he was influenced by their homo-odor or however you think homosexuality is somehow transmitted person to person, would your biggest concern seriously be that your son might potentially have sex in a way that can be unsafe when unprepared? Do you see why that isn't really having a neutral stance on homosexuality, and sounds more like you're looking for an excuse? Unprotected, unlubricated heterosexual sex can also be incredibly dangerous too, and as mentioned, straight people love buttsecks and probably have it more than a lot of homosexual couples.

But Bisexual people have it most of all. This helps me, because I am an ass man.

-As in, "You're such an ass, man."

i made many stupid remarks and have nothing valuable anymore to contribute to this thread ~

I can respect this, I often feel the same way after posting at Massassi.

backpedal

agreed, and i dont regret a single moment of it

not really a "you are taking me completely out of context, i really meant i dont have any problem with homosexuals" would have been a back pedal.

what he just said you can pretty much take at face value.

i say dumb stuff all the time and am constantly having to admit when i know im wrong/being dumb.

So you think gayness is wrong? Who the **** cares?

I think heterosexuality is ****ing disgusting and should be avoided at all costs. Unfortunately it's a necessary evil if we want to keep the species going... at least for now.

To each his own.

Oh and to all you liberals claiming "there's nothing wrong with gays - they're just like us!", bull****. Gays are possibly the most ****ed up group of people on the planet, or at least the country.

"Gays are possibly the most ****ed up group of people on the planet, or at least the country."
- A methamphetamine addict.

- The most ****ed up person on the planet, or at least the country.

oh noez peppuls haz buttsecks?!

but, seriously, sex-related injuries are common, even with straight people, be it buttsecks, oral, or... *eh hem* 'conventional'..... and I would classify pregnancy as one

Maybe it's my sheltered life, but I was honestly surprised about some of the antigay attitudes/statements in this thread. It's pretty sad, and even a little scary that there is still people like this around.

fwiw, Vin is gay.

I wish I could be surprised any more. This entire campaign season so far has been a really cruel awakening to just how many backwards bigots there are in positions of power still.

A recent example is in my state, civil union bill SB-2 was filibustered to death by the Republicans at the expense of about 30 other bills (eg water management reforms important for the probably drought this summer) that also didn't get heard as a result. Apparently that's acceptable losses to make sure equal rights are avoided at all costs. The irony is that if it had actually been allowed to get to a second reading and vote, it was almost guaranteed to pass. (Something like 71% of Coloradoans supported it, as did a quorum of our elected officials). There was enough outrage about this that the Governor created a special session to hear it. The Republican speaker routed it to the military spending commission for first review, and as expected they didn't support it enough for it to make it back to the floor again. This is the state I live in, where apparently our local Republican officials are so concerned with maintaining their bigotry that they are quite willing to ignore the will of the majority and sabotage legal process since just campaigning their hatred wasn't being effective enough anymore to swing the votes.


Someone mentioned earlier about how you can just fill out some legal paperwork, file joint taxes, or such instead of needing to rely on marriage for all that. The catch is, all that paperwork requires filing fees, and a lot of it is complicated enough to require paying legal counsel to sort through it. And there are something like 1400 legal protections and provisions included within the one marriage license. Eg, hospital visitation, insurance qualification, medical power of attorney, pension provisions, and so forth. There is no way on earth that any couple would be able to find, complete, file, and keep track of all those disparate forms (of the ones that even can be got) without discovering down the road in an emergency that they had missed one. It's not so much really a matter of "rights" as is often debated as though queers are just demanding more and more rights, it's a matter of basic legal protections and security that is being denied us.

Even the really progressive companies that do provide "domestic partner benefits" in states where civil unions or marriage equality don't exist, there is still a poor comparison. I work at IBM for instance, but to qualify my partner for my insurance we have to live together (we don't) and be monogamous (we're poly). Straight married couples have to prove no such thing to be eligible for their spouse's benefits.

That doesn't mean he can't still be homophobic, though.

a good point, theres probably a lot of self loathing gays out there who still cant accept who/what they are

Yeah, like, haven't you guys seen American History X? If that isn't evidence, nothing is.

For that matter, there's a lot of divisiveness and separatism that springs up also, like the internalized oppression that all queer folk need to be able to pass as straight for them to ever be accepted or get rights. E.g., people complaining about really flamboyant people at Pride Fests that they're sabotaging the community's efforts to be seen as normal, and using them as a touchstone for like "bear in mind long white straight ruling class, we're not all like that!"

Obligitory South Park reference.

Aplogies in advance,

Hon. Rev. Jones, PhD.

im pretty sure Vin just loathes everything.

Gee, it's been a while since I browsed Massassi, I wonder why...

Oh yeah.

Seriously, why is there so much buthurt here? Looking at everything through the lens of moral condemnation is a fundamentally immature approach to life.

IMO, being mature and empathizing with your faceless internet buddies is kinda awkward.

I believe a wise man once said,

I love being gay. But gay people are really ****ed up.

Empathy doesn't necessarily come into it. I'm just saying that if we stop looking at everything in terms of a pissing contest or a circle jerk of hatred, you can start asking more interesting questions, like "Why?" or "How?". At some point, discussing what is "bad" becomes a bit dumb. It's too subjective and small minded. I'm not trying to be a hippie over here, I'm just saying, that practically speaking, discussion of issues could yield more interesting results if we had a better attitude. Massassi hasn't changed much since high school, which makes me a bit sad. There is a hell of a lot more to life than anger.

Perhaps the anonymous / impersonal nature of electronic communication internet creates a social situation that doesn't really promote healthy, altruistic behavior? Or rather, doesn't frown on acting like an 8 year old. I think the most mature members must do a lot of filtering. Ultimately, though, if people gravitate toward pissing contests (especially being easier to create than substantive discussion), there's less motivation for less idiotic members to start threads about deeper topics. The end-scenario is a place where people only post to put others down in order to look cool/funny. Kind of reminds of me high school, but then again, I don't really come here for anything other than nostalgia of high school immaturity.

Also, on a message board, everybody speaks with equal volume, so those spreading false information have to be shut down to prevent them from imbuing the conversation with falsehoods. However, considering that shouting these people down often becomes more interesting to people than the original discussion itself... you may have a point.

Also doesn't mean gays as a group can't be more likely than other groups to exhibit behaviors that Vin doesn't like. It's not necessarily an issue of homophobia.

Roughly 8 years ago I opposed gay marriage. Today, I dont. Whats the point? It hurts no one. The only real arguments against it are religous and, well, separation of church and state, derp.