Go to this url: http://www.morenatimm.com/grex/ Click on "scott" on the menu at your left. Tell me that goober doesn't look like a fag. That bitch could suck a golf ball thru a garden hose. People..that's what a REAL cocksucker looks like.150 responses total.
Sabre is marginally more interesting than the freekman twit from a few years ago, but not by much. Couldn't even compete with polytarp.
Ha Ha....I knew you couldn't resist responding to this scotty. Touch a nerve? When you throw a rock into the dogyard the dog that gets hit is the one who yelps. :o)
(More jerk junk.)
Years ago on M-Net we had a lot of openly gay users. I miss that. It made for a much more interesting community. We still have a number of gay users, but liberal as Grex supposedly is, nobody seems very public about it. Is is just Grex, or is it the whole net or the whole country? Probably it's mostly just my imagination. Though I still hang out off line with Grexers a lot, it tends to be a rather small group. In the old days, practically all of M-Net got together for parties, so I'd see a lot more diversity. Grex's culture has fragmented. The annual picnic is about the only event that still really looks like a gathering of people with nothing in common.
IMO, it's just Grex, not the whole 'Net, much less the whole country. I can't even begin to express my feelings on the hateful responses I see on Grex, like this one. The twit list becomes longer everyday, it seems.
This response has been erased.
It depends on who's defining what "diversity of opinion, etc." is. To my mind those who need to define it definately don't have it. It probably has more to do with grex being culturally located in a college town - these days not exactly noted for being bastions of either diversity or tolerance.
Au contraire. How can you make an obviously false startement like that with a straight.....(?). There is more diversity and tolerance in Ann Arbor than in any other community in Michigan.
This seems like the perfect time and place for the following: I should like to officially announce to Grex, that I am bisexual.
sorry to hear that twenex. Do you really need to double your dating base? This town detests conservatives. The colleges rail against it. The city council abhors it. The average citizen fears it. While they claim to be liberal and open to al ideas, they are open to them only as long as they are liberal in nature. Conservatives get chucked out with the dirty bath water. even when you try to be civil to them, you are likely to get a slap in the face. Example: I asked my wifes office manager if she would mind if I showed up in full uniform in their office. That means wearing a gun. I did it so as to not put her co-workers ill at ease. What I got back from their headquarters was an order that I could NOT wear my gun into her workplace. They were forbiding me because of their liberal bias. As a federal law enforcement officer, I have the right to wear that gun anywhere as long as I am wearing the uniform, and almost anywhere when off duty. They cannot ban me from the office. All they had to do was say they would rather I not wear it adn I would be happy. But they had to make it an order and upset me because they are so damned liberal.
Geesh, Bruce ... you are such a bigot. "Sorry to hear that"? I gotta remind myself never to read one of your ignored responses ever again. You deserve every perceived slap in the face you get in life.
Bru: While I might have reason to object to said office's order not to carry your firearm on their premises if it conflicts with federal law (and orders certainly conflict w/ what I consider to be a liberal frame of mind), I think of Grex as a window onto Grex; and thus the bias or otherwise of A2 is to my mind rather irrelevant; there are many non arborites and non-michiganites on the system, as well as non-us citizens such as myself. Furthermore, i am somewhat disappointed by your "sorrow" at my "coming out". I cannot comment on the treatment of conservatives by liberals in Ann arbor; however (especially in these testing times, when the West seems to have taken the collapse of communism as an excuse to, as it were, veer sharply to the right, many liberals and leftwingers feel as if they must be on the defensive against the rise of "mccarthyism". and other forms of extreme conservatism. Rather like the attitude of certain well-known political leaders in the 1980s towards (a) communism and their concomitant embrace of anything which appeared to be the reverse. I can assure you that for me there is no "shame" in being what I am; in my position, one either has to come to terms with the realities and limitations (i am also disabled) of one's existence, or let it slowly destroy you. It also appears to me, if i may venture an opinion on the matter, that you are as contemptuous of "liberalism" in general as you accuse the liberals of Ann Arbor of being w/ respect to conservatism. "All governments are, more or less, combinations against the people... and as rulers have no more virtue than the ruled... the power of government can only be kept within its constituted bounds by the display of a power equal to itself, the collected sentiment of the people." -- Benjamin Franklin Bache What doesn't kill you makes you stronger -- aphorism.
Re 10 The question is: why did you ask?? If you have every "right" to wear it (and I read about your training - you have earned that right), you didn't have to ask. If a police officer had walked into that office, would they have been asked to take off their gun? No. And if they had, the cop would have laughed at them. Cop yourself on, Bruce - you were looking for a way to provoke and argument and look like the victim. And for the record, I've often found that Ann Arbor is so liberal, it has become conservative.
Go mick! brooke - "[A2] is so liberal, it has become conservative"? ERROR---DOES NOT COMPUTE--- Please explain.
To me, liberalism goes hand in hand with accepting that not everyone feel sthe same way, but that you can respect that people disagree. Ann Arbor paints itself as open-minded, but it's not.
re#8 - What are you talking about? Ann Arbor isnt even the most diverse city in Washtenaw County!
The high cost of living in Ann Arbor has certainly priced some of the diversity out of town.
RE#1 Who is competing? It's just that you are labeleing and comparing. RE#3 Then why are you reading it? Why are you responding to it? Because you are a fucking dumbass that's why. I thought I was in your "twit" filter? You lying sack of shit. You haven't posted anything of any merit..so shut the fuck up. RE#9 ROTFLMAO!!! I KNEW you were a cocksucker! I guess it's true..All Englishmen are fags. RE#10 You are the only person in this thread that makes sense..besides me. RE#11 micklpkl quit jumping on the bandwagon just to fit in. You are one insecure little dweeb. I bet you suck more cock twenex.
RE#6 I will be in MI soon. I will be happy to spar with any of you pussies.
i often think people so quick to display their disgust at homosexuality are often too frightened to come out of the closet. i haven't visited the grexer pic page in a while. it, too is quite frightening. but at least you guys have the balls to post a real picture. especially you happyboy ;P
Re #18: sabre - mick is insecure? you're one to talk! <twenex dies laughing>
No, I *am* fairly insecure, but not about my sexuality. I tend to avoid conflict, especially when it's some nameless, faceless, hateful jerk online. I'm already sorry I let this all get to me enough to speak up. It was janc's post above that prompted me to do so, because I've often wondered about the same thing. Everything else just reaffirms what I've come to believe about this forum.
This response has been erased.
re20: 8D
This response has been erased.
re13: I found much of the same at Oberlin. Politically it's very 'liberal', that is, the main stream of thought there is several steps to the metaphorical left of that of the rest of the country. There's still a powerful slip, though; it's *very* hard to be outside the local mainstream, to either side. Ann Arbor is also much like that, although less so, since it's somewhere over thirty times the size. . . .
RE#26 Exactly...That's why your ideals are so stupid. You are out of sync. WE HAVE THE POWER NOW. And we will keep it another 4 years. Eat your corrupt hearts out.
Mick - i know plenty insecure ppl who wouldn't *dare* admit it. I say again: go mick.
sabre, if you hate us all so much, why don't you just leave?
This response has been erased.
Re #0: I always thought the expression was, 'He could suck-start a Chevy!' Re #4: Perhaps the people on Grex who are gay don't see any reason to broadcast it to the world. You don't see people running around shouting about being heterosexual, either. How often do sexual topics really come up here? Re #10: Now you know how liberals feel in the rest of Michigan. Re #30: Bush is a draft-dodger, too, so I don't see why it matters that Clinton was. A lot of politicians who grew up during that era were, including most of the people in the Bush administration who were most strongly in favor of war. It's also a little silly to accuse Clinton of not tracking down the USS Cole bombers when he was out of office before the investigation could be completed. Don't forget that when Bush was first elected he regarded hunting Osama Bin Laden as a curious fixation of Clinton's and a waste of time. It wasn't until after 9/11 that he decided finding Osama should be a priority. Bush actually ran on an isolationist platform.
RE#29 I never said I hated anyone. I just think liberals are full of shit. I stay here to balance out the propaganda you post. I will continue to express my views even if EVERYONE disagrees with them. I will not bow to the fallacy of ad- populace. RE#30 Heh Heh...Clinton is supporting Bush in his time of need. Now that's a wise liberal.
re #10 - why would you need to wear your uniform to your wife's office? I had thought that, in general (possibly an unwritten rule), Law Enforcement officers don't wear their uniforms when they're off duty, and not in the process of going to/from their post. (Unless you'd be in the office on some official capacity, in which case you should wear the gun, as you'd be on duty. (However, I fail to see the reason a Customs/Border Patrol officer would need to be on duty in a non-governmental office in downtown Ann Arbor))
This response has been erased.
Twinkie? You haven't seen my photo you little faggot. Don't be in such a hurry to get your ass beat. I HAVE seen yours.<smirk> I live in South Fl dude. New Yorkers come down here all the time acting tough. They usually get that ass BEAT. You fuckers aren't about shit...just alot of mouth and bravado.
This response has been erased.
I have to wear the uniform to and from work. That includes wearing the gun. I usually pick my wife up on the way home, which is why I asked if wearing it intop the office would be a problem. So now I just sit out in the parking lot and wait for her. Mickey, don't be so sensetive. Have I sloighted you because of your sexuality? Have I ever refused to deal with you? Talk to you? Called you names? Do I think your sexual inclinations are normal? No, and I never will. I also don't approve of people who have sex outside of marriage. Or with animals, or vegetables or with any other number of variations. But I don't discriminate against them. I just think it wrong.
This response has been erased.
RE# 25 happyboy is a trip
Re #37: you can say it is wrong for yourself, but you have no right to consider it wrong for someone else. Since when have you been given rights over others? (Re #35: there's that jerk again with a "lot of mouth and bravado".)
Re 38> I ignored most of this thread, but that comment made me laugh out loud. Call me insensitive :P
No. I can say it is not normal for anybody. That it is wrong for people to behave in certain ways. Thats what we do with our laws, we tell people that what they are doing is wrong. Doesn't matter if it is sex, drugs, assault, or murder. You say it isn't illegal. That may be true, but it was at one time, adn whether a law says it is illegal or not, it is wrong. many things are legal that are wrong.
re #37 - ok, that makes sense. (Although, I agree with whoever earlier said to wear the gun, it's part of your uniform, and you shouldn't have to ask)
This response has been erased.
re#40*: THe US Constitution spells out the right of the individual to tell other people what is right or wrong. It even establishes the mechanism whereby it is done.
Re #42: so, you consider it "wrong". Please tell us what precisely you consider "wrong" with it. Please also don't obfuscate by saying it is not "normal", or explain why you think it not normal while those that engage consensually in homosexual activities find it perfectly normal. Do you have personal experience with it to be able to judge whether it is "normal" or not?
Ha Ha I will show up in MI faggot boy. YOU look like a wannabe surfer. I'm 6'3" at 215...all muscle. I will break your scrawny neck pretty boy. I'll tie you up and let all the grex faggots buttfuck your pussy ass. I will walk up to you without warning. I will smile and extend my hand as if in greeting but I will use it to break your fucking jaw. New Yorkers are pussies..at least most of them are. I can see from your faggot ass picture that it wouldn't take much to have you cry like a baby. heh heh...but we will see. After you get your ass beat remember this...You shot your mouth off and your hummingbird ass couldn't cover it. Oh yea...twenex confessed that he sucks cock..maybe you and him can have a "butt" party. You look like you suck alot of cock yourself.
Yeah, sure, pussycat, and right now you're using the computer in the gym in between sets on the lat machine?
Re #40: His uniform says he has rights over others, I suppose. I wonder if he's stricter with people trying to cross the border if he thinks they're "liberals".
/shudders at the thought
Hello scotty
sabre......post something useful. I can handle your political threads. At least they allow two diffrent views to be expressed. This kind of thread is pure garbage. It doesn't profit anyone. I don't twit filter you because sometimes you are amusing. Please refrain from this kind of thread. No one can take your views seriously if you create threads like this.
RE#48 I can still beat your ass "aikido" man RE#52 Eat shit..I post whatever I want
Prove it.
This response has been erased.
Good idea. lord knows any more shit wouldnt fit in his head.
Cross I would beat your faggot ass to a pulp. You pussy faced bitch. I will not make a special trip to NY to beat a pussy's ass like yours. I am going to MI soon. Why don't you meet me there loser? I'll beat your ass in front of all grexdom. You're too chickenshit I bet. I can tell from your pussy faced picture. You act real brave in NY. NYC is the worst city in the USA. New York is the armpit of planet earth. You are a total pussy. I bet it comes from sucking so much cock. Tell me fag boy do you spit or swallow?. I bet you slurp that cum right on dowm. Go buttfuck your father.
I think my question is this: what makes a relationship between two men or two women, not normal? Is it the sex? If anal sex makes it not normal, does that mean a husband and wife who enjoy and engage in anal sex aren't normal? If two lesbians having oral sex isn't normal, if (again) a husband and wife enjoy and engage in it - are they not normal too?
Why do people encourage this? If he was ignored he would go away.
Because I want to know. What makes a loving relationship between two men or two women wrong?
This response has been erased.
RE#58 Nature has grouped us into two diffrent sexes. It violates the laws of nature to engage in sexual acts with those of the same sex.
What about those of us who don't worship nature? And what are hermaphrodites supposed to do???
Normal is a statistical term. You can define it as what 90% of people do, or 98%. If 98%, homosexuality is normal. 'Wrong' is what someone in one group wants someone in another group to stop doing, not necessarily for any good reason other than that they are doing something differently from the first group and the first group wants to feel superior. For the record, Bruce was, despite being our token conservative, very accepting of his daughter when she reversed his ideal order of marriage and childbirth. Sometimes there are things which most people agree are wrong because they hurt other people, such as murder and theft. Extramarital sex can spread disease but the chances can be kept pretty low, so maybe it is 1% wrong.
Yes, but would Bruce accept it if his son turned out to be gay?
This response has been erased.
bru is the "token conservative"? I thought there was a 50/50 ratio. That would promote a better exchange of ideas. I am a conservative also. I take it that I'm a minority here? Does that mean that I should not feel free to express my ideals? I hope not. I think both groups can benifit from healthy debate. Do you dislike bru because he doesn't agree with you on every issue? I am new here and I'm just wondering
No, there are other reasons for disliking bru ;)
Re #62: "Nature", if by that you mean evolution, has evolved a system of bisexual reproduction. The has absolutly no implications concerning anything we do with the results of evolution. There are no "laws of nature" with any relevance to our behavior, apart from natural consequences of our actions (separating the objective meaning of "laws of nature" from the subjective); there are only facts of nature. Since evolution has led to organisms that engage not only in heterosexual relations but also homosexual relations, they are equally natural. The idea of "laws of nature" is bizzarre. How are they laid down, and by what? All there are are facts of nature. The facts of nature do not mitigate against homosexual behavior, or it couldn't occur. The concept of "law" in regard to behavior is totally cultural and subjective.
It doesn't matter how you wish to lay out the law. If God exists, he has stated that such behavior is immoral and wrong. If you follow nature, people have evolved into a society where most people, 95% follow heterosexual relationships. My position is that it is wrong because it does not provide a stabe, healthy relationship. Now, is it unhealthy because society ostracizes them, or are they ostracized because the activity is unhealthy? Which came first, the homosexual or the... Now, my personal belief is that people who indulge in homosexuality are weak of will. As all sinners are. The robber is to weak to resist stealing what he wants. The murderer is to weak to resist the taking of life. The sexual deviant is to weak to resist the temptation of his choice. It is indeed a character flaw, a weakness. A giving in to temptation if you will. We all have them. I have character flaws. I am a sinner. I admit it. But I am not going to tell you what my sins are, nor would I expect society to accept my sins if you knew them. Nor would I get up and yell my sins to the world. It ain't your business. But if I were to stand up and say, "I have lusted after 17 year old twins, and thus sinned in my heart." I would expect that part of society that finds that particular attitude appaling to stand up and say so, and urge me to repent and find some way to avoid that temptation. And that is why I tell those who have confessed their particular perversion, sin, or violation that I believe it to be wrong. I do not deny them the right to vote. I do not deny them the right to own property. I do not deny them the right to free association. I do not deny them the right to a job of their choosing. But I will tell them they are wrong. Just as I would any other violator. Will you deny me that right?
Are you saying you're tempted to perform homosexual acts, Bruce?
This response has been erased.
Bru - two people of the same sex cannot have a stable, healthy relationship? Says WHO? To flip your own small-minded coin, look at the divorce rate. 50% does not bode well for the heterosexual camp. Now you tell ME that heterosexuals have a more "stable, healthy" relationship. I'm not going to deny you your right to tell people that YOU have issues with what they do in THEIR bedroom, but I'm sure as hell not going to sit back and not take offense to it.
Re 70> Wow! You're a brave one to put your narrow-minded, self-righteous views out in public, and probably delusional to expect people to think you the better for it. That must have been the worst drivel I've ever heard.
This response has been erased.
Re those posters trying to say that homosexuality violates the laws of nature: the two of my dogs that are male shag each other regularly, expecially when the female is horny. You don't hear many dogs arguing about whether butt-fucking should be made illegal. BTW. They never try it on w/ their mother. I'd say that probably gives a clue as to the "laws of nature" re sex.
If it was against nature, it wouldn't exist. Nature judges an organism by how effectively it transmits it's genes, and what fails vanishes. You'd think homosexuality would be strongly selected against, but you'd be wrong. A strictly homosexual individual might be much less likely to have children, but bisexuals are hardly at any reproductive disadvantage at all. You only have to have sex with someone of the opposite sex once to have a baby. Humans of all orientations have non-reproductive sex. Lots. All that extra sexual energy has an evolutionary use too -- it helps cement alliances between adult humans, and such alliances can help people raise children more effectively. Homosexual alliances do that every bit as well as hetrosexual ones. All human societies include members who don't reproduce. Some of them might be counted as losers in the evolutionary sweepstakes, but many are not. If they contribute in a positive way to the survival of their relations, then they are still increasing the chances that people with their genes will survive. This means of preserving your genes is as much available to gays as to straights. Some people speculate that having a percentage of gays in a society is beneficial to a society because, not being overly concerned with taking care of their own kids, they put more of their effort into the general welfare of the community. I agree that it is useful for the gene pool to throw off a good percentage of altruists, but I doubt that this has very much to do with gays. I expect that over the length of human history, gays have been hardly less likely than straights to have children. In any case, people are still being born with gay impulses, because nature finds it useful, or at least not particularly harmful. I'm not prepared to defend entirely basing morality on evolutionary theory (though you can take the concept pretty far), so I'd not take this as evidence that homosexuality is OK, but I certainly think that the claim that homosexuality is "against nature" is completely absurd, being derived from a completely obsolete and silly concept of what nature is.
This response has been erased.
RE#77 We haven't given nature enough time to deal with this behavior. What if everybody was gay? Would our existence continue? How would we reproduce? There is one fact I would like to point you in the direction of. Do a "google" on the "y" chromosone DNA decay. It's interesting stuff. I don't have time to post it here because scott just pulled my shorts down in item#118. I have a long post to write there.
The idea of homosexuality being "against nature" t me seems to indicate some sort of intelligence on the part of nature or at least a faith in nature that I do not subscribe to. If nature was perfect, why be they Siamese Twins? Nature is nearly as fucked up as mankind.
bru reminds me of that guy next door's father in 'American Beauty'.
Not having a telly, I canna comment.
My two exceptionally nice neighbors are teaching their daughter to call them two different words for mama. As far as I can tell, they have a really stable relationship. On my block and within two houses around the corner the relationships are as follows: 1. Young couple has baby, husband leaves. 2. Couple has two kids, waits ten years, one more kid, husband leaves. 3. Young couple without kids splits up. 4. COuple with two teenagers splits up. Daughter and father stay in the house. 5. Couple in their thirties who have known each other 8 years marries and has two kids. When the older kid is 6, husband announces he has been in love with another women since before the second child was conceived, and moves out (after draggin wife through several years of pointless therapy first to prove something, she has no idea what). 6. Couple in thirties and forties splits up after 18 years of marriage. We also have one widow, and one happily remarried couple (retired) such that the husband's son and his ex-wife come bringing the granddaughter to visit. Around the corner is a very stable male couple. Next to my apartment is a male couple who have been there since before 1985. My upstairs neighbor remained friends with her first girlfriend after they decided they could not live together, and eventually bought a house with her second girlfriend and her daughter. There is probably a stable homosexual homeowner couple on nearly every block in my neighborhood. They stay around a lot longer than the average couple. Unspecified 'couple' = heterosexual. On the street where I am building there is also an unmarried couple who seem very happy together taking apart their house. And one 'normal' couple in their forties with two young kids plus a new young couple who moved in and have two kids. Judging from a very small statistical group, homosexuals keep their houses up especially nicely and do a lot of gardening. I forgot the two women across the street with the big community vegetable garden to whom we gave our pressure canner. They give us tomato plants. They have been together 20 years or so living all over the country, sometimes with relatives. I think Bruce's problem is that all of his neighbors and co-workers are heterosexual so he can only go on prejudices instead of personal experience.
Re #79: it is the very essence of evolution that adaptive mutations *tend* to be accumulated, but that in no ways rules out the continued existence of non-adaptive features. Evolution is of species, not individuals, so their evolution will always have a large number of non-adaptive features present at low levels. In fact, those non-adaptive genes function as reservoirs of variety that may in fact provide an adaptive feature when circumstances change. Homosexual love is non-adaptive from the standpoint of reproduction, but causes no species non-adaptiveness, since there are enough reproducing individuals that the nonreproducing ones do not have any affect.
Re #79: What do you mean we haven't given nature time enough to deal with this behavior? Do you think homosexuality is new? Or even confined to humans? What if everyone was gay? Yes that would be a problem (assuming you mean so strongly gay that they never are willing to have sex with the opposite gender). It would be a much bigger problem if everyone was male. (At least if everyone was gay they could still have babies by artificial insemination.) So is maleness "against nature" too? At least if everyone was gay they could still have babies by artificial insemination. Frankly, if more people have non-reproductive sex, that can only be good for the world. There is not a baby shortage in the world today. The fact that gay sex cannot result in a baby is an argument for it, not against it. When gay people have babies it is rarely by accident. Rather as a result of a deep desire to have a child and quite a lot of effort to get one. I'd expect that statistically children raised by such people would do rather well. I bet the abortion rate (percent of pregnancies ending in abortoin) among gays is lower than the general population too.
Bruce, you are acting like a putz. I am so sick of this 'liberal vs. conservative' shit that I am about to puke on a loop. I mean, I swear, you insist on polarizing certain issues to make centrists and moderates appear invisible or irrelevant. Now, I'd kindly ask that you get some consideration, or SHUT THE FUCK UP. Geez. You really like stirring the pot or what? To further the point-- so twenex says he's bi. Why does that have to be such a big freaking problem for you? I think we've established over and over you don't condone or support that sort of lifestyle. But tell me this: why do so-called champions of good worry their sorry little heads making sure everyone else knows what they see as the difference between right and wrong rather than making peaceable relations with their neighbors and avoiding discontent? "Contention is of the devil," Jesus said-- but I note that's not in the scriptures you read. Take it at face value anyway and measure it by the Golden Rule. You think the ends justify the means? I can speak on this. I can relate to him. Myself, I just found it wasn't working for me, so I sought out change-- which I do believe is possible. But I'm not going to bash folks over the head, saying, "You're queer, so you're evil, and you must change!" If he's happy, I say leave him alone. You can accept him without accepting his decision. If he's unhappy and it doesn't work for him, then maybe he'll find a way out. But spare the lecture.
You're the biggest biggot of them all, jaklumen.
"I do not deny them the right to vote. I do not deny them the right to own property. I do not deny them the right to free association. I do not deny them the right to a job of their choosing." show me my discrimination. Go ahead. Look at the above statements and show my how I discriminate against them. Problem is people, you are just so quick to jump on the bandwagon and scream; "Look at the bigot. Look at the bigot!" that you do not realize that I am middle of the road. "SURPRISE!" What? you don't believe me? How do I prove it? Intorduce you to my gay freinds? (I have had gay freinds.) I know. You don't believe it. Am I to condescending to the gay people in the forum for you to believe it? Well, you apparently think you are better than me, is it okay if I think I am better than you? I believe diversity is a good thing, but not when you rub someones face in it. You insult me siggesting I have a fear of gays that is obviously hiding my true gayness. Problem is, gays don't scare me. So just go ahead and call me an old stick in the mud. Wait! Does that suggest gayness? Nah!
It's not the fact that you're a stick in the mud that bothers me. It's not even the fact that you're so *offensively* stuck that bothers me. It's the fact that you don't seem to care about how much you offend, the fact that you'd rather say "okay! i offend people! but guess what? i don't give a shit!" than try to learn why you are offensive and maybe even become less so. The fact that you may be "middle of the road" does not mean anything, beyond the fact that the rest of society are bigots, too.
Bruce, in case it is not yet clear, what is offending people is your statement about being sorry to hear someone is bisexual. It's like being sorry to hear they are missing one leg. Why do you have to be sorry, and if you are, why do you have to say so?
I'm sorry that bru can't just accept people as they are, without passing judgements (as long as they are decent law-abiding individuals).
Re responses #86 and #87-91. thanks Y'all will notice I haven't contributed much to this thread lately. This is because I find such arguments boring and pointless. I am also *deeply* offended by the suggestion that something that should be private, between two consulting adults, can or even should be banned. We aren't talking child abuse here people; we aren't talking rape, male rape or sheep shagging. I suspect that I would feel this way even if i were not bisexual, because it is only recently that i have been able to admit this to my self. It is probably also because I like to stick up for people who are underprivileged, which probably has a lot to do with being in (quite a few) minority groups myself - sexually, politically, physically, and in terms of my interests (i'm sure a lot of us can relate to that one!). What people who are against homosexuality forgt is that in several periods in history, homesexuality has been respected and even revered; attitudes to homosexuality, as with everything else, change and while i have no right to insist that people be ok with homosexuality, i'm not going to back down because it offends them. I don't insist on doing it in their presence, i don't ask them to be willing 'victims'. I *do* insist that i be allowed to live my life the way i wish to live it. If the gay lobby were insisting that straight people were somehow weird and that heterosexuality should be banned, (a) i would have a problem with that and (b) Bruce and his 'compatriots' would have something to whinge about in my eyes as well as his own. It is interesting that those who insist on people living their lives a certain way are often those who get uppity about things like "personal freedoms" or, in Europe "national sovereignty". They don't seem to have a problem with other people being told to live their lives a certain way. I despise this mindset. I have a right to despise it. It's the kind of mindset that visited the Inquisition on Spain, Fascism on Europe and cultural imperialism on the world. It's the One Ring to Rule them All mentality. And it stinks. Bru says that he: Does not deny homosexuals the right to vote; Does not deny them the right to own property; Does not deny them the right to free association; Does not deny them the right to a job of their own choosing. But who is to say he would not *like* to do this? Because this *just* the kind of thing that happens when a country is ruled soley by fascist bigoted arseholes like him. That is why we have democracy and free speech, Bruce, not so that jurassic tyrannosaurs like you, who think that being in a position of authority gives them a right to act like Himmler and impose your views on everyone else, can drone on incessantly about how x y and z are evil and wrong (and you'd better invent a few more etters of the alphabet too, because 26 is *way* too few to categorize all their hangups with). I'm not particularly interested in whether you think I'm abnormal. I have had this all my life, for one reason or another, so it's a case of get used to it or let it upset you every time. And if I did that, I probably wouldn't be alive anymore. I don't necessarily want you to be all comfortable with the idea. It is of no consequence to me whether you are or not. Because the truth is, we who just try and live our lives without hurting anyone and try (not always successfully) to let people live as they want to live are as sick and tired of you moralistic, small-minded, reactionary, socially-restricted, jingoistic fascist bitches as you are of us. The diference being, I know of no liberal, democratic state that has ever tried to wipe any of *you* out. So take your opinions, Mr I'm Such A BigWig Because I'm A Customs Inspector Ooh-What-A-Big-Firearm-You-'ve-Got-All-The-Better-To-Shoot-You-With-Foreign-Li beral-Faggot and stick them somewhere. Your arse would be a good place.
rotflmao!
This response has been erased.
Errata - 88 to 91, not 87; i don't believe jaklumen is a bigot, so sorry for the confusion.
I appreciate it. I've been there, and to an extent, I am still there. I need not deny how I feel, although I have made a rather different decision about it. resp:88 'middle of the road'? Don't insult me. I consider myself fairly moderate; much consideration finds me at that position there again and again. If you're going to whine about 'conservatism vs. liberalism,' particularly how liberals repress conservatives, then I hardly believe you a moderate. Stop fronting. (If you were *really* middle of the road, you'd be bored of the left- wing and right-wing arguments, wondering why everyone has to polarize the hell out of everything. You're not fooling anyone.)
well, you see I am tired of th polarization. I am tired of lilly livered limosine liberals yelling about the rich conservatives spending money to support conservative causes while they swill their champagne and toot their own hoern about how they care more about the common man thatn any conservative ever could. I am tired of gay and lesbians rubbing their sexuality in my face by having marches and gay pride days and exposing genitalia out in front of God and everybody while they troll the back alleys adn gay bath houses for fresh meat while claiming all they want is a chance to get married. I a tired of heterosexuals who see nothing wrong with posing in all kinds of sexualy explicit positions so they can make a little money of their pornography before going to the local dope den to get something to get them high so they can forget what they just did for the last 12 hours. I am tired of people exploiting children for their own sexual enjoyment, and claiming that children as young as 2 should be able to experience the joy of sexual contact and that it does no harm to these children. I am tired of people who claim to have all the evidence in the world that pot doesn't hurt you, and then having to talk to emergency personel who have to clean up the mess when someone whacked on weed, alcohol, or some other drug they feel should be safe when used responsibly. I am tired of professors claiming to be open minded banning conservative ideas becasue they don't want that Fascist crap in their class room. I am tired of being insulted because I do not agree with everything liberals think and say. You ahve got to understand there is a whole wide world out there that does not agree with everything liberal, or everything conservative, or everything anything. And claiming to be open minded while telling me to shut up just does not make any sense to me.
Bruce, let me know where to find God so I can parade around naked in front of him/her.
I thought gods could see through clothes.
they're prolly pretty bored by now.
Did God make homosexuals?
Did homosexuals make god?
This response has been erased.
Bru offends, and he doesn't apologise for that. Yet, he's offended by that whole list of things, and expects people to change Respect works both ways Bruce.
re Resp:97 - Gosh where to start... 1) So you think that it is only ok for rich people to have opinions if they are conservative opinions? You dont think it is possible for rich people to care about poor people or for our society as a whole? 2) Imagine how many gay and lesbians feel when people rub their heterosexuality in *their* faces. You probably do that all the time. Anyhow, fwiw, I have never seen any gay people exposing their genitals in public but I probably dont frequent the same back alleys and gay bathhouses as you do. 3) You dont read porn? Please. I could have sword I have heard you make references to Playboy. Maybe I am mistaken. 4) I know. Child sexual abuse is a big problem. Most liberals will agree with that. A lot of republicans fuck their kids, btw. This isnt a problem related to political beliefs. 5) Alcohol is dangerous. There are also dangers associated with pot. It is however *less* dangerous than alcohol. For one thing, no one has ever overdosed on pot or at least I have not been able to find a documented case of that happening. Anyhow, it should be legal as should most recreational drugs. I always find it interesting that republicans like to go on about how government needs to stay out of our lives. "We need a free market. We need lower taxes. Etc." Yet, they feel it is somehow important to keep a person from sitting on their living room couch and smoking a doobie. 6) Well, fwiw, I have had a few very conservative professors in my time too. Also, none of them have ever not allowed me to express my views in class (assuming that my views were relevant to the subject being taught, of course). 7) I am sorry that you feel insulted but in a karmic sense, I think you have it coming. You come online and insult others all the time. Fair's fair. If you can dish it out, you should be able to take it. I think your problem is that you typically dish out arguments that are not thought out well, have huge holes in them and then you get mad when people shoot them down.
This response has been erased.
Yeah. I know straight guys who have good taste!
/bows and scratches his hairy beerbelly!
Actually, Tod, I'd disagree on QEFTSG. Sure, Carson is a prototypical swishy queen - but he'd admit to that. The other guys are pretty much just guys. Kinda like if you get a group of girls in the room. They're just the gay, infinitely more talented Spice Girls.
This response has been erased.
tod is right. even though it is a *positive* stereotype, it is still a stereotype. As someone recently pointed out to me, one wouldnt put a show on TV called "Black Dudes teach White Guys Basketball" or "Jews Teach Accounting" or "Asian Guide to Getting Good Grades".
I did read an article about how Americans had something to learn from Asians when it came to preparing for exams and getting good grades.
This response has been erased.
Hey, I didn't write the article.
You know, the last time I recall someone going ballistic about people "exposing their genitals", it was Mark Ethan Smith.
You're tired of gays flaunting themselves in your face during marches? Fine. I'm sick and tired of having Christmas shoved down my throat until I GAG from about late September through late December. The music, the decorations, the pompous jerkoffs who look at me funny when I say I don't celebrate it, the wishy washy feel-good specials on television, etc, etc, etc. It goes both ways. I stay out of their face. You stay out of mine.
This response has been erased.
on marijuana, just my two cents-- I haven't seen anything that proves it to be medicinally redeemable (you feel less pain because you're stoned; that's about it), but it is one of the more benign drugs out there. Tobacco is nasty-- and it's legal. On the marches-- damn dude, you're actually attending them or something? Leave it alone! I mean, fuck, I don't think most people see this stuff unless they go out looking for it or the occasional time it pops up in the media. Now I will admit they do cavort about in lascivous ways at a lot of these events, but no one forced ya to go. I do have my opinions about sexuality-- that often there is a lot of mingling emotional and abuse issues that are in the way. Yeah, I'm one of those twerps that believes in reparative therapy and all that. But I definitely don't go around condemning the community about their 'sinful ways.' They made their choice, and I made mine. I hope there will be mutual respect, then. In other words, you're preaching to the choir, here-- but you're not the music director. There is a time to be principled and a time to be diplomatic. I suggest diplomacy. resp:116 Ironically, the relentless commercialism of the Fall/Winter season turns off some of the mainstream religious. It seems like a big long profit campaign. As far as tolerance and respect, we've adopted so many 'heathen' traditions thanks to the Catholic church (in the name of assimilation) that people should be more understanding in light of this knowledge. To boot, so many are casually religious that the notion is pretty hypocritical.
I am refereing to the media and its hype of certain sexually expressive events. I also should not ignore the entertainment media which has found the new "reality" tv a means to further stimulate the audience. Commercials and advertizing are also to blame. I realize sex sells, but does it have to sell everything? Okay. So I am a prude. i learned to live with it a long time ago. No, nudity does not bother me. You could walk naked into my living room and I would not be particularly bothered nor excited by it. Yes, I have read playboy. (but just for the articles, really.) It is the focus on sex that bothers me. I have never enjoyed bachelor parties, nor the watching of porno flicks with my buddies. I don't watch them with my wife either. On the otehr hand, I also don't call people names because they disagree with me.
Well, I am a heterosexual female who is not in a relationship at the moment. And I get sick of straight couples constantly flaunting their couple-ness... holding hands, making out, or squeezing each others' butts as they walk in the mall. The whole world gives a message of "If you're single, there's something wrong with you." But no one complains about that. Meanwhile, I know a gay male couple and a lesbian couple who both keep clean and presentable homes, don't molest kids, treat their pets like gold, don't go anywhere naked, don't really go to pride marches, don't do drugs, don't go to bars or bathhouses. They pay taxes, volunteer for civic projects, and don't flaunt their homosexuality in front of anyone, whether at home or in public. And these couples both have stable, committed, monogamous relationships. I know people who smoke pot regularly for recreation. They do it in their homes, alone. They don't have kids. They don't sell drugs to kids. They do not go out in the streets if they've smoked. Nor do they drive. The people I know who smoke it are otherwise law-abiding people whom I know would not harm me or any other living creature. They hold down steady jobs and pay bills. They don't go to bachelor parties or watch pornos-- not to my knowledge, anyway.
And they are probably a small minority of a small minority.
Yo, men, i was at a "killer" rave the other night (see how that word just, offsets the others of its '''ilk'''?) and all the pot heads were not there but the people instead were methkiddies, you know, the ones who stay up all night killing bugs? yeah, them ones. well, anyway, here i were and they was there too-- right next to me-- and i shouted in their faces, -- drugs support terrorism! -- nah, pulling like a pendulum some girl's underwear. and then they all started circling 'round me, rubbing their arteries, as methkiddies learn to do, until their hearts were all in sync. now, as you would believe, a reverberation started, -- ow, man, -- crack, said his bones and then all the E crew started biting and knawing on me.
As far as "natural law" or something being a violation of it, currently and cross culturally the best science (aka "natural law") can come up with is that homosexuals represent a constant 2.5% of the population or so currently. Be it totalitarian regimes where it is a capital offense to tolerant regimes that value "diversity" the constant currently and generally remains about 2.5%. If it were genetic then how does it breed? If it is nurture (-v- nature) then how come the statistic is generally constant irrespective of the "tolerance" of the particular society? As for marriage, personally I have a problem with it being a state sanctioned activity in the first place. I would much rather have paid individual taxes based on my individual income offset by dependant support (which is socially a good idea) over the past years than the current situation where not only could I not get married without state approval (fundamental violation of constitutional rights it seems to me) but both I and my spouse were taxed *more* because we chose to do so. (the "child" deduction is a wash because you can claim that being "single"). I have yet to see any gay activist calling for the "right" to be "married" by the state address the tax issue - perhaps they suggest they should have it both ways? There is no legal benefit of state sanctioned marriage that cannot be legally attained by a gay couple today anywhere in the US legal juristiction. Social acceptance is another issue and one cannot legally demand it any more than one can force orthodox jews to eat pork - or force orthodox jews to accept as co-religionist pork eaters. (You can't teach a pig to sing, and whats more, it tends to irritate the pig.) Side note: Even state required marriage doesn't automatically bestow legal benefits, in the country where I live lacking specific legal intructions to the contrary when I die my "estate" doesn't automatically descend (less death taxes naturally) to my spouse and children but is split evenly amongst them, my siblings, and my parents.
I look upon marriage as a contract between two persons that is underwritten and then enforced by the state. It is therefore not possible to "get married without state approval" because marriage is that state-sponsored contract. If you don't want the state sponsored one, which we call marriage, then you can enter into a private contract. It's like choosing a roofing company for your house. Different contracts have different costs, benefits, warranties, etc. If you don't like the terms of the state one, choose another. I recognize that historically there were two government entities, the state and the church, which made marriage a three-way contract. This, however, added a lot of unnecessary strings to what is the fundamental interest of the state in offering benefits in echange for the contract - some degree of regulation of reproduction.
Marriage can save one of the parties thousands of dollars in health insurance.
Bruce - okay i accept i probably went a bit too far there, so having done i can only sincerely apologise; you got my back up (my fault as much as yours) and when that happens i have an unfortunate tendency to respond in kind. I accept that you don't feel comfortable with homosexuality, but i think perhaps you might be more comfortable in yourself if you just ignored it. I have experience myself of being pissed off that some people can act in certain (to my mind unreasonable) ways; i just had to accept that i can't individually lay down the law on what people do in their private lives; i hope that at least we can agree to disagree and accept (anybody got a thesaurus) that we have different views on this. I don't by any means wish you "shut up" because you have views different from mine, or despise your position in law enforcement. What I *do* think is that perhaps you are preaching to the unconvertible by making your views known in such a forthright manner here on Grex; it is a fact of life that, whilst Grex and systems like it try to be "a meeting of people with nothing in common", as i think someone else put it earlier, there will in any community be a core of like-minded members. That doesn't mean you should shut up, it just means that you might get less of a favourable hearing than you would in other, more conservative fora. I believe it was George Washington who as President made it known that he was opposed to "factions", but he had the fortune/misfortune to live his life in what was then a very young country, which due to its history was still in the process of defining itself, and whose people presumably were more concerned with what they were *not* (i.e. British) as with what they were. In such circumstances it is easier for a community to pull together than it is for Americans (or indeed Brits) today. Case in point - myself and my Irish friends *never* discuss politics, because Hiberno-English history is *very* divisive. (And yes, they are true friends). I don't believe however that Grex or its members are in any way trying to censor your beliefs; and if i thought it wee doing this to anyone, i wouldn't be so supportive (spiritually) of Grex as I am. I don't see anyone deleting threads. A last word on my "coming out", if i may. I believe this has been misinterpreted. It wasn't an attempt to shove anything down anyone's face, but I am saddened that people feel that Grex has a "party-line" culture. It was, therefore, an attempt to kickstart a process of frankness - and it seems to have backfired. I hope that we can agree (or agree to disagree) that people have a *constitutional* right to express their (divergent) opinions, and behave in amanner of their choosing *insofar as it does not injure other people*. I think sometimes people just find it hard to judge where the line between one and the other is, and that most of the fighting is on these fringes. It saddens me. Finally, i hope we can put this thread to rest - soon!
Re 111. But there is a show called "Black Men Teaching White Men how to Play Basketball". It's just marketed as "The NBA".
Re #127 - yes, but it *isn't* marketed as "Black Men Teaching White Men How to Play Basketball". which i believe was the point alluded to
Yeah, if you had a show called "Designer's eye for the hopeless guy", it would be quite a different show. this would be true *especially* if a person's sexuality werent an issue to be either the designer or the "hopeless guy"
Is there a show showing Asians showing White guys how to get to get good grades? what is it marketed as? I presume you mean Japanese or Chinese, or Indians; In Thailand kids get good grades by getting their parents to come thru exam room windows with the answers (no, I'm not joking; it happened).
That show is called "school".
This response has been erased.
So Don't Do That Then! ;-)
This response has been erased.
resp:119 The media tends to soar down to the lowest common denominator for advertising and such. That's also why I tend to laugh when people gripe about pop music. (There's always been this kind of drivel around.) I still believe we live in a sexually obsessed but very touch-deprived society. The fact that a school suspends a first grader for kissing a girl is pretty ludicrous, and teachers aren't really allowed to hug their students anymore for fear of sexual harassment charges. I think that's rough going for elementary and early childhood educators, because I think young children need tactile response. Things have changed-- it's true. The adult film industry is much more mainstream than it was in the past; insiders say they don't cater to a trenchcoat customer anymore. It's much more widely available and some sources (PBS Frontline was one) suggested the Clinton adminstration may have loosened things up in that regard (I forget what the politics was called involving it). Playboy isn't scandalous anymore. resp:132 Where... i.e. which West and East side?
This response has been erased.
Jim taught daycare for a while and he hugged all the kids. Nobody filed charges against him. The kids liked being hugged by a man.
Most teachers wouldn't hug these days for fear of charges being filed. Jim didn't get slapped with a charge, but it could have happened. (Sometimes it doesn't matter if the kids like it or not, it's what the parents perceived that is the determining factor)
Oh shit yes. They discuss this in the Schools of Education for a reason.
Re #70: "If God exists, he has stated that such behavior is immoral and wrong." You mean, "if my particular God exists, and I'm interpreting his writings correctly, such behavior is immoral and wrong." I also think it's pretty circular to fault homosexuals for not having stable relationships when society denies them the tools to recognize and reinforce those relationships. Re #119: It amazes me that you seem to somehow blame homosexuals for everything sexually explicit in the world. Do you really think that only lesbians buy those "Girls Gone Wild" tapes that are advertised incessantly on TV? ;> Re #123: Actually there are lots of legal benefits you can't get except through marriage. If you don't believe me, try to get your employer's health insurance to cover someone you're not married to. Also, getting the legal benefits of marriage involves a lot of effort and lawyer time for homosexuals, while heterosexuals don't have to go through the hassle. Re #138: No kidding. And it's not just teachers. Given all the high-profile cases there have been I'd never open a day care center in today's world; it seems to almost guarantee a sexual abuse lawsuit. And once you're accused of that, your reputation is ruined. It doesn't matter if you're found not guilty or not.
1-2). Once again, all sides never really come out. We have one side saying, "They are sinners and will rot in hell for what they do," and the other saying, "It's natural, and they are wrongly oppressed." Nothing in between. 'recognize and reinforce'... hmmm, somehow, in my experience, and in those many others that I have talked to, it hasn't been about love, it's been about deep, sometimes unconscious emotional traumas that never get satisfied by a 'relationship.' Of course others' mileage may vary. Of course, we have to have steel balls sometimes, because we get so much grief from the one side who still regards us as sinners (especially when we stumble on the way) and the community that apparently regards us as traitors. 3) is a rather poor example because if I remember right, women don't go ga-ga that way when they happen to be lesbian. They are a much more emotional sort from what I remember and porno usually isn't the schtick. In general, the example doesn't hold because women in general just aren't super big on pornography. Now men's gay counterparts... well, I seem to remember most enjoying gay porn to a degree. Maybe you could find a difference there. 4) last time I checked, many day care providers were considered early childhood educators-- but I could be wrong. Some preschools are considered day care centers as well. Maybe it's just an overlap, but I was making that implication.
Recently, with the push for civil unions and gay marriage, many people
have called for us to remain true to the Biblical definition of
marriage. Here's what remaining strictly true to that definition would
mean:
1 Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one
man and one or more women.(1) Marriage shall not impede a man's right to
take concubines in addition to his wife or wives.(2)
2 A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin.
If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed.(3) Marriage of a
believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden.(4)
3 Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the
constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed
to permit divorce.(5)
4 If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry
the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately
does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be
otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law.(6)
1: Gen. 29, 17 - 28; II Sam. 3, 2 - 5.
2: II Sam. 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21
3: Deut. 22, 13 - 21
4: Gen 24:3; Num 25 1 - 9; Ezra 9:12; Neh. 10:30
5: Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9
6: Gen. 38 6 - 10; Deut 25 5 - 10
(Source:
http://nuisance.blogspot.com/2003_08_01_nuisance_archive.html#1061273031022
29366
)
This response has been erased.
That is your opinion, I do not know anyone anywhere who promotes such a belief.
That's kind of the point.
thtas what I mean. i could sit here and say married people have to have sex withone foot on the floor for it to be a leagal weddig. That wouldn't make it so.
This response has been erased.
The point, to spell it out for you, is that calls to remain true to the "Biblical definition of marriage" are irrelevent; we've already gotten away from that long, long ago. What people currently think of as the "Biblical definition of marriage" is really just tradition, and relatively recent tradition at that.
Of course, the point is, it is *some peoples'* tradition. That's fine. But it is not *all peoples'* tradition - nor is it immutable.
re 148: Hallelujah. I wasn't looking forward to being executed. although watching people have to pay one shoe for not marrying their brothers' widows sounds pretty funny. if anyone needs to do that, I have a bunch of shoes I'd be happy to donate.
You have several choices: