KymcoForum.com

General => General Discussion => Topic started by: 08087 on May 13, 2012, 12:49:33 AM

Title: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: 08087 on May 13, 2012, 12:49:33 AM
Should homosexuals be allowed to Marry in the traditional sense, have leagl union of some sort or no option like that at all?

It's a big time debate here in the States these days, how about where you are?
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: whiteknight on May 13, 2012, 01:23:02 AM
i think people should be free to do what they want. each to there own is what i say. my fiance's friend is gay and he had a Civil Ceremony, they are a very happy couple. i think most of the problems are caused by christianity saying being gay is wrong, sex before marriage is wrong (even though if you go read the bible, god fu*ked mary behind josephs back and i dont think mary was married to god) also im Wiccan so im frowernd upon. but going back to the original question i think Gay people should be able to get married, i cant see nothing wrong with it.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: gregspeople250 on May 13, 2012, 02:41:44 AM
Freedom for all who do no harm.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: axy on May 13, 2012, 09:36:01 AM
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg)

I say - yes.

In my country, it is not possible to get married to a member of the same sex or to adopt children. It is possible to get alimony or inherit from your non registered same sex partner.

This is a big topic during elections every four years.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: blitzjb on May 13, 2012, 10:34:03 AM
Let them get married and suffer like everybody else.  To each his/her own.  The divorce rate in the US is over 50%. Perhaps all marriage should be banned?
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: bleys on May 13, 2012, 01:23:02 PM
I agree with gregspeople250.  Well said and to the point...nothing more needs to be added.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: bilyum on May 13, 2012, 03:48:38 PM
Who gives a rat's ass? It sure shouldn't be a national headline and in every news report.
We have bigger fish to fry!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: whiteknight on May 13, 2012, 04:03:13 PM
Who gives a rat's ass? It sure shouldn't be a national headline and in every news report.
We have bigger fish to fry!

true, there are far bigger things going on in the world. but that shouldnt deter from the fact that for some reason gay/lesbian marriage is frowend upon or even outlawed. goverment and laws shouldnt be from what i can see "discriminating" against same sex couples.. a couples a couple whether it be Male-male/female-female there still a couple and have the same relashionship ethics as any normal couple would.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: 08087 on May 13, 2012, 07:13:45 PM
Starting to learn more about the members here, another forum I'm on the responses are much more against homosexual marriges.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: axy on May 13, 2012, 08:43:30 PM
Maybe all Kymcos are drive by fags!  ??? ::) ;D ;D ;)
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: 08087 on May 13, 2012, 09:12:31 PM
Maybe all Kymcos are drive by fags!  ??? ::) ;D ;D ;)

Can't be, I'm heterosexual, not homosexual, (fag or gay), I can't speak for the rest of you though! LOL!

The other forum is a car forum, made up mostly of American's, and mostly older then 40 so that may have something to do with the results.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 13, 2012, 10:21:46 PM
Wow! Oddly enough I say no to marriage. Living together is fine but Marriage is a Biblical thing, and no state has a right to force the church in any direction. It is just a pre-amble to eliminating right to worship.
If the Govt said all people born had to have GPS installed it would be war on Govt. So they give us free cell phones. See the point?
I have NOTHING against gay peop.'s. I have Everything against govt interference, and "sneeking" up into issues that have NO concern to them. 
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: CROSSBOLT on May 13, 2012, 10:27:15 PM
I know what I must do and not do generally according to Scripture. I do not care about nor will interfere with what anyone else does. Just so government does not make me PAY for what is deemed aberrant behavior. What gays do is what THEY have to answer on reckoning day......

What YOU do with your wife or girlfriend has no bearing on whether I ride scoots with you. Only how well or poorly you ride.

Karl
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 13, 2012, 10:33:47 PM
My belief is there is no "reckoning day". Either way Govt. has NO say in the issue. If you allow Govt. into this issue it is over. Big brother has won.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: 08087 on May 13, 2012, 11:52:21 PM
View Poll Results: where do you stand on gay/lesbians getting married :
 
yes, they should have the same rights as anyone else    5 /20.83%

no, marriage should be a man and woman only    12 /50.00%

not a federal issue...each state should decide for themselves    2 /8.33%

all governments..(state and federal) should stay out of it..its none of their business anyway    3/ 12.50%

i dont care..    2 /8.33%


This is the results so far in the auto forum.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: bilyum on May 14, 2012, 12:43:21 AM
It doesn't make a rats ass.
 Let em marry or whatever,and let the  courts fill up with divorce's, and let the lawyers become more wealthy.
Amen!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 14, 2012, 01:44:49 AM
View Poll Results: where do you stand on gay/lesbians getting married :
 
yes, they should have the same rights as anyone else    5 /20.83%

no, marriage should be a man and woman only    12 /50.00%

not a federal issue...each state should decide for themselves    2 /8.33%

all governments..(state and federal) should stay out of it..its none of their business anyway    3/ 12.50%

i dont care..    2 /8.33%


This is the results so far in the auto forum.
I didn,t do the math but I anticapate the same here. I am curious about global vs. US results.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Peters on May 14, 2012, 01:45:27 AM
Who gives a rat's ass? It sure shouldn't be a national headline and in every news report.
We have bigger fish to fry!

Agreed!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 14, 2012, 01:47:19 AM
MMMmmmmm Bouncy!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: gregspeople250 on May 14, 2012, 02:12:51 AM
Blah, blah, my god, blah, blah, your life style, blah, blah, I'm right because my god who doesn't have to answer to anypme told ME to tell you what to do, blah, blah.
Let's enjoy scooters and life!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: ScooterWolf on May 14, 2012, 02:54:20 AM
I just want to say that marriage is NOT a Biblical thing. Marriages existed before organized religions, and are not dependent on a church. This issue isn't about the government forcing a church to marry gay couples (seriously, where did that notion come from?). I'm American, over 40, happily married to a beautiful woman, and have no problem with gay marriage. Doesn't bother me, or affect my marriage one way or another.

Who cares what a person does with their own life. Jump on your scooter and enjoy the life you have.

-Wolf

 
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 14, 2012, 04:18:51 AM
 "This issue isn't about the government forcing a church to marry gay couples (seriously, where did that notion come from?)"

Catholic school. Maybe they did more damage than I thought!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Peters on May 14, 2012, 05:07:10 AM
I'm Catholic!

Most of us are all about drugs, alcohol, and loose women. Gay marriage? Whatever. Doesn't bother me
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: ScooterWolf on May 14, 2012, 12:53:38 PM
I'm Catholic, but I've never been told one can only be married in the Church. You're not supposed to be married outside of your own church, or you can't be if you or your spouse are divorced, from another church, living with your fiancée, crap like that. Too many stupid rules (I suppose that's why I no longer go -- that and I don't like the Pope, or what's going on with all the sex abuse stuff), but there's nothing there about the government forcing the church to marry gay couples. Any Church call say yes, or no and there's nothing the government can say or do.

A gay couple can be married by a Justice of the Peace, or even a boat Captain. You don't need a church to be married, or to make it legal. That's why I don't get the argument for all this God created marriage crap. It's complete BS.

-Wolf.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: streido on May 14, 2012, 01:24:58 PM
"This issue isn't about the government forcing a church to marry gay couples (seriously, where did that notion come from?)"

Catholic school. Maybe they did more damage than I thought!

No church or otherwise would be forced to marry homosexuals. It is to allow them to do so if they desire, if they do not want to then tbey will not be forced.

The churches are the only ones blocking it really and i dont believe in any god so i dont want any church telling me how to live my life.

As a straight guy i want the option of a civil partnership too. I got married in a non-religious way, no prayers, no hymns, no church. I got married by a registrar in a registry office in a secular ceremony but still it is called a marriage. I imagine tbe Homosexual ceremony is almost identical yet it is called a civil partnership? Doesnt make sense really. Like i said the only folk who seem remotely bothered by gay marriage are tbe churches and mosques, their leaders then pass this bigotry down to tbe flock who also disagree, not because they sat and thought about it rationally but just because their priest or mullah tell them the big book says its bad or evil or sinful or whatever. Well so is abusing kids but the current pope "allowed" that to happen and even covered it up.

Personally i say let them marry, makes no odds to me or my life.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 15, 2012, 02:03:30 AM
Imagine that... ME too Christian! I guess I never gave it any thought. IDK... I still think Marriage is a church thing. The rest is just legal.
My THIRD marriage was performed by a Rastafarian minister named Stylee' Smith. Now THAT was a ceremony... Call me a hypocrite but I never thought any of those marriages were real anyway. Just something to shut her up!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: ScooterWolf on May 15, 2012, 02:38:39 AM
Both my brother and sister were married by a Justice of the Peace. Both are recognized and considered legally and socially married by our society. My brother has two kids and my sister is expecting her first. because they weren't married in a church no one considers then second class citizens, or less married than anyone else. Marriages have existed in countless societies, countries and cultures all over the world, many outside of any Christian ceremony. You don't need a religion or a belief in God, god, or gods to be married. The idea that Churches have a monopoly on marriage is BS. Many Christian denominations consider marriage a holy sacrament done within their own tenets and officialtions, but they don't own the idea of marriage, or have the right to dictate who can or can not be married. A marriage license is a legal document, not a religious one.

-Wolf
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on May 15, 2012, 02:45:03 AM
Luckiest are the Muslim gays! They can have more than one guy!!!  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 15, 2012, 02:47:38 AM
Luckiest are the Muslim gays! They can have more than one guy!!!  ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

 Two Hitlers...
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on May 15, 2012, 02:57:43 AM
Gays, lesbians, what's next? Girl and Dog? or Horse? Hmmmm.....  Hey, not looking to start a riot here !!!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 15, 2012, 03:00:25 AM
Yeah he was... Divide, and conquer!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on May 15, 2012, 03:09:56 AM
I think the issue is about standards or morals of a human being or a society or a family. Yes, we can do whatever we want, where we want, when we want, etc. It's not a question of religion, sex, race, breed, or anything else but what our morals are. Each of us responding to the topic here IS right in his own way because that is his opinion and that is what he believes. If you believe that your daughter can marry a German Shepherd, then so be it. If that norm is acceptable to your family or society, then so be it.  For me, I don't think so. There's no argument here is there?
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 15, 2012, 06:28:58 AM
NONE!  However... I would like to marry a Sheppard from Germany...
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on May 15, 2012, 06:51:02 AM
Zombie's shepherd....   http://pull.imgfave.netdna-cdn.com/image_cache/1323140894608481.jpg (http://pull.imgfave.netdna-cdn.com/image_cache/1323140894608481.jpg)
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: baddi on May 15, 2012, 08:34:51 AM
Of course they should be allowed to get married, they are people just like us, besides the fact that they suck cock.
They can do what they want, but when they tape a video called "redhead visitor pt. 2" they just ask to get mocked. :D

Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: streido on May 15, 2012, 08:44:20 AM
They can do what they want, but when they tape a video called "redhead visitor pt. 2" they just ask to get mocked. :D

You obviously enjoyed Pt1 so much that you just had to see pt2? Lol  :D
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on May 15, 2012, 08:51:48 AM
Can't be, I'm heterosexual, not homosexual, (fag or gay), I can't speak for the rest of you though! LOL!

The other forum is a car forum, made up mostly of American's, and mostly older then 40 so that may have something to do with the results.

The reason why in the other (car) forum, they have different opinions than bikers (that's us) is that bikers/scooterists are more free in expressing themselves, more open minded! And as you said man, the other forum are made up mostly of Americans! Lol!!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: baddi on May 15, 2012, 08:59:02 AM
You obviously enjoyed Pt1 so much that you just had to see pt2? Lol  :D

For some crazy reason, pt. one is nowere to be found  ???
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on May 15, 2012, 09:02:33 AM
For some crazy reason, pt. one is nowere to be found  ???

You mean you actually searched everywhere for part 1?   ;D
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: baddi on May 15, 2012, 09:24:07 AM
You mean you actually searched everywhere for part 1?   ;D

-Course. The guy in part two is a fellow student at my gymnasium, so almost everyone have seen part 2. And im not sure if he is aware of it  ::)
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on May 15, 2012, 09:28:44 AM
 :-[
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 16, 2012, 01:59:02 AM
 :(
Something strange going on here...
Even using the word Gymnasium...       UNICORN!!!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: wordslinger on May 16, 2012, 02:00:04 AM
...wtf is REALLY going on here.........
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 16, 2012, 02:02:11 AM
008 was looking to start a date line... He may have his first nibble.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: wordslinger on May 16, 2012, 02:03:22 AM
...08...shoulda known.....
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 16, 2012, 02:08:05 AM
YUP!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on May 16, 2012, 02:23:29 AM
 :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 16, 2012, 04:20:51 AM
I wonder who's gonna ride bitch?
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on May 16, 2012, 07:15:48 AM
You'll be surprised!...

(http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/best-funny-photos-56.jpg?w=500&h=669)
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: streido on May 16, 2012, 09:59:09 AM
You'll be surprised!...

(http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/best-funny-photos-56.jpg?w=500&h=669)

Darth Axys gonna kick your ass for that! Those photos were meant for private viewing only.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: sentinex on May 16, 2012, 10:42:20 PM
uhmm, I better stay out of this thread, nothing like a good fire starter.

-sits and takes out popcorn-
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: wordslinger on May 16, 2012, 11:07:46 PM
...yuh, i'm with you sentinex...


..sippin onna beer...
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: whiteknight on May 16, 2012, 11:14:54 PM
VIVO JOIN THE PINK SIDE
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: wordslinger on May 16, 2012, 11:17:00 PM
...ummm..think he did...lol..


               :-*
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: whiteknight on May 16, 2012, 11:28:57 PM
...ummm..think he did...lol..


               :-*

Vivo and Axy sitting up a tree K.I.S.S.I.N.G First comes .......
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: wordslinger on May 16, 2012, 11:31:07 PM
Naraku Race Variator


..did you see my pic in the "naraku drive face" topic??
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: whiteknight on May 16, 2012, 11:32:05 PM
nope but i will have a gander.

just had a look, i dont have the naraku drive face. i only have the race variator, did think about getting one but my Ag seem to be doing fine with the stock one.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 17, 2012, 01:21:11 AM
I love the crap out of you guys! But not in a gay marriage kinda way.
I thought Axy was a bit tooooooo Axy! I WAS surprised!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on May 17, 2012, 01:32:16 AM
I love the crap out of you guys! But not in a gay marriage kinda way.
I thought Axy was a bit tooooooo Axy! I WAS surprised!

SURPRISE!!!!!!!

(http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/e/c/hillary_vader2.jpg)
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 17, 2012, 05:49:58 AM
THAT PIECE OF sh** BITCH! AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGG!

F'n THIEF!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on May 17, 2012, 06:21:27 AM
Optimus Prime or Darth Vader?

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0msun0trN1r3jsrko1_500.jpg)
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 17, 2012, 06:30:25 AM
Bad ass tatts. Kinda New Zealand looking.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: htcneil2 on May 18, 2012, 05:48:32 AM
No. they shouldn't.

To keep this breif:

America will finally fail if this comes to pass.

America used to be the shining light, the promised land, now we're no different than Rome, when rome was the Roman Empire.

Chinese dynasty's fell for the same type of lewed behavior.

Looks like men won't ever learn.



Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on May 18, 2012, 06:06:42 AM
You can't stop it, they start 'em young in the U.S.

(http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/amc0669l.jpg)
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: ScooterWolf on May 18, 2012, 04:54:39 PM
No. they shouldn't.

To keep this breif:

America will finally fail if this comes to pass.

America used to be the shining light, the promised land, now we're no different than Rome, when rome was the Roman Empire.

Chinese dynasty's fell for the same type of lewed behavior.

Looks like men won't ever learn.






I disagree if you're talking about Gay Marriage being allowed. People have been saying that for years (the Fall of the US), especially when the Civil Rights bill was passed. The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights were liberal minded ideas for their time. They were considered radical at their time, and yet they are the back bone of our society. What makes our country strong is its ability to change and build itself. To see life from only one perspective is to close yourself off to other possibilities. A life of unchallenged assumptions is a closed one.

 
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: streido on May 18, 2012, 05:03:36 PM
I totally agree Scooterwolf, not so long ago inter-racial marriage was taboo and illegal. Same scare stories went with that debate but it didnt end the world and we all just go on with our own lives once the laws changed, same will happen here.

Those against are in the minority anyway and in a democracy the majority rule so they will gain the right to marry eventually. People who are against it have no real credible arguement as far as i can see, it wont affect me or my life so why should i care who can marry who?

Live and let live as long as it causes no harm to others, which this doesnt.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: ScooterWolf on May 18, 2012, 08:44:17 PM
Thanks Streido -- couldn't agree more. 
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on May 19, 2012, 01:41:47 AM
(http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/man_hug_7448.jpg)

         /                                 \
    I totally agree Scooterwolf    Thanks Streido -- couldn't agree more.            
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 19, 2012, 02:29:23 AM
Fags!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: whiteknight on May 19, 2012, 07:03:30 AM
we are a equal oppurtunities non-discriminating bunch of people, i think everyone should have the equal oppurtunity to get married without getting shunned for what feels right for them.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: streido on May 19, 2012, 12:14:21 PM
Fags!

Scooterwolf and i have discussed this last night in bed and decided that Zombie is no longer invited to our wedding  >:(
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: ScooterWolf on May 19, 2012, 03:26:43 PM
That's why he's called Zombie -- he's dead in bed. When girls (and probably some guys) talk about him they say ... "you know ... Zom-- bee" as they pinch together their finger and thumb.

-Wolf
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: wordslinger on May 19, 2012, 09:59:19 PM
...Z!!!!...


...you taking this laying down??


..or just on all 4's.....


                 ??? :o ???
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: streido on May 19, 2012, 10:06:55 PM
...Z!!!!...


...you taking this laying down??


..or just on all 4's.....


                 ??? :o ???

Think hes out in the shed with his micrometer measuring something  ::) *Ahem*


 :P
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: wordslinger on May 19, 2012, 10:19:31 PM
...somebody gonna start a riot!!



                "http://www.gay.com"
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: streido on May 19, 2012, 11:23:41 PM
...somebody gonna start a riot!!



                "http://www.gay.com"

.....................and im so f..king stupid i go and click the link to ww.gay.com thinking it may NOT be something gay related

,,,,,,time to clear the history in case the wife thinks i've turned :D
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: wordslinger on May 19, 2012, 11:27:18 PM
..told ya!!!!


       :D
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Peters on May 20, 2012, 12:36:25 AM
This thread is still going?
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 20, 2012, 12:47:24 AM
You girls are just sooooo cute! Makes me want to go plant some Daffodils or something.  Just so you know... I Will be at the wedding. Just so you know~
Sniper View Test Made on IMovie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi_QQrR0syE#ws)
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: wordslinger on May 20, 2012, 01:21:11 AM
David Bowie - Miracle Goodnight (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=829mlJiRCIU#)
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on May 21, 2012, 01:18:33 AM
nice shirt.....

(http://rlv.zcache.com/gay_zombies_get_u_from_behind_tshirt-p235372483114404183en7m7_400.jpg)
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 21, 2012, 02:30:20 AM
Sniper View Test Made on IMovie
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Austen on May 21, 2012, 03:52:45 PM
Should homosexuals be allowed to Marry in the traditional sense, have leagl union of some sort or no option like that at all?

It's a big time debate here in the States these days, how about where you are?


You are asking the wrong question. Ask not if The People should 'be allowed' to marry, ask if government should 'be allowed' to dictate what We The People can and can not do, or should 'We The People' dictate what government can and SHALL not do?

Also under what rhyme or reason does gay marriage have to do with anything on this entire forum?
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Peters on May 21, 2012, 05:19:29 PM
Has nothing to do with anything on the forum. I wish it was never brought up! Don't know why it's still going either
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: axy on May 21, 2012, 06:51:51 PM
(http://thedooryard.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341caaa953ef011571a33186970b-pi)
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Peters on May 21, 2012, 07:12:57 PM
 :D :D :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 21, 2012, 11:23:47 PM
I think it is a general discusion, and welcome the post. Even tho I am apparently the only miss guided homophobic Zombie here. I blame the church. Bastards...
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Peters on May 22, 2012, 12:31:02 AM
Sure it's fine

I'm just saying discussions of these types of issues always come up during an election year. Is it really a big issue for the country, or are there more important things? Politicians love these issues because they pick the side that's in their best interest and not necessarily what they believe. After the elections over most people forget about it so politicians never address the issue again. The whole thing accomplishes nothing.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: wordslinger on May 22, 2012, 01:26:38 AM
(http://thedooryard.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341caaa953ef011571a33186970b-pi)

..axy, you set yourself up...

...dang......
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on May 22, 2012, 01:32:15 AM
I don't know why there's this big issue on "marriage" , gay or otherwise. Does anybody really have to be "married" to have a normal life? Geez! People make things very complicated! They even want their dogs to get married nowadays!

(http://www.pamperedpawgifts.com/images/Baskets/Weddings/dog-wedding.jpg)
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 22, 2012, 02:58:22 AM
I have older dogs than combined marriages. Trippy
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on May 22, 2012, 03:04:00 AM
Why don't people wake up! hello! you talk about gay marriages while the whole world are marrying animals already!!! Lol!

Cow

    An Indonesian teenager from Bali was forced by village elders to marry a cow after he was caught fornicating it. Ngurah Alit claimed the cow seduced him and "wooed him with flattering compliments." The cow was then drowned in a "cleansing" ritual.

Horse

    In some parts of Celtic Ireland, kings (often called "sacred kings") had to wed the local goddess of the land. A druidess was usually chosen to represent the land goddess as the king's wife, but one king in Donegal married a horse, a representative of their local goddess.
    May 1998 – The Jerry Springer Show had an episode titled "I Married a Horse!". The show was ultimately not aired by many stations on the planned date, apparently due to concerns about the acceptability of broadcasting an episode in which a man admitted to a long term emotional and sexual relationship of this kind. The man and his horse later participated in a British documentary on the subject.

Dog

    June 2003 – A nine year old Indian girl of the Santal (or 'Santhal') tribe of Khanyhan, near Calcutta was formally married to a dog, in order to ward off a bad omen. The wedding was attended by more than one hundred guests, who danced to the beating of drums and drank home-made liquor. The girl told Western press, "I have no regret in marrying the dog Bacchan. I am fond of the dog who moves around our locality and tribal elders added she was free to remarry a human in future as an adult.

    November 2007 – A man in southern India married a female dog in a traditional Hindu ceremony as an attempt to atone for stoning two other dogs to death – an act he believes cursed him. Selvakumar, 33, told the paper he had been suffering since he stoned two dogs to death and hung their bodies from a tree 15 years prior.

    February 2009 – An infant boy was married off to his neighbors' dog in eastern India by villagers who said it will stop the groom from being killed by wild animals. The boy will still be able to marry a human bride in the future without filing for divorce.

    November 2010 – A young Toowoomba, Queensland man tied the knot with his best friend – a five-year-old labrador.

Goat

    February 2006 – A Sudanese man named Charles Tombe caught having sex with a neighbour's goat which was subsequently nicknamed Rose, was ordered by the council of elders to pay the neighbour a dowry of 15,000 Sudanese dinars ($75) and marry the animal.

Snake

    June 2006 – An Indian woman from Bhubaneswar, Orissa, allegedly "fell in love with a snake" and was married to it at a "traditional Hindu wedding celebrated by 2,000 guests". She claimed that a bond of understanding existed between the two. The woman had previously been ill, and recovered upon offering milk to the snake, at which time she fell in love. She later "converted to the animal-loving vegetarian Vaishnav sect whose local elders gave her permission to marry the cobra."  An investigation by Harper's magazine journalist Mischa Berlinski suggests that the snake may not even exist at all and that the incident may have been stage-managed as part of a local power struggle between Vaishnav religious leaders.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 22, 2012, 03:10:22 AM
As long as they were all in love. Apparently most of them were. It's all good. I'll pay their welfare, and support life care for their crack babies... It's all good now.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: hippiebrian on May 26, 2012, 01:44:20 PM
I think all people should have the same rights no matter race, religion, national origin or sexual preference.  Come on people, this is 2012 not 1800!  Seriously...

That being said, I have an answer to all of this.  Ban marriage by any government!  Keep it, gay or straight, as domestic partnership.  Like it has been pointed out here, marriage is between two people and their preacher, and the state should have nothing to do with it!  If a church is okay with same sex marriage, go for it!  If they aren't, while I'd consider them closed minded, more power to them, then don't.

Legally, however, in a free society, all people should have the same rights, so if marriage is currently a legal institution it should be allowed no matter who you are!  Seriously, gay people have the same right as I do to cut that alimony check every month!  Grrrrrr!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: 08087 on May 26, 2012, 06:29:11 PM
I think all people should have the same rights no matter race, religion, national origin or sexual preference.  Come on people, this is 2012 not 1800!  Seriously...

That being said, I have an answer to all of this.  Ban marriage by any government!  Keep it, gay or straight, as domestic partnership.  Like it has been pointed out here, marriage is between two people and their preacher, and the state should have nothing to do with it!  If a church is okay with same sex marriage, go for it!  If they aren't, while I'd consider them closed minded, more power to them, then don't.

Legally, however, in a free society, all people should have the same rights, so if marriage is currently a legal institution it should be allowed no matter who you are!  Seriously, gay people have the same right as I do to cut that alimony check every month!  Grrrrrr!


Odd thing is that in 1800 it was modern times then too, so you can't look at it as if it were a poor time for thinking. Some of the greatest minds came out of the 1800's.

Ask yourself one question, why was everyone so against homosexuals getting married?

Marrige was intended so that heterosexuals would precreate and raise a family to increase the population and homosexuals with unnatural sex acts cannot do that.

If you want to give homosexuals a contract fine but to me "marrige" is something special that hetero sexuals have between themselves. Let homosexuals come up with something of their own. Same rights as heterosexuals but not called marrige.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: axy on May 26, 2012, 06:52:42 PM

Odd thing is that in 1800 it was modern times then too, so you can't look at it as if it were a poor time for thinking. Some of the greatest minds came out of the 1800's.

Ask yourself one question, why was everyone so against homosexuals getting married?

Marrige was intended so that heterosexuals would precreate and raise a family to increase the population and homosexuals with unnatural sex acts cannot do that.

If you want to give homosexuals a contract fine but to me "marrige" is something special that hetero sexuals have between themselves. Let homosexuals come up with something of their own. Same rights as heterosexuals but not called marrige.

I think that humans can procreate and start a family just fine without "marriage". In fact, I see no reason why rational, non-religious people would enter "marriage", except because of the usual "everybody does that" passed on by the "elders" and peer pressure.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 26, 2012, 07:21:27 PM
I think that humans can procreate and start a family just fine without "marriage". In fact, I see no reason why rational, non-religious people would enter "marriage", except because of the usual "everybody does that" passed on by the "elders" and peer pressure.

Financial benefits. In the US you pay less tax filing as a married couple than two individuals filing from the same address. Same for insurance rates. Married couples pay much less than individuals. It's all about the dollar.
I do agree w/ 008.... Let them call it something else. Same rights but anything else. It's not really a marriage in my opinion. It's a legal arrangement to save money. Call it "cheating the system". I've always like the ring to that phrase.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: wordslinger on May 26, 2012, 09:06:01 PM
..religious, irrational, rational, non-religious, system cheaters, lesbians   :P  queers      :-\  ...

..we all bleed red blood when pierced with a spear......





                           dot-dot-dot
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: thebatman on May 26, 2012, 10:18:16 PM
Marrige was intended so that heterosexuals would precreate and raise a family to increase the population and homosexuals with unnatural sex acts cannot do that.

If you want to give homosexuals a contract fine but to me "marrige" is something special that hetero sexuals have between themselves. Let homosexuals come up with something of their own. Same rights as heterosexuals but not called marrige
.

Let them call it something else. Same rights but anything else. It's not really a marriage in my opinion. It's a legal arrangement to save money. Call it "cheating the system". I've always like the ring to that phrase[/b][/i].


Would you believe that in the city of Asheville, that 2 gay people, if one of them is a city employee then no matter what the "life partner"(that's what is WAS called around these parts) recieved any and ALL your benefits till THEY die. WTF?.. A MARRIED woman has to go thru 9 yards of sh** to get ANY fkn thing from the gov. for any benefits.
 I think that's straight sh**.........
......Then again, Asheville has become one WEIRD M.Fkn place in the last 15yrs..(even in Rolling Stone 2x over the movement ::))

Like the 80's "Valley Girl" thing.. ::) It's like, Oh...My GOD.......
"Gag me with a spoon ok"........... :D :D :D
........."History repeats itself".................
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: wordslinger on May 26, 2012, 10:21:43 PM
........."History repeats itself".................


...thats an awesome arrangement of dots displayed there, batman...



                                           ;)


...oh, f***...i'm cross-posting ideas now....

..is that a violation??
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: thebatman on May 26, 2012, 10:25:13 PM

...thats an awesome arrangement of dots displayed there, batman...

..........I borrowed the idea  ;)........
      ............Figure some DOTS are in order...........
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: thebatman on May 26, 2012, 10:28:16 PM
..is that a violation??


BADA BOOM... BADA BING....
........It's a TERRIBLE ting..
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: wordslinger on May 26, 2012, 10:33:50 PM
..cry foul on social issues...its okay..

..complain about the price of fuel..sure...

..agree, dis-agree, we all cant get along all the time...

..but please....don't censor my dots.......

...i'm thinking when i make dots, and dang....








...what was i saying?..
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: thebatman on May 26, 2012, 10:39:36 PM
..but please....don't censor my dots.......


.......KEEP THE DOTS......KEEP THE DOTS......KEEP THE DOTS......KEEP THE DOTS.........KEEP THE DOTS

...... :D  ;D  ;D....I vote we keep em......  ;)   :P
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 26, 2012, 10:45:14 PM
................................................................................................YO! ...Batt's...You're...down...for...Carrabelle,right!..........................................................................................

I have everything covered on this end. Transport/Housing/food/recreation/beer/everything! Just bring clothes, and a gas can!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: thebatman on May 26, 2012, 10:55:59 PM
I'd love to be down.......
I'm down with the sickness....
.....Down with the clown......
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 26, 2012, 11:07:12 PM
It is posted, and so it is! We'll work out the semantics of Pick up's down the road... I have an 8x4' trailer that can fit 3-4 scoots, and I'm working on renting a big dual cabin duuley. So we can pick up three peops. besides me and Carl (the driver).
http://www.mapquest.com/directions (http://www.mapquest.com/directions)
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 26, 2012, 11:08:33 PM
Damn that link didn't work. I figure 6hrs each way
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: wordslinger on May 26, 2012, 11:09:34 PM
..carl aint bringin a lawnmower blade... huh??
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 27, 2012, 03:41:07 AM
Ah! Carl... Gottcha!. I just finished Dl'ing Swing Blade. You reminded me what a good movie it is.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: ScooterWolf on May 27, 2012, 10:41:55 PM

Odd thing is that in 1800 it was modern times then too, so you can't look at it as if it were a poor time for thinking. Some of the greatest minds came out of the 1800's.

Ask yourself one question, why was everyone so against homosexuals getting married?

Marrige was intended so that heterosexuals would precreate and raise a family to increase the population and homosexuals with unnatural sex acts cannot do that.

If you want to give homosexuals a contract fine but to me "marrige" is something special that hetero sexuals have between themselves. Let homosexuals come up with something of their own. Same rights as heterosexuals but not called marrige.


Actually marriage was not solely created for procreation. Procreation could take place without marriage. It was a way to tell society that you have a mate and that therefore it was acceptable to have sex with them (as often as you'd like) without having a woman branded as a prostitute, or essentially as 'loose'. It also meant that the parents would take responsibility for the off-spring's upbringing, who would in turn care for their elders.

It was also a safety net for women. If a woman was unmarried she did not have anyone to protect her from other men (other than her family). Depending on how far back one goes in history women did not have many rights or opportunities to work, own property and make money. Often men and women did not marry for love, but as a mutual partnership. The man provided a home, shelter and protection. A woman cared for the home, made the meals, and yes, sex was a great benefit too.

As society progressed marriage was recognized as both a legal and a religious entity. However, history has also shown that men often took on several wives both in Eastern and Western cultures. Evidence of this can be found in the bible (Old testament), and the Mormon religion did once allow polygamy. To say that marriage was created to be between a man and a woman is far from the truth. Marriage as a tradition has been greatly changed and amended over the centuries. Look at the Church of England's break from the Roman Catholic Church that brought on the age of Reformation.  The ability to divorce was at the center of that conflict (among others).

I believe people are against gay marriage not because they believe that the 'Word' marriage should be only reserved for a legal/religious ceremony between a man and a woman. I think it's because they are against the ideas of gays or lesbians being accepted in society, to be treated normally with the same rights and privileges as everyone else. For someone who is religious this also serves as a threat to the infallible credibility of the bible (or other religious source) much like the Theory of Evolution is thought to do, or the revelation that the Earth is not flat, the sun does not revolve around the earth, or that our world is over 4 billion years old. Some people have a hard time accepting that.

Years ago I don't think anyone saw this issue coming, and it seems many people have been knocked off balance by the idea. From the beginning of mankind homosexuality has existed. In most cultures it has been on the fringes of society, with gays and lesbians marginalized to even their demise sought (the Holocaust). However, if you look past whatever preconceived notion or unchallenged assumption one has about gays and lesbians you find they are, at the heart of things. just people, fighting to be treated fair and equally.

Their struggle is no different than those of woman and minorities for most of the 20th Century. To grant them the same rights as married couples but to call it something else is to treat them as 2nd class citizens. It would be apartheid on the grounds of marriage rather than race.

-Wolf



Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: 08087 on May 28, 2012, 12:10:04 AM
Something 10% of the population takes part in is not "normal".

And you have yet to show me where homosexuals ever got "married" in the past.

This subject goes very deep, the US has been watered down greatly over the past several decades. We lower our standards to get accepted into college and med school, we lower the test score needed to become a sgt. or other "rank" on our police force and fire dept's., everyone gets a trophy and everything is wonderful.

We have stopped striving for excellence, our test scores are an abomination when compared with other world class countries and it was all by design. The drug culture that was ushered in during the 60's and 70's, feminism of the 70's helped break down the family unit (I'm not against women's rights), allowing subpar members of society to gain lic. as doctors, capt's on police forces ect only contributes to the eroding society we have, adding homosexual behavior to that list only drives us down another notch.

This post will provoke some comebacks in this forum I’m sure, don’t take offense and have an open mind.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on May 28, 2012, 01:59:25 AM
Something 10% of the population takes part in is not "normal".

I think Pareto would say 20%   ;)



America has a big mix of cultures and even subcultures and discussions like these may take a looong time. What will be the outcome? I don't know!  They now allow "transexuals" to join the Ms. Universe contest because the definition of "woman" or "female" in their rules are not clearly elborated.

By the way...why do they call it Ms. Universe when the planet earth is the only participant??? ::) ::)
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: PassedByAScooter on May 28, 2012, 02:15:39 AM
Something 10% of the population takes part in is not "normal".

And you have yet to show me where homosexuals ever got "married" in the past.

This subject goes very deep, the US has been watered down greatly over the past several decades. We lower our standards to get accepted into college and med school, we lower the test score needed to become a sgt. or other "rank" on our police force and fire dept's., everyone gets a trophy and everything is wonderful.

We have stopped striving for excellence, our test scores are an abomination when compared with other world class countries and it was all by design. The drug culture that was ushered in during the 60's and 70's, feminism of the 70's helped break down the family unit (I'm not against women's rights), allowing subpar members of society to gain lic. as doctors, capt's on police forces ect only contributes to the eroding society we have, adding homosexual behavior to that list only drives us down another notch.

This post will provoke some comebacks in this forum I’m sure, don’t take offense and have an open mind.


I will agree to disagree with you, but will say this: Your opinion of calling homosexuals second classes citizens is based in fear and dislike. If marriage was SO sacred, why do people seem so likely to be divorced at least once? This argument is something that people grasp on to in an attempt to justify their distaste or even hatred for another human being that just doesn't fit their opinion of "first class citizen."
And in today's society - and with all of the worlds REAL problems - those that harbor this opinion are pathetic and out of date.
I love all people, even your so called second class citizens. I only choose not to like a SINGLE PERSON if they did me wrong; not a group of people because of my misconception/misunderstandings of their lifestyle.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: PassedByAScooter on May 28, 2012, 02:18:23 AM

Actually marriage was not solely created for procreation. Procreation could take place without marriage. It was a way to tell society that you have a mate and that therefore it was acceptable to have sex with them (as often as you'd like) without having a woman branded as a prostitute, or essentially as 'loose'. It also meant that the parents would take responsibility for the off-spring's upbringing, who would in turn care for their elders.

It was also a safety net for women. If a woman was unmarried she did not have anyone to protect her from other men (other than her family). Depending on how far back one goes in history women did not have many rights or opportunities to work, own property and make money. Often men and women did not marry for love, but as a mutual partnership. The man provided a home, shelter and protection. A woman cared for the home, made the meals, and yes, sex was a great benefit too.

As society progressed marriage was recognized as both a legal and a religious entity. However, history has also shown that men often took on several wives both in Eastern and Western cultures. Evidence of this can be found in the bible (Old testament), and the Mormon religion did once allow polygamy. To say that marriage was created to be between a man and a woman is far from the truth. Marriage as a tradition has been greatly changed and amended over the centuries. Look at the Church of England's break from the Roman Catholic Church that brought on the age of Reformation.  The ability to divorce was at the center of that conflict (among others).

I believe people are against gay marriage not because they believe that the 'Word' marriage should be only reserved for a legal/religious ceremony between a man and a woman. I think it's because they are against the ideas of gays or lesbians being accepted in society, to be treated normally with the same rights and privileges as everyone else. For someone who is religious this also serves as a threat to the infallible credibility of the bible (or other religious source) much like the Theory of Evolution is thought to do, or the revelation that the Earth is not flat, the sun does not revolve around the earth, or that our world is over 4 billion years old. Some people have a hard time accepting that.

Years ago I don't think anyone saw this issue coming, and it seems many people have been knocked off balance by the idea. From the beginning of mankind homosexuality has existed. In most cultures it has been on the fringes of society, with gays and lesbians marginalized to even their demise sought (the Holocaust). However, if you look past whatever preconceived notion or unchallenged assumption one has about gays and lesbians you find they are, at the heart of things. just people, fighting to be treated fair and equally.

Their struggle is no different than those of woman and minorities for most of the 20th Century. To grant them the same rights as married couples but to call it something else is to treat them as 2nd class citizens. It would be apartheid on the grounds of marriage rather than race.

-Wolf

Well said!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: ce on May 28, 2012, 02:37:18 AM
I now pronounce you man and man.

You may kiss the homo.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 28, 2012, 03:23:14 AM
Damn... This is gonna start a fist fight. It's easy to see the root of the entire discussion. We are what we learn. The more we learn the more we are.
We stand... Both of us knowing... Love is a Battlefield!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: ScooterWolf on May 28, 2012, 04:23:35 AM
Something 10% of the population takes part in is not "normal".

And you have yet to show me where homosexuals ever got "married" in the past.

This subject goes very deep, the US has been watered down greatly over the past several decades. We lower our standards to get accepted into college and med school, we lower the test score needed to become a sgt. or other "rank" on our police force and fire dept's., everyone gets a trophy and everything is wonderful.

We have stopped striving for excellence, our test scores are an abomination when compared with other world class countries and it was all by design. The drug culture that was ushered in during the 60's and 70's, feminism of the 70's helped break down the family unit (I'm not against women's rights), allowing subpar members of society to gain lic. as doctors, capt's on police forces ect only contributes to the eroding society we have, adding homosexual behavior to that list only drives us down another notch.

This post will provoke some comebacks in this forum I’m sure, don’t take offense and have an open mind.


I never said that gays were married in the past. My point was that the tradition of what marriage is has been changing throughout history and the case that it is only about one man being married to one woman is weak. What is being attempted today is to all gays and lesbians to be to equal rights and allowed and recognized as legal married couples.

I'm not sure where you are getting this 'stop striving for excellence' idea from. Are you saying their's a conspiracy to take down the US by lowering test scores since it's all by design -- your words. How did feminism help break down the family unit? -- and what is the definition of a family unit? Dad works, mom's place is in the kitchen, Biff is on the football team, and Muffy is a cheerleader? And why do you consider homosexual behavior to be adding to the downfall of society? Are you saying heterosexual rape, prostitution, spouse and family abuse don't count?

Are you saying homosexuality is amoral, then why? Are you saying homosexuality is a choice? If that were true why would someone choose to do something that could have such negative consequences on them.

If you believe that 10% of something the country participates in is abnormal than do you feel the same about interracial couples -- about 3% of the population? If so, do you consider my wife and I abnormal?

-Wolf
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: ScooterWolf on May 28, 2012, 04:25:09 AM
I now pronounce you man and man.

You may kiss the homo.

Ladies and gentlemen -- the forum bigot.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 28, 2012, 04:35:01 AM
This Week In Gay: Dolly Parton, Interracial Southern Wedding, Superhunks, Kevin Michael Barba (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QtlwD6unac#ws)
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on May 28, 2012, 05:30:01 AM
I now pronounce you man and man.

You may kiss the homo.

Homo-sapien?



Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on May 28, 2012, 05:41:21 AM
Should homosexuals be allowed to Marry in the traditional sense, have leagl union of some sort or no option like that at all?

It's a big time debate here in the States these days, how about where you are?

I'm quite lost, I had to go back to the original question.

080 says it's a big time debate in the States and is asking how about where we are?

Well, my personal answer to this is, yes, it's allowed where I am. My personal opinion to this is best kept within myself.   Guess that settles that!   

The big question now in our country is if DIVORCE be allowed because I live in a country where there's no divorce.  Hmmm... different country, different rules.... 
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: streido on May 28, 2012, 07:59:56 AM
Quote from 08087
Quote
and have an open mind.

Hmmm, really? Sounds like you closed your mind to anyone who lives life differently to how you live?

I got no problem with anyone marrying anyone. Marriage and civil partnership are the same thing in all but name, so if you want to argue over a word thats just crazy. Luckily we are pretty secular here and religion plays only a minor role in peoples lives, if any. That is what this is all about afterall, religion and religious teaching which is stuck in the past and refuses to modernise, kinda like a dinosaur i suspect it will eventually die off, if not in my lifetime then definately in my childrens.

As for society standards dropping thats down to the capitalist mindset we have, money and the making if it are now more important to most people than anything else. Principles, morals, standards and humanity all go out the window for too many people if a quick buck can be made.

Try tell my wife she should not have her own career and is expected to stay at home playing housewife, i wouldnt!

Times are changing so either get on the bus and come along, or sit in the bus station waiting for the bus that wont allow gays, unaccompanied females, non-christians or minorities aboard,  you may have a long wait tho for that one, i think they stopped running that in the 60's thankfully.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on May 28, 2012, 08:27:59 AM
Try tell my wife she should not have her own career and is expected to stay at home playing housewife, i wouldnt!

If I had to choose, I would rather stay home and cook while my wife is working. I'll bring my daughter to school, clean my scooter, cook again, watch tv, clean the aquarium, cook again....

Very different from what the neanderthals did before... ;D
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: hippiebrian on May 28, 2012, 01:20:12 PM
One thing that strikes me is that it is the conservatives, those who think government should be small and interfere as little as possible in citizen's lives, those who scream "freedom" and "liberty" so much that the words have lost their meaning, who want to deny rights to people. 

Mark and Brian (local d.j.'s) put it well when we had the whole prop 8 debates here in California.  Thowe who support the right to same sex marriage are either gay or lesbian or they are confident in their sexuality.  Those who oppose same sex marriage are bigots.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: PassedByAScooter on May 28, 2012, 02:26:34 PM
One thing that strikes me is that it is the conservatives, those who think government should be small and interfere as little as possible in citizen's lives, those who scream "freedom" and "liberty" so much that the words have lost their meaning, who want to deny rights to people. 

Mark and Brian (local d.j.'s) put it well when we had the whole prop 8 debates here in California.  Thowe who support the right to same sex marriage are either gay or lesbian or they are confident in their sexuality.  Those who oppose same sex marriage are bigots.

My thoughts exactly on how politics influencing the equal rights of gays and lesbians. I just didn't want to start a whole political debate; but I guess it is very much so.
My thoughts on the politics that run this pro- or anti- gay marriage stance: If you follow your political party's agenda and opinion without your own free thought, you are no better than the cattle being pushed through the corral heading towards slaughter.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: streido on May 28, 2012, 02:49:13 PM
Quote
 Those who oppose same sex marriage are bigots.

Or closet Homosexuals themselves, look at how many preach anti-homosexuality is the devils work etc then get caught with a male prostitute or lover later. I could name some but you know who they are, if not google it. Then they turn up weeks later all teary eyed and blaming everyone but themselves, normally some non-existant devil or other. Im sorry, but it just annoys me, these fools are living in the past, in an age before internal combustion engines, the discovery of evolution, or even that our earth is round and not flat. Do we go back to that and not drive? Jesus didnt drive? Not to bash religion but it is sooooo two-faced and full of contradictions. Believe what you want, behave as you want, as long as it harms no-one but yourself i have no problem with whatever you choose to do with your life, thats my view on belief. Its when religion wants to dictate and it starts to encroach on non-believers or folk of the "wrong" beliefs  lives that it causes problems.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Steve85 on May 28, 2012, 10:27:20 PM
I clicked on this thread and laughed when I read the topic. I am 27 and my wife and I just got in an arguement with my dad over the same topic a day or two ago. Who the hell cares!
My dad says something is wrong with them and uses the bible to argue it.
I told him it also says in the bible not to judge others.and also told him that straight people give birth to homosexuals so something must be wrong with the straight people too. Needless to say he went silent then got angry cause he couldn't argue it.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 28, 2012, 10:49:01 PM
I really see two distinct "types" of gay people. There are those that are born Trans Gender, (born with the body of A, and the physiology of B) and those that choose to be gay. For the first group I truly empathize with the dilemma they have been dealt. For the second group I have no love/pity/empathy. Those that choose a life style, and complain about it can go suck a log.
That being said... If you are in the first group, and "gay" is the word to describe your life then I support the marriage. If you are a flamer that just likes preening, and drama... suck the afore said log. Marriage is not for you. It is for people that know who/what they are.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: wordslinger on May 29, 2012, 01:36:12 AM
go suck a log

..lmmfao!!!

..aint that what this thread is all about??


                       :P
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 29, 2012, 01:42:02 AM
Pun Intended! I was trying to be polite.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: wordslinger on May 29, 2012, 01:42:46 AM
..we quit that on the other thread...
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: ScooterWolf on May 29, 2012, 01:53:42 AM
I really see two distinct "types" of gay people. There are those that are born Trans Gender, (born with the body of A, and the physiology of B) and those that choose to be gay. For the first group I truly empathize with the dilemma they have been dealt. For the second group I have no love/pity/empathy. Those that choose a life style, and complain about it can go suck a log.
That being said... If you are in the first group, and "gay" is the word to describe your life then I support the marriage. If you are a flamer that just likes preening, and drama... suck the afore said log. Marriage is not for you. It is for people that know who/what they are.

I'm sorry, but you really think people choose to be gay? That of all of the things a person can choose to do, they would pick the one thing that would make them a social outcast and a target of ridicule (much like you expressed) and violence? Doesn't make any sense. Your description of a gay person as a flamer/drama queen sounds like a stereotype. What is this based off of? How many gay people do you actually know and have you expressed this idea with them?  

Are you also saying that heterosexuality is a life-style choice as well? If so does that mean that you could choice to be gay if you one day got bored of women?

-Wolf
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: ce on May 29, 2012, 02:54:29 AM
You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your friends nose.

It's not normal.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on May 29, 2012, 02:58:57 AM
You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your friends nose.

It's not normal.

 ???
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 29, 2012, 03:38:35 AM
I'm sorry, but you really think people choose to be gay? That of all of the things a person can choose to do, they would pick the one thing that would make them a social outcast and a target of ridicule (much like you expressed) and violence? Doesn't make any sense. Your description of a gay person as a flamer/drama queen sounds like a stereotype. What is this based off of? How many gay people do you actually know and have you expressed this idea with them? 

Are you also saying that heterosexuality is a life-style choice as well? If so does that mean that you could choice to be gay if you one day got bored of women?

-Wolf


What I mean is the type you described as being attention seekers due to inferiority issues is exactly what I meant. Just like the white kids acting like ethnic hood rats. Those are the ones. They choose their own "hardship", and lead the parade.
They are most of the reason this is even an issue. It never would have bothered me until it became political. Then I knew what ever party it is that doesn't approve of creating laws to allow/deny "Gay Marriage" is the one I agree with. (on this topic alone) And if laws need to be made to allow it... I vote to Not allow the making of those laws. It's more of a political statement on my behalf. If some group that never had my attention wishes to refer back to that time... All they have to do is whatever it was before they drew my attention to the subject. 
If that sounds in any way Bigoted I apologize for real. I never knew. It doesn't ring of bigot to me.
I think some others agree a stand has to be taken to preserve what we have, and let things work them selves out within that. More "Red Tape" isn't the cure. It only opens other doors. What "New Church" is going to apply for animal marital rights... The two are not intended to compare only to point out the path. Crumbling foundation...
Just everyone go about your business, and every thing will be fine. Otherwise "Arm the Scooters Boys!"   (I'll probably just ride this one solo...)
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 29, 2012, 03:40:59 AM
Are you also saying that heterosexuality is a life-style choice as well? If so does that mean that you could choice to be gay if you one day got bored of women?

-Wolf

I forgot that part... Only if you're not lookin' to git Married!   Whatcha Wer'un...~
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: ScooterWolf on May 29, 2012, 02:26:18 PM
Thanks for clearing up your stand, but I don't think someone acts gay out of an inferiority complex, or just to get attention, and are you saying all gays are this way? This sounds like a you're basing your opinion on a stereotype rather than on facts.

Politics affect everything. If you've never been discriminated against, marginalized or bullied because of who you are, look like, or believe in, you may not understand or form a sense of empathy. It is a shame that a law must be passed to allow gays to have the same rights as everyone, but it seems that is the only way to correct an injustice, much like the way a civil rights bill needed to be passed.

Your stance is based on the belief that a person is gay because they choose that life style (and again, no one chooses to be gay, no more than I choose to be Black), and therefore have brought on all the hardship themselves and don't deserve to have any law protect them. But, sorry, homosexuality is not a choice, or a mental illness. I'm far from a doctor and would not venture any scientific reason for why one person is gay and another is not, but I do believe that human sexuality is far, far more complex than we know, and that the notion that everyone fits into a square pegs doesn't apply anymore.

The political party -- and lets be frank here -- the Republicans, and their (neo) conservative, Angelical Christian/Tea Party base are against gay marriage because of their (base's) religious beliefs. Not wishing to isolate and turn them off they have no choice to not only be against gay marriage, but to use it as a political issue to strengthen their clout. Personally I find this reprehensible, and is the worst mixture of religion and politics. I also see this as no different than those who were against segregation and civil rights because they believed that African-Americans were 2nd (or lower) class citizens and should know and accept their place in society. This same stance seems to now apply to gays, one formed on misconceptions of gays, or on their religious beliefs.

I can respect a person's stance against gay marriage based on their religion (though I think such a notion is antiquated), but gay marriage doesn't mean that churches will be forced or allowed to have gay couples married in their churches. That was never implied by the potential law. The issue here is to have gay couples have all the rights and privileges apply to themselves and their partners that married couples have. It's as simple as that.

You said that you wanted to preserve what we have? What exactly is that? At one point in US history interracial couples were not allowed to marry by law. Would you be in support of that in order to preserve 'what we have'? Members of the status quo tend to forget that they are standing on the shoulders (or throats) of others. Things look great from where they are, but unless you have been disenfranchised or marginalized you may not know what it's like to not be 'on top'.

Zombie, I'm not asking you to radically change your opinion, but I think you should re-examine the facts it's based on. How will too much 'red tape' directly affect your life? How will it be different than the red tape used to pass new laws generated every day, week, month, and year by local, state and the Federal government? 

-Wolf
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: hippiebrian on May 29, 2012, 03:01:08 PM
I'm sorry, but you really think people choose to be gay? That of all of the things a person can choose to do, they would pick the one thing that would make them a social outcast and a target of ridicule (much like you expressed) and violence? Doesn't make any sense. Your description of a gay person as a flamer/drama queen sounds like a stereotype. What is this based off of? How many gay people do you actually know and have you expressed this idea with them? 

Are you also saying that heterosexuality is a life-style choice as well? If so does that mean that you could choice to be gay if you one day got bored of women?

-Wolf

Okay, if I have in front of me a piece of chocolate cake and a piece of strawberry cake, I have to make a choice because I want them both.  If there is a good looking woman and a good looking man in front of me, both willing to have sex with me, it will be the woman.  I do not have to choose, as I am not sexually attracted to men! 

Anyone


What I mean is the type you described as being attention seekers due to inferiority issues is exactly what I meant. Just like the white kids acting like ethnic hood rats. Those are the ones. They choose their own "hardship", and lead the parade.
They are most of the reason this is even an issue. It never would have bothered me until it became political. Then I knew what ever party it is that doesn't approve of creating laws to allow/deny "Gay Marriage" is the one I agree with. (on this topic alone) And if laws need to be made to allow it... I vote to Not allow the making of those laws. It's more of a political statement on my behalf. If some group that never had my attention wishes to refer back to that time... All they have to do is whatever it was before they drew my attention to the subject. 
If that sounds in any way Bigoted I apologize for real. I never knew. It doesn't ring of bigot to me.
I think some others agree a stand has to be taken to preserve what we have, and let things work them selves out within that. More "Red Tape" isn't the cure. It only opens other doors. What "New Church" is going to apply for animal marital rights... The two are not intended to compare only to point out the path. Crumbling foundation...
Just everyone go about your business, and every thing will be fine. Otherwise "Arm the Scooters Boys!"   (I'll probably just ride this one solo...)
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: hippiebrian on May 29, 2012, 03:06:44 PM
Set's try this again, something weird happened...

Okay, if I have a piece of chocolate cake and a piece of straberry cake in front of me, I have to make a choice because I really want them both.

If a beayutiful woman and a good looking man are in front of me, both willing to have sex with me, I have no choice.  I will be with the woman because I am not sexually attracted to men.  No choice in the matter, no interest, I do not see men that way.

If I were gay, obviously, the woman would be out of luck.  Again, not by choice but out of sexual attraction.

Anyone who sees sexual preference as a choice is fooling themselves.  If I had to make a choice that, by definition, would make me a bisexual.  If you see it as a choice, you may wnat to re-evaluate your sexual orientation...just sayin'.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 29, 2012, 09:56:30 PM
Frig it. Let them all marry anything they want. I'll buy the beer.
Just saying enough is enough... I watch the Florida channel every day our legislature is in session. They pass laws in a willy nilly fashion. Meaning one person gets everything he/she wants, and the lessor knowns get nothing passed. It's bull pucks in my opinion.
All anyone has to do is elope. Go to the frigin Islands, and get married. What's the deal? I've been married by two judges, and a Rastafari minister. Who cares who approves.
My only rebuttal is on the civil rights issue vs gay marriage. The two really don't compare to me. Most of the world sees gay as wrong. That is just how Most people see it. I happen to agree. If puppy eaters want a new law then to heck with them too. Passing laws to strengthen someones concept is not the answer in my book. One of the two Hitlers tried that. It was no better then.
Sorry guys... Go parade in the street, and frolic in the grassy fields with your pet unicorns but don't try to force me to allow another un needed way of life into the mainstream. Stay in the closets.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: PassedByAScooter on May 29, 2012, 10:23:01 PM
 Passing laws to strengthen someones concept is not the answer in my book. One of the two Hitlers tried that. It was no better then.
Sorry guys. Stay in the closets.



Laws are made to allow moral and equal rights to all, as well as safety... at least that is how it is supposed to be. One thing I've noticed as I've grown older You cannot coerce a person to change political party, and you cannot convince someone to take an opposite stance on gay rights.
Fear-mongering is what is holding back equal rights to gays and lesbians. I pity the people who will not allow their fellow man and woman the same right to marry as themselves. It screams of nothing more than hierarchical nonsense. A gay or lesbian is neither better nor worse a human being than myself (a straight man).
Coming from Vermont, the first state to legalize same-sex marriage, I find the rest of the country to be stuck in a different era. Some Vermonters chanted "Take Vermont Forward", others "Take Vermont Back", but in the end the right thing happened. Divorce rates are lower in states that allow gay marriage (by almost 10%!), too, which would almost say that those states take marriage more seriously anyway :)

Regardless, I harbor no ill feelings for those that are against gay marriage as long as it never heads towards hate or violence. Within the next decade, gay marriages will be legal and we will be talking about how gay marriage was similar some ways to other equal rights struggles in the past.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 29, 2012, 10:39:17 PM
I do get it Passed. Hate/fear are nowhere in this for me. In High school I always hung around the Lesbian click. I MUCH preferred their company to the straight girls. They were for the most part more secure in who they were, and more open to any/all new ideas.
Most of my Male friends growing up were straight but a few were gay, and some didn't survive the 80/90's. The two friends I trust the MOST are both gay. One is a flamer named Andrew... He lives on Central park west NYC. Rich ass fagot is how he refers to himself, and the second lives out in the Hamptons. He is married with two kids, and recently Discovered/decided he was gay. I always told him he was.

 Hell now see what you did? You turned ME gay TOO! I've been hanging with Queens so much I must have gotten some on me. EWWW!

It's all political mumbo jumbo. Why has this never been an issue till now? Abortion was a biggie for years. Now this? EWWWWWW!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on May 30, 2012, 02:26:12 AM
Laws are made to allow moral and equal rights to all, as well as safety... at least that is how it is supposed to be.

That was before (maybe), now laws are passed to get the most popularity votes and get a seat in government, gain power, wealth maybe, etc, etc.  Laws has nothing to do with morality, they just make things confusing. Morality is confusing as it is and laws make it worse. Maybe the answer to all these is not to involve laws with morality and vice versa.  The two just don't mix. What exact length of skirt a girl should wear is very difficult to decide on and the argument may take forever. Maybe the issue can be shifted to a different perspective, not on whether to allow or not same sex marriages but on their legal status after they get married. You know, legal rights, civil status, inheritance, etc. I think this is more of the issue to gays rather than the "marrying" part.









Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 30, 2012, 03:07:51 AM
Exactly what Vivo said.
That is my point said in a different way. The rest is just discussion.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on May 30, 2012, 07:35:29 AM
I can shorten it more...

Law is an applied discipline, while morality, being philosophical, is not an applied discipline. The two will never mix.   

Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: streido on May 30, 2012, 08:07:33 AM
Maybe the issue can be shifted to a different perspective, not on whether to allow or not same sex marriages but on their legal status after they get married. You know, legal rights, civil status, inheritance, etc. I think this is more of the issue to gays rather than the "marrying" part.

I dont think that is the issue myself ??? Gay folk here can and do already get "married" only its called a civil partnership. They have the same rights etc as a "normal" married couple, they only difference is the name, and the fact they cant get married in a church or chapel etc. So Vivo that would make little difference as they are still treated as 2nd class citizens and still will not have the same rights as i do as a straight man. For years they fought for the right to marry, the gov tried to fob them off with civil partnership so they would go away, but they didnt. Now they want the same rights as i have and i dont really have a problem with that.

Personally i would rather the gov just came out and said "it is not our decision to make", because it isnt. Let each church or religion choose if they want to perform gay marriages or not, that way the progressive religions can allow it and the repressive ones can refuse and remain bigots and homophobes.

Vivos point about gaining power does seem logical too. Why is this only now becoming an issue in the states? Could it be that an election is coming up soon? Seems to me that does indeed look like what is happening or will happen. This matter should be a minor issue come voting day but. Romney WILL make a huge issue of it in his campaign, i have no doubt of that, thats all he does is negative campaigning. Why not tell everyone why they should vote for him instead of why not to vote for the other guy? Why cant he say why he himself is so good instead of showing how bad the other guy is? Maybe because his poilicies suck, he is not good for the country and he will use any and all tactics and means to gain the Whitehouse?

Btw before i get a republican backlash i should point out i am NOT American, im Scottish. I give my view as an independent observer watching from the sidelines. The Democrats may suck, but the republicans suck harder and better, imo. Now all you can do is vote for who is the least worst instead of who is best. Sad really.










[/quote]
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on May 30, 2012, 08:21:28 AM
Maybe they should first get the actual population of gays in the U.S., if it's too big to ignore, hmmm... maybe its about time they (Politicians) be pro-gay. Those are points!

There's one politician here who proposed a law on printing the license plate numbers on the rider's helmet. When bikers opposed and took to the streets, ALL 3 MILLION OF US, no law of such was passed. He did not know bikers were that many.  Stupid guy!





The Democrats may suck, but the republicans suck harder and better, imo.

No! Democrats spit, Republicans swallow... or is it the other way around....
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: PassedByAScooter on May 30, 2012, 11:23:44 AM
I can shorten it more...

Law is an applied discipline, while morality, being philosophical, is not an applied discipline. The two will never mix.   



Last I knew, morals related to right or wrong behavior. So MORALLY, murder, theft, robbery, rape, pedophilia, etc, are all wrong. That's why there are laws.  So you see, there's nothing confusing about applying good morals to law.
Applying a law to the length of skirt, as you say, has nothing to do with morals for the common good. That's a personal standard. Personal standards are better policed in school and Amish societies, not in public!  ;D

The word morals can be a matter of interpretation, but if you look at its exact definition it applies perfectly to law. The trouble with morals is when you enter this gray area where the public is mixed on what is right or wrong. That's why this discussion is so popular. It's a good, healthy debate, though!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on May 30, 2012, 12:45:59 PM
Last I knew, morals related to right or wrong behavior. So MORALLY, murder, theft, robbery, rape, pedophilia, etc, are all wrong. That's why there are laws.  So you see, there's nothing confusing about applying good morals to law.
Applying a law to the length of skirt, as you say, has nothing to do with morals for the common good. That's a personal standard. Personal standards are better policed in school and Amish societies, not in public!  ;D

The word morals can be a matter of interpretation, but if you look at its exact definition it applies perfectly to law. The trouble with morals is when you enter this gray area where the public is mixed on what is right or wrong. That's why this discussion is so popular. It's a good, healthy debate, though!

Who dictates what is right and what is wrong behavior? Huh? There are some parts of the world where rape is not immoral! did you know that? Rape is a requisite for marriage! See? for you rape is immoral... for them it's not. And they have no law that rape is unlawful.   Pedophilia? Yes! immoral to me but in other countries, children marry older men. That is their culture! Immoral? In America, they call murder... mercy killing!  Hmmm, nice choice of words.   The law states that 18 years old is the adult age. An 18 year old can work, buy and alcoholic drinks, etc.!!!  Yes? Right?    Hey man, this is an American Law! Wake up.!!! I am not an American, don't live in America and I don't give a sh**!  Just open minded.....  Btw, the length of skirt example was just an example in a Philosophical perspective....don't take it literally...  and for personal standard, I vote for no skirt!!!


The word morals can be a matter of interpretation, but if you look at its exact definition it applies perfectly to law.


Sir, can you give me the EXACT.... I mean.... EXACT....  definition of the word Morals?????   I'm excited to know!!!! because not even the greatest Philosophers can give the exact definition  of morals....


It's a good, healthy debate, though!

This is another debatable statement because in some parts of the globe, debates like these are not HEALTHY.  Some people may just stab you if you insist on your opinion... or burn a whole village just to make a point....etc.




Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: PassedByAScooter on May 30, 2012, 01:10:19 PM
Who dictates what is right and what is wrong behavior? Huh? There are some parts of the world where rape is not immoral! did you know that? Rape is a requisite for marriage! See? for you rape is immoral... for them it's not. And they have no law that rape is unlawful.   Pedophilia? Yes! immoral to me but in other countries, children marry older men. That is their culture! Immoral? The law states that 18 years old is the adult age. An 18 year old work, buy and alcoholic drinks, etc.!!!  Yes? Right?    Hey man, this is an American Law! Wake up.!!! I am not an American and I don't give a sh**!  Just open minded.....  Btw, the length of skirt example was just an example in a Philosophical perspective....


The word morals can be a matter of interpretation, but if you look at its exact definition it applies perfectly to law.


Sir, can you give me the EXACT.... I mean.... EXACT....  definition of the word Morals?????   I'm excited to know!!!! because not even the greatest Philosophers can give the exact definition  of morals....




I seem to have struck a nerve. Good. Here is your definition, sir:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral)

Your interpretation is clearly different. Though you are right that depending on what country you live in, morals are different based upon culture. However, in modern societies you will go to jail if you try to gain a wife via rape, or do something indecent and/or corrupt with a child.

So while philosophers can sit in front of a fire, and smoke from their pipes pondering what life is - and apparently what morals are? - I choose to dictate morals based on the modern society that I live in. You clearly "don't give a sh**!" because you aren't American, which is fine by me. But if you really "don't give a sh**!", then why get so upset?

I'll take this conversation back to its original intent because things have gone from the allowance of legal marriage to the definition of morals: I believe that gay marriage should be allowed by law, and viewed legally as marriage defined by law between a man and woman. The End.  :D
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on May 30, 2012, 01:29:21 PM
I was expecting an EXACT definition Sir and not a definition from another AMERICAN PUBLISHER, Webster.  Is this the exact definition? because it was written by an American Mr. Webster?  I guess there's none....  because, I say again,  It's philosophical...    Anyway,  I'm not upset, just hyper  ;D peace brother! just love to argue at this time of the night!  Happy scootering!!!  - Vivo
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: baddi on May 30, 2012, 01:36:18 PM
I still dont quite get, why anyone would want to get married in a religion, which sais that you should be killed with stones.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on May 30, 2012, 01:43:51 PM
I still dont quite get, why anyone would want to get married in a religion, which sais that you should be killed with stones.

It is best that we all see things from different perspectives, different points of view, so that we can answer the question WHY? Then, and only then, we can understand.... 


Why do birds like to eat worms? eeeew! yuuck!!!     Think like a bird first, then you will know why....


 
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: ce on May 30, 2012, 01:50:51 PM
And another thing, I don't lke to be touched.

And I don't like anybody touching any of my stuff.

So if any of you homos touch me, or any of my stuff, I'll kill ya.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: baddi on May 30, 2012, 01:54:35 PM
Their call. ;)
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on May 30, 2012, 01:58:13 PM
And another thing, I don't lke to be touched.

And I don't like anybody touching any of my stuff.

So if any of you homos touch me, or any of my stuff, I'll kill ya.

Same here!!! ;)

We can argue, debate all we want..but noooooooooo touching!!!!!!!   Lol!!!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 30, 2012, 09:31:04 PM
And another thing, I don't lke to be touched.

And I don't like anybody touching any of my stuff.

So if any of you homos touch me, or any of my stuff, I'll kill ya.

Perfectly timed!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 30, 2012, 09:36:30 PM
Hey 008! We need a new topic! This one is wore out...
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: 08087 on May 30, 2012, 10:30:38 PM
Hey 008! We need a new topic! This one is wore out...

Just back from a few days away and see that the topic has blown up, I was going to reply (I may still) but it seems things have been asked and answered well enough to get to know you all better.

Let me think of a new topic.... Look for Fukashima!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 31, 2012, 01:07:28 AM
That one sucks... It's not philosophical. We all feel for them, and hope it works out. My money is already there.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: 08087 on May 31, 2012, 01:19:06 AM
That one sucks... It's not philosophical. We all feel for them, and hope it works out. My money is already there.
Well want do you want for nothin', Rubber Biscut?
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 31, 2012, 01:39:25 AM
There you go... Free Condoms in schools! When my 12 year old daughter came home to tell me the school was giving condoms I Almost wound up in jail. You ever seen 1,000 condoms covering a school parking lot?

Not their business.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on May 31, 2012, 01:45:36 AM
Condoms! Our government is passing a bill about family planning which includes among others, giving out free condoms, and the Catholic Church is against this because to them the government is encouraging pre-marital sex by giving free condoms.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: 08087 on May 31, 2012, 01:49:26 AM
No free condoms!!!!

Why should I pay for someone else's recreational activity. They should have to pay for my scoot gas and hell my boat gas too!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: PassedByAScooter on May 31, 2012, 02:09:59 AM
Condoms! Our government is passing a bill about family planning which includes among others, giving out free condoms, and the Catholic Church is against this because to them the government is encouraging pre-marital sex by giving free condoms.

As a teenager, I LOVED pre-marital sex!   :D :D :D
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: wordslinger on May 31, 2012, 02:12:54 AM
...dang...still do....
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on May 31, 2012, 02:27:02 AM
As a teenager, I LOVED pre-marital sex!   :D :D :D

I love all kinds of sex! pre-marital or otherwise!  except of course "same sex"

Damn, here we go again!!!!  ::) :o ::) :o ::) :o
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: wordslinger on May 31, 2012, 02:33:45 AM
Damn, here we go again!!!!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: PassedByAScooter on May 31, 2012, 02:36:18 AM
Damn, here we go again!!!!

Feminine lesbians: The only gay thing allowed in my bedroom.  :D
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: wordslinger on May 31, 2012, 02:38:25 AM
Feminine lesbians: The only gay thing allowed in my bedroom.

+1
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: 08087 on May 31, 2012, 02:40:35 AM
But you all are missing the point, the gov. wants tax payers to pay for someone's recreational activity in the formof condoms. Well then they should pay for my recreational activities too, I want gas for my boat. By the way the tank holds 58 gals. and it's time for a fill up. What's fair is fair.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on May 31, 2012, 02:48:49 AM
But you all are missing the point, the gov. wants tax payers to pay for someone's recreational activity in the formof condoms. Well then they should pay for my recreational activities too, I want gas for my boat. By the way the tank holds 58 gals. and it's time for a fill up. What's fair is fair.

No 080, you're missing the point! The government wants condoms because they are cheap and can source them from China at less than 1 cent each but will overprice them to 100 dollars per condom and allot a budget..hmmm maybe around 1 billion... and so on. Cheaper condoms = bigger kick backs! That's the point!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: PassedByAScooter on May 31, 2012, 02:56:09 AM
But you all are missing the point, the gov. wants tax payers to pay for someone's recreational activity in the formof condoms. Well then they should pay for my recreational activities too, I want gas for my boat. By the way the tank holds 58 gals. and it's time for a fill up. What's fair is fair.

You know our gov't is working on almost free gas right now. Why else are we at war in the Middle East?!?! Free gas for all Americans! We rule! lol
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: wordslinger on May 31, 2012, 02:57:19 AM
..on topic...
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 31, 2012, 04:33:50 AM
Feminine lesbians: The only gay thing allowed in my bedroom.

+1

I'm a lesbian.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on May 31, 2012, 04:37:32 AM
"Cheaper condoms = bigger kick backs! That's the point!"

That is Exactly the point.! What WE pay for. EVEREYDAY Sorry for trashing 10 grand worth of your condoms.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: streido on May 31, 2012, 07:25:16 AM
Everyone in my country can get free condoms. We have family planning centres all over that give them out to anyone who want them, even comes in a neat little bag with a tube of lube inc too, just in case your foreplay abilities are limited to taking off your socks. You dont even need an appointment or have to speak to anyone, just walk in, take a bag and walk out. To me thats a good thing, cuts unwanted pregnacies, cuts std's, and encourages safe sex. Sure my tax money pays for it, fine, no problem with that, tax money also pays for people to get treatment for std's, healthcare for pregnant females and abortions for unwanted pregnancies too so it kinda bamances itself out.

While i can see how having a 12 yr old come home with condoms may seems a bit frightening, research shows that the younger you teach kids about sex and pregnancy then the better choices those kids will make when they do eventually have sex. My daughter is 9 and they already get taught basic reproduction etc, by 12 they will have been taught all about sex here. Its impossible today to keep things from kids anyway, the internet has opened up a wealth of knowledge for teens. Questions you or i where maybe too scared or embarrassed to ask as a 13 yr old can be answered with a quick google.

Education works way better than that silver ring thing type program you guys had in the states, you know that one that taught abstinence etc? It didnt work. Didnt work in Africa either. Condoms save lives, and stop lives being ruined by disease, and stop kids having kids, but only if you teach them how to use them properly and to be responsibe.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on May 31, 2012, 07:50:43 AM
Well said man! It's the education and maturity. But that's too ideal I think. Reality tells you that there are a lots of immature and poorly educated people out there. Free condoms will mean a different thing to them.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: ScooterWolf on May 31, 2012, 04:41:51 PM
Everyone in my country can get free condoms. We have family planning centres all over that give them out to anyone who want them, even comes in a neat little bag with a tube of lube inc too, just in case your foreplay abilities are limited to taking off your socks. You dont even need an appointment or have to speak to anyone, just walk in, take a bag and walk out. To me thats a good thing, cuts unwanted pregnacies, cuts std's, and encourages safe sex. Sure my tax money pays for it, fine, no problem with that, tax money also pays for people to get treatment for std's, healthcare for pregnant females and abortions for unwanted pregnancies too so it kinda bamances itself out.

While i can see how having a 12 yr old come home with condoms may seems a bit frightening, research shows that the younger you teach kids about sex and pregnancy then the better choices those kids will make when they do eventually have sex. My daughter is 9 and they already get taught basic reproduction etc, by 12 they will have been taught all about sex here. Its impossible today to keep things from kids anyway, the internet has opened up a wealth of knowledge for teens. Questions you or i where maybe too scared or embarrassed to ask as a 13 yr old can be answered with a quick google.

Education works way better than that silver ring thing type program you guys had in the states, you know that one that taught abstinence etc? It didnt work. Didnt work in Africa either. Condoms save lives, and stop lives being ruined by disease, and stop kids having kids, but only if you teach them how to use them properly and to be responsibe.


Well said Streido! I'd rather pay for condoms than have kids ruin their lives by contracting a STD or having an unwanted baby. And Abstinence programs are complete BULL$&!+!!! Sex is one of the strongest driving forces in the human body. Taking a pledge to not do it the dumbest thing I've ever heard. That's like asking the fox to sleep in the hen house and you trust him because he's wearing a ring. Our problem is that we've never been able to openly deal with the subject of sex because unfortunately too many religions repress it, makes us feel ashamed of our bodies, and have a very closed-minded approach to the human body. You see this everywhere from the Catholic church, to Fundamentalist through to the Taliban. 

I also never understand were the notion that someone is directly paying for a program because its paid for through your taxes? Do you know how small a percentage of your taxes are probably being spent for this idea? I get it -- it's the principle of the idea, and a tax payer takes umbrage with the notion, but seriously, your taxes go to projects and materials that are far far worse:

Nuclear weapons
Chemical weapons
Subsidies for the oil companies
The Bridge to Nowhere

Which would you rather have, a 12 year old girl pregnant or with aids, or one with a condom? Do you want to live in the past, cup your ears with your hands and go LALALALALA not listening, or deal with the problem directly.

It's the 21st century people!! The time of living in Ozzie and Harriet land is OVER! Talk to your children about sex -- now, before the learn the wrong ideas from the worse people -- their peers.



-Wolf
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: 08087 on May 31, 2012, 08:55:46 PM
Education is exactly the point and key to all this. however we all know that education starts and stops in the home. School should be a support or backup. I'll be the one teach my daughter what is right and wrong and how to best protect herself against std's and becoming a mother.

Me boating also prevents women from getting prego, I can't screw and drive my boat at the same time, I want free gas, hell a fre boat too.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: streido on May 31, 2012, 09:27:26 PM
Education is exactly the point and key to all this. however we all know that education starts and stops in the home. School should be a support or backup. I'll be the one teach my daughter what is right and wrong and how to best protect herself against std's and becoming a mother.

Me boating also prevents women from getting prego, I can't screw and drive my boat at the same time, I want free gas, hell a fre boat too.

Thats the problem tho, you may be responsible as a parent but others are not. Normally thats who it affects. Besides, if it bothers anyone so much for whatever reason they can ask their child is excluded from sex education classes here.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: streido on May 31, 2012, 09:28:11 PM
And no, your not getting any free gas.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: 08087 on May 31, 2012, 10:57:56 PM
And no, your not getting any free gas.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK I'll make do with the boat! ;D
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: PassedByAScooter on June 01, 2012, 12:13:10 AM
I'm a lesbian.

I read this last night, but was too tired to type, "Ewww!"   :D
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on June 01, 2012, 02:09:40 AM
The way I dealt with it was rather modern. I went to the Guidance counselors office with a 50,000 volt stun gun on my waist. I asked where they had the right to distribute condoms to kids, asked to see the condoms, and walked out side to distribute them. All over the faculty parking lot.
The rest of the chat was with police.
As far as peers I was known as the guy that would hit you if your kid F'ed up. It changed alot of problems in our neighborhood. Parents took more interest in what their kids were up to, and kids made a huge circle staying away from my house/daughter.
I have found you cannot hit kids to teach them. But if you hit their parent it sure gets their attention. We had a NO DATING till 16 rule. At 16 she was allowed to CARRY condoms. Not at 13, and NOT with out asking ME!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on June 01, 2012, 02:11:55 AM
I read this last night, but was too tired to type, "Ewww!"   :D

Really!~ It's not icky at all.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on June 01, 2012, 02:19:34 AM
(http://rlv.zcache.com/lesbian_zombie_bimbos_of_the_dead_sticker-p217861740007577218envb3_400.jpg)
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on June 01, 2012, 02:38:40 AM
A little bit of sage!
I thought having a deaf/mute girl friend would be heaven. I wouldn't have to listen to all the Bla Bla Bla. Well at first it was fine. Till the Pen/paper came into play. It's much easier to listen/nod/fart.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: hippiebrian on June 01, 2012, 02:39:32 AM
How did this devolve into a discussion on condoms?  Wake up, people, teenagers have been having sex since before we left the trees!  They will continue to have sex.  Condom distribution not only will help prevent the spread of disease, but will give a lot of girls the chance to go to college and become their own women instead of raising kids while they are kids because they did the same thing we all did but happened to get unlucky.  It only makes good sense.

Preching abstinence does not work...just ask Sarah Palin!

For those who believe teaching abstinence works, think back to high school.  I know my, and most, parents taught not only abstinence from sex, but abstinence from weed, booze, other drugs, drag racing, driving fast, etc.; etc., and most of us, if not all, did just these things.  Teenagers are like that.  They will tend to do exactly the opposite of what they're told...which begs the question, should we tell them their goal is to be jobless and homeless and not doctors or lawers?  Might just work...lol.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on June 01, 2012, 02:45:40 AM
This may work for those that still have young kids. If it's not too late.
I told my daughter one rule. Before doing anything... assume Daddy will find out, and just ask yourself one question before doing... Will Daddy be PROUD!
She still loves me, and is raising her kids with the same one rule.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on June 01, 2012, 02:50:06 AM
How did this devolve into a discussion on condoms?  

The topic was wearing out and condoms stepped in....



Yes, I remember teenage years! It was more fun then... You need to hide to have sex!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: hippiebrian on June 01, 2012, 03:02:20 AM
This may work for those that still have young kids. If it's not too late.
I told my daughter one rule. Before doing anything... assume Daddy will find out, and just ask yourself one question before doing... Will Daddy be PROUD!
She still loves me, and is raising her kids with the same one rule.


And she never did one thing you told her not to?  Maybe, as far as you know...
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on June 01, 2012, 03:26:02 AM
Before doing anything... assume Daddy will find out, and just ask yourself one question before doing... Will Daddy be PROUD!

I think this statement is not meant to ban the child in doing the "not approved stuff" but on whether the child will give thought on what a parent wants or doesn't want in everything he/she does.


I for one stopped doing a bad thing before for the mere fact that my parents never stopped loving me.

Loving, caring and guiding your children gives them strength. And when they're strong, they will do what is right. Not because, Daddy or Mommy approves or not.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: hippiebrian on June 01, 2012, 03:31:14 AM
I had also stopped myself, a few times, in jr. high and high school when thinking about what my parents told me.  More ofter than not, however, I did not, and neither did most of us in the 70's.  I really doubt things have changed much, and kids will do what they do, including having sex.  Condon distribution will halp some survive the mistakes we've all made. 

Really, if your daughter makes a mistake and does bow to pressure and have sex, wouldn't you want a concom to be available?
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on June 01, 2012, 03:39:20 AM
Really, if your daughter makes a mistake and does bow to pressure and have sex, wouldn't you want a concom to be available?

Yes, absolutely, but I want her to buy them and not issued by the government. The main issue in this thread is the government's or schools' distribution of free condoms, which, makes it seem that these entities encourage pre marital sex. If a private entity of person give away free condoms, let it be. He has his personal reasons, but for a government? there's a hidden agenda somewhere. I would suggest free books, pens, or food.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: hippiebrian on June 01, 2012, 04:00:11 AM
Yes, there is a horrible hidden agenda!  God forbid, our government is trying to reduce teen pregnancy and the spread of s.t.d.'s.  How dare they!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: 08087 on June 01, 2012, 04:06:12 AM
Here's the deal, you educate your daughter or son about sex and what actions and reactions are bound to take place if certain actions (condoms) aren't used.

I will or my wife will talk with our daughter when she is the right age, show her condoms and even take her to buy them, show her how to use them and to also make sure the male withdraws as he reaches climax to help avoid an accident, she can also use a female contraceptive to help protect against an unwanted prego.

I or my wife will also let her know exactly what young men are thinking about every second they will be together, my daughter will have no excuse for her poor choices (if ever made), that doesn't mean I won't love her, just means she will be well aware of our expectations and hopefully will hold the man she goes with to the same standards of responsibility.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: 08087 on June 01, 2012, 04:08:41 AM
Yes, there is a horrible hidden agenda!  God forbid, our government is trying to reduce teen pregnancy and the spread of s.t.d.'s.  How dare they!
I fully understand your point but tell me, with all the "education" and preventive measures taken by the worlds gov's has the problem gotten better or worse?

I think we both know the answer to that, that's why education must start and end in the home, a 2 parent home (is best).
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on June 01, 2012, 05:20:39 AM
Yes, there is a horrible hidden agenda!  God forbid, our government is trying to reduce teen pregnancy and the spread of s.t.d.'s.  How dare they!

This is not the hidden agenda. This is the published agenda! The campaign! The hidden agenda is sourcing these condoms from cheap factories in China maybe, jack up the price 100 folds, allot taxpayers money to buy these $100 condoms, divert funds to personal accounts, then buy a yacht! That is the hidden agenda!
Everytime government makes purchases, somebody gets rich.






I fully understand your point but tell me, with all the "education" and preventive measures taken by the worlds gov's has the problem gotten better or worse?

Worse! Why? because they just don't care about the outcome of any project. Once they get popular and seated and gotten what they want, the hell with the project. The opposition will just make this another issue so that they too can run and be elected... it's a vicious cycle...!




An example of good government...


Contractor "A" was awarded by Government the 100 million project to build a bridge.
Contractor "A" sells the contract to Contractor "B" for 90 million. Contractor A gets 10M easy.
Contractor "B" sells the contract to "C" for 80 million.

Contractor C builds the bridge alloting only 50 million . Bridge cannot be finished because of lack of funds.

End of project

Nobody goes to jail




Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: hippiebrian on June 01, 2012, 05:25:45 AM
Vivo, do you have proof that the government is buying 100 dollar condoms?  Seriously?

As far as the problem getting worse, I don't buy it.  It is talked about more, yes.  However we don't have the 13-17 year old girls suddenly disappearing from school (some getting married) like we had in the 70's.  More public participation is a good thing, but just because something is discussed more often doesn't mean it is happening more often.  We have a much lower murder rate than we've had since the 70's (at least here in the U.S.) but you hear about murders much more in the news.  Same goes for drunk driving and, I argue, teen pregnancy.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on June 01, 2012, 06:11:43 AM
Vivo, do you have proof that the government is buying 100 dollar condoms?  Seriously?


This was just an example of the purchasing system of government. Remember the thousand dollar screwdriver and ash tray purchase scandal before in the U.S.? Forgot what year that was. I just related it with condoms. But here's a fact in our country:

Government awarded a project contract to a local instant noodle company for the Government's FEEDING PROGRAM FOR THE POOR! FREE FOOD!  An insider exposed the scam! The government paid 5 times the price of noodles as compared to the usual retail price. Five times may seem small but we are talking about millions of noodles here! Who got rich?




Here's another fact that I personally am involved:

I work for a company that imports car accessories and car care products.  One of our products is the Police warning lights.  We sell these for P11,000.00 each.  A goverment supplier buys from us and I found out later that the government allots P160,000.00 for each unit they buy from this supplier. Who get rich?

I can tell more...

By the way, I worked in government before that's why a know a lot of government sh** here.

Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: hippiebrian on June 01, 2012, 06:20:21 AM
A few (okay, maybe quite a few) scams make the news because they are the exception, not the rule.  Hence the term "news."  If a story came out every time the government spent a fair price on something, everyone would get bored and there wouldn't be much room for anything else in the paper.

Just because they spent a lot on noodles once and the military spent a bunch of money on tools and toilet seats 30 years ago (yes, I remember it well...the early 80's and I was in the Navy) doesn't mean everything they do is corrupt...come on.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on June 01, 2012, 06:33:29 AM
A few (okay, maybe quite a few) scams make the news because they are the exception, not the rule.  Hence the term "news."  If a story came out every time the government spent a fair price on something, everyone would get bored and there wouldn't be much room for anything else in the paper.

Just because they spent a lot on noodles once and the military spent a bunch of money on tools and toilet seats 30 years ago (yes, I remember it well...the early 80's and I was in the Navy) doesn't mean everything they do is corrupt...come on.

Maybe your government is straighter than ours!!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Here corruption in government is not news or unusual! it's a culture!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: axy on June 01, 2012, 12:59:44 PM
Maybe your government is straighter than ours!!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Here corruption in government is not news or unusual! it's a culture!

Corruption in your government is "silent crime" or "shadow activity". In Europe or USA it`s legal, registered activity called "lobbying".
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: gregspeople250 on June 01, 2012, 03:57:12 PM
I love anti-government speak.  It's usually supported with no solid information and is backed up by hearsay and confrontational attitude.
The government in the USA is purchased by lobby groups with real funding.  Extreme and unchecked expenditures for defense are often supported by anti-government whiners while spending for support of education/medicine/infrastructure dismissed as waste.  I'm really amused by those who think no government oversight is a good thing.  We're in the midst of a humongous economic problem created by financial institutions that skirted existing rules and gambled with OUR money and were bailed out with OUR money and have not supported US.  The greed is good orthodoxy starting with Ronny is so out of control and for some inexplicable reason people have come to expect large businesses to be more efficient than government.  I've never seen any large group of people run an entity efficiently.  Our government is more-or-less open and no business tells us about their waste.
End of screed.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: 08087 on June 01, 2012, 04:19:56 PM
Vivo, do you have proof that the government is buying 100 dollar condoms?  Seriously?

As far as the problem getting worse, I don't buy it.  It is talked about more, yes.  However we don't have the 13-17 year old girls suddenly disappearing from school (some getting married) like we had in the 70's.  More public participation is a good thing, but just because something is discussed more often doesn't mean it is happening more often.  We have a much lower murder rate than we've had since the 70's (at least here in the U.S.) but you hear about murders much more in the news.  Same goes for drunk driving and, I argue, teen pregnancy.

No they no longer disappear they just get prego and proudly have the child. My wife is a middle school teacher for a small school district here in NJ, USA and each year they have a couple of students getting prego, no secret just prego.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: 08087 on June 01, 2012, 04:26:17 PM
I love anti-government speak.  It's usually supported with no solid information and is backed up by hearsay and confrontational attitude.
The government in the USA is purchased by lobby groups with real funding.  Extreme and unchecked expenditures for defense are often supported by anti-government whiners while spending for support of education/medicine/infrastructure dismissed as waste.  I'm really amused by those who think no government oversight is a good thing.  We're in the midst of a humongous economic problem created by financial institutions that skirted existing rules and gambled with OUR money and were bailed out with OUR money and have not supported US.  The greed is good orthodoxy starting with Ronny is so out of control and for some inexplicable reason people have come to expect large businesses to be more efficient than government.  I've never seen any large group of people run an entity efficiently.  Our government is more-or-less open and no business tells us about their waste.
End of screed.

You contradict yourself with your own statements. Ask gov.'s about and people about the 2 decades ago $75 tiolet seats and hammers the US gov was paying for.

The problems in the US housing market/bailout wasn't created by banks skirting laws rules and regs, it was a gov mandated rule that banks had to lend to people that would not normally qualify for a home loan. Once they set up the down fall the gov bailed the banks out with our tax money. They work hand in hand, banks and big gov are one in the same, who set up the fed? The fed is a group of pivate banks that lend us our own money, what a joke that we allow to be played on us.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: gregspeople250 on June 01, 2012, 08:40:15 PM
Right, the government told the banks to take on bad loans.  That really makes sense...
Follow the money.  Who specifically in government made billions of dollars on the overextension of loans?  Who makes money from lack of oversight?  Who is/was offering loans that it knew it couldn't back?  Governments, of course, not banks and financial institutions. 
Who's still gambling OUR money on bad "investments", government, of course.  It's all a government conspiracy, right?
Read a real newspaper, listen to (oh no) NPR, read a history book. 
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on June 01, 2012, 10:38:29 PM
Right, the government told the banks to take on bad loans.  That really makes sense...

The banks took on "bad loans" BECAUSE they were federally insured. (FANImae)
The real root was the loans were resold Using the Insurance as a ploy. It was a no lose sale. The people that made the money were the coe's of the banks/mortgage companies.

Who's still gambling OUR money on bad "investments", government, of course.  It's all a government conspiracy, right?
One word...Haliburton. The largest arms supplier on Earth. What exactly is their total Charitable contributions for 2008-9-10-11?
What money has been sent to Washington for "political contributions" in '08-9-10-11
The numbers are available on the net.

I do work as a contracter for the USAF on their Boston Whaler pursuit boats. These boats are used to recover "Drones" after firing into the Gulf. I won the contract from my EX employer after bidding 1/3rd the total cost for annual service. They WERE spending 12.500.00 a year of MY money to do a bottom job, paint'gell coat repairs on three 24'boats. I do all three for $4,200.00. This is MY personal situation. My deal with the Govt. The old contracter would BRAG about how he was "sticking it to Uncle Sam."  I love the guy but he only stuck it to US!

The final thought... WE know NOTHING about how much is wasted by Uncle Sam. We do KNOW that everything is overpaid.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: 08087 on June 01, 2012, 11:02:49 PM
Right, the government told the banks to take on bad loans.  That really makes sense...
Follow the money.  Who specifically in government made billions of dollars on the overextension of loans?  Who makes money from lack of oversight?  Who is/was offering loans that it knew it couldn't back?  Governments, of course, not banks and financial institutions.  
Who's still gambling OUR money on bad "investments", government, of course.  It's all a government conspiracy, right?
Read a real newspaper, listen to (oh no) NPR, read a history book.  

You come across as condescending and rude, I'm sure you’re not trying to but that's how you see (to me at least), let me introduce myself. My name in this forum is 08087 and you'll find you'll get a more polite response if you address the facts at hand and not express yourself as you have. Perhaps you don't care to be civil I don't know but I thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt.

Back to the topic, perhaps I have read your recommendation, perhaps you'll read these facts and report back.


Back to the topic, perhaps I have read your recomendation, perhaps you'll read these facts and report back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act)

According to one enforcement agency, "discrimination exists when a lender's underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower-income minority applicants." Note that these "arbitrary or outdated criteria" include most of the essentials of responsible lending: income level, income verification, credit history and savings history--the very factors lenders are now being criticized for ignoring.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: gregspeople250 on June 02, 2012, 12:29:57 AM
Communication failure here.  I think we're talking past each other a bit.  I hold private industrial banking greed responsible for most of the present financial mess we're living through.  Since the '80's we've been deregulating the banking industry, allowing them to lower the hurdle to lending.  We've allowed them to get into more and more areas where risk is real.  And here's my real rub; The cynical and myopic way that this (and other) industries have managed to get average people to vote against their own good.  So many of us complain about the big bad government, while not saying a word about the folks that truly run this government; private industry.  Why aren't we paying for elections with tax money?  Why do we allow companies to be personages with rights? Why do we even listen to quick/easy solutions to very involved problems ("Just kick the bums out!", "It's all the _______'s (fill in the blank with your favorite group) fault!"  Why don't people follow the money?  This country is about money, follow it.  Who has more money, the banks or groups fighting for the rights of borrowers?  Who has more money, Exxon/Mobile or the entire green energy industry?  Who has more money to lose by changing the present energy balance (90% oil/coal/natural gas), the oil industry or the climate scientists that have proved several times over that climate change is happening? 
End of screed rev 2...
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on June 02, 2012, 01:36:40 AM
Why? its because when somebody starts a campaign and follow the money, part of it trickles to his pockets, then he smiles and develops amnesia. Then we're back where we started. Another vicious cycle.


@ axy: Criminals in our country are even more creative than government. Kidnappers nowadays don't
           ask for ransom anymore. They just negotiate and ask for "board and lodging" payments.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: 08087 on June 02, 2012, 01:46:02 AM
Communication failure here.  I think we're talking past each other a bit.  I hold private industrial banking greed responsible for most of the present financial mess we're living through.  Since the '80's we've been deregulating the banking industry, allowing them to lower the hurdle to lending.  We've allowed them to get into more and more areas where risk is real.  And here's my real rub; The cynical and myopic way that this (and other) industries have managed to get average people to vote against their own good.  So many of us complain about the big bad government, while not saying a word about the folks that truly run this government; private industry.  Why aren't we paying for elections with tax money?  Why do we allow companies to be personages with rights? Why do we even listen to quick/easy solutions to very involved problems ("Just kick the bums out!", "It's all the _______'s (fill in the blank with your favorite group) fault!"  Why don't people follow the money?  This country is about money, follow it.  Who has more money, the banks or groups fighting for the rights of borrowers?  Who has more money, Exxon/Mobile or the entire green energy industry?  Who has more money to lose by changing the present energy balance (90% oil/coal/natural gas), the oil industry or the climate scientists that have proved several times over that climate change is happening? 
End of screed rev 2...

You had me until the climate change crappola. Climate change BS (IMO) is just that, the climate changes all the time, lets go back to what they and Al Gore originally called it until they got called on it. Global warming, once it was found that the tems. fluctuate all the time, not to mention ice ages heat waves etc... they changed it to climate change. So now what "they" want to do and are doing in some places is charging you for your globle footprint or a tax for breathing, let alone using a car, bike truck etc. They say that cows contribute to global warming with CO output. What will they tax next?

No doubt that big gov. is pretty much run by big business and also that very few people even have a clue let alone a handle on how it all works, but to fall into the trap of climate gate/control is the latest greatest biggest tax crap yet to come. buying and selling CO credits.

And we are talking past one another to a certain extent but you still got away with telling people to "READ" NPR and didn't even mention the link or paragraph I listed as factual support for my point of view.

No doubt that the bankers pushed for less and less regulation but our elected officers caved in and not only gave it to them but mandated the push for bankrupting the country and then bailed them out. It was all a plan for sure, I have zero doubt about that, they work hand in hand. For now we must get them out (politicians) but until the people of the world are ready to rise up together we will all continue to suffer the same fate.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: gregspeople250 on June 02, 2012, 03:25:41 PM
Last message for me.
There was a comma between read and NPR, two different details.
RAPID climate change IS A FACT.  Even Chevron now admits.  They support a carbon credit tax.  Some of us in this country are hold outs that there is no human activity connection.  I believe are for a few reasons, primarily because large energy firms have fought it and many of us don't want to believe that we are reason for climate change.  Chevron's previous CEO openly states he financed the very small group of outlier climate scientists that saw a buck in being outside the huge majority.  It's not that the earth's climate hasn't changed over history, it's that the climate is changing at ~100X faster than any recorded data.  The recorded data comes from ice cores and other (I don't recall exactly what: earth excavations?) records. 
Thanks for jousting with me.  It's been fun and I like people with a sense of accountability and reason.
Enjoy scooting!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: 08087 on June 02, 2012, 06:41:50 PM
Last message for me.
There was a comma between read and NPR, two different details.
RAPID climate change IS A FACT.  Even Chevron now admits.  They support a carbon credit tax.  Some of us in this country are hold outs that there is no human activity connection.  I believe are for a few reasons, primarily because large energy firms have fought it and many of us don't want to believe that we are reason for climate change.  Chevron's previous CEO openly states he financed the very small group of outlier climate scientists that saw a buck in being outside the huge majority.  It's not that the earth's climate hasn't changed over history, it's that the climate is changing at ~100X faster than any recorded data.  The recorded data comes from ice cores and other (I don't recall exactly what: earth excavations?) records. 
Thanks for jousting with me.  It's been fun and I like people with a sense of accountability and reason.
Enjoy scooting!

Not sure why your bowing out of this conversation, how else can we all learn? By the way YOU DON"T NEED TO YELL, I hear you just fine when speak in normal tones. Maybe Chevron is going along with the program (I don't know if they are or not) because they were promised a tax cut or some other financial incentive.

Why may I ask then did a bunch of scientist get caught up in a forgery scandal over global warming numbers if the evidence is so overwhelming? And it is also a fact that while some glaciers are receding some are gaining in size. There is also talk that polar  North and South may flip one day soon, will that be the fault of mankind?
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on June 02, 2012, 09:40:40 PM
Ask the people of Iceland if warming is happening. By 2014 they will have to rename it Rockland. I 100% agree it is sped up expodentially by removein materials from the earth, and replacing them with mud if anything at all. Take any multi viscus item... Drain it of its core elements, and replace the elements with mud. FAILURE. That is what WE have done to the Earth. Simple.
The earth quakes mentioned on another thread... Direct consequences of OUR actions. The Earth is crumbling beneath us and some have the BALLS to say it's not us... Go back to High School, and take a few more physics classes.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: 08087 on June 02, 2012, 10:58:54 PM
Ask the people of Iceland if warming is happening. By 2014 they will have to rename it Rockland. I 100% agree it is sped up expodentially by removein materials from the earth, and replacing them with mud if anything at all. Take any multi viscus item... Drain it of its core elements, and replace the elements with mud. FAILURE. That is what WE have done to the Earth. Simple.
The earth quakes mentioned on another thread... Direct consequences of OUR actions. The Earth is crumbling beneath us and some have the BALLS to say it's not us... Go back to High School, and take a few more physics classes.

Let me go back and look at all the earthquakes that took place BC and see if it was because we were taking from the earth? I don't think so.

I wonder if the sun is getting hotter because all the CO being produced from the gasses that are burning off every second of every minute of every 24 hr day, that's right, when the sun goes down it continues to burn.. Still want on an answer as to why those scientist had to forge the results.

And no need for the go back to HS insult, all because someone doesn't agree with you is no reason to show your limitations to the world.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: streido on June 03, 2012, 01:50:32 AM
Quote
Still want on an answer as to why those scientist had to forge the results.

??? What results were forged?  ???

A group of climate scientists had their email accounts hacked and their contents were stolen/copied by the hackers. Nothing was forged? The emails contained private and work related correspondence between various scientists around the world, but nothing controversial. After finding nothing usefull whoever it was that hired the hackers released portions of them, which were taken out of context, to try create a story where there was none. They wanted to create confusion amoungst the general public, to muddy the waters, to use smoke and mirrors to give the illusion something was not right here, and they succeeded. If you read thro the whole email the "controversial" section was taken from, and know the context in which it was meant, then there is no controversy. Nada. There are plenty of websites listing the whole emails and comparing that to the extracts you can see how they tricked many people into believing there was fraud or lies being carried out,but there actually wasnt.

Why did the hackers do this? Money probably. No doubt they were hired by some climate deniers to steal the emails and hand them over for a fee. Now we need to find out who paid the hackers? At the heart of it its got to be big oil, gas or someone who needs the oil and gas business to continue as is. Someone who wants to delay or derail any and all climate safeguards and carbon controls, someone who wants to distract and confuse the general public,or at least plant a seed it may not be a problem after all. The public dont want it to be real, we like things as they are, we like our comforts,we dont want to change, so if you then offer up the possibility that it may be ok,"prove" its all lies, some people will jump at it. 

Why? To keep the oil and gas flowing,to keep the wheel turning, to keep the money flowing in and to stop anyone from slowing it down or causing problems.

Read the full emails and read the science, its real, honest  :)

Btw, 8 committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society and the Union of Concerned Scientists  released statements supporting the scientific consensus that the Earth's mean surface temperature had been rising for decades, with the AAAS concluding "based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway...it is a growing threat to society."
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: streido on June 03, 2012, 01:52:33 AM
Its also no surprise that it was Fox "news" that pushed the story initially,no other mainstream press covered it untill Fox create the stir.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on June 03, 2012, 02:21:19 AM
Yeah! so there! :P
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: hippiebrian on June 03, 2012, 02:29:05 AM
Again, it amazes me how much people will not only ignore scientific evidence based on what some tea-bagging non-scientist tells them to think, but how much they will ignore common sense.

CO2 in the atmosphere holds in heat: that's basically it's job.  Methane holds heat even better, however it dissipates more quickly.  We have been dumping both into the atmosphere for 200 years, expodentially increasing it over the last 100.  We are causing the rapid rise in the earth's temperature, obvioulsy and unargueably.  There have been ice cores taken out of the artic that go back 160,000 years http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA.html (http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA.html) indicate that this is the quickest the earth has wormed up in at least that time, and that covers a lot of ice ages and subsequent warmings.

If you are reading any anti-global warming research, please look at who is financing this research.  I will guarentee you it is some company, usually an oil company, who is financing it, because the oil industry stands to lose a lot of money when we finally start to take global warming seriously.  I just hope it's not too late... :-[
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on June 03, 2012, 02:40:42 AM
Take this for what it is. There is a fella that lives here. His name is Billy Parker. This guy is world renowned for the lumber he recovers from lakes/rivers/the Gulf of Mexico. The trees he recovers have been under water for as much as 200 years. The value is unreal.
Now the important part. The Oldest lumber has TINY growth rings. Making the wood stronger/denser. The same species harvested today has Massive growth rings. Making the wood weaker/less dense.
Billy explains it this way... Back when these old growth trees were living there was Much less CO2 in the atmosphere. The trees grew slower/stronger. Now with polution their is Much more CO2, and the trees are shooting up like weeds.
If the forrests were left as is the trees would negate alot of the Global Warming effects. But since the trees are being cut the CO2 has no natural opposition, and increases. Guess where that takes us...
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: ce on June 03, 2012, 02:59:56 AM
What's all this about endangered feces?

Who wants to save that stuff anyway? I mean, come on, you think there's not enough to go around?

With all this global worming going on, there should be feces everywhere, a little over here, a little over there, a BIG PILE OF STEAMING, HEAPING...

What?

Endangered species? That's not the same at all.

Never mind.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on June 03, 2012, 03:15:30 AM
Glad you figured that out Ce! You would have looked dumb.
Nido del cuculo - Jurassic Park (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sO4ZerXSBA#)
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: 08087 on June 03, 2012, 08:18:06 PM
Started new topic on Global warming, this will be fun. (watching you guys explain it that is)
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on June 03, 2012, 08:41:17 PM
Easy... People suck!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: streido on June 03, 2012, 08:49:09 PM
Started new topic on Global warming, this will be fun. (watching you guys explain it that is)

You already made your mind up on that issue i think, i'll watch that topic from the sidelines.

All the facts are there if you want to look at them, i dont have time to look up data etc to quote, it is all there tho.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: 08087 on June 03, 2012, 09:07:22 PM
Ah come on, the topic info just fell into my lap from a few thousand years ago, surely you have some idea of what caused the global warming, climate change back then.

I look to you all for guidance as I can't think for the life of me what would have caused it.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on June 03, 2012, 09:36:41 PM
A giant friggin' rock from the sky! The Earth then fell into an Ice Age from the soot in the atmosphere. We are on the stabilization side of that last Ice Age. Unfortunately we have run ramp-id for too long, and the next swing is all on us.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: 08087 on June 03, 2012, 10:56:40 PM
A giant friggin' rock from the sky! The Earth then fell into an Ice Age from the soot in the atmosphere. We are on the stabilization side of that last Ice Age. Unfortunately we have run ramp-id for too long, and the next swing is all on us.

I thought that was how we got Dino burgers! I doubt Dino's were roaming the earth 4-5,000 years ago. The Egyptians would have crapped their pants!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: wordslinger on June 04, 2012, 01:31:18 AM
...it was a normal temp here today...


..go figure...
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on June 04, 2012, 04:38:47 AM
I thought that was how we got Dino burgers! I doubt Dino's were roaming the earth 4-5,000 years ago. The Egyptians would have crapped their pants!

I don't know... I wasn't there that day. I was busy modding my wheel.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on June 04, 2012, 05:28:14 AM
(http://www.guy-sports.com/fun_pictures/proof_of_global_warming.jpg)


Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: wordslinger on June 05, 2012, 01:17:07 AM
...back on topic...

..looks like their wedding night to me!!!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on June 05, 2012, 01:56:32 AM
Getting warmer...
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: wordslinger on June 05, 2012, 01:58:38 AM
...its global...or should be, i reckon...
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: axy on June 07, 2012, 06:18:20 PM
In two days there will be a Gay Pride festival in 2nd largest Croatian city. (Split)
In the capital it has been going on for ten years now.

http://www.facebook.com/lgbt.pride.split (http://www.facebook.com/lgbt.pride.split)
http://www.facebook.com/events/362951597082945/ (http://www.facebook.com/events/362951597082945/)

Last year, in Split a big group of hooligans pretending to be "footbal fans" has attacted gay people in the streets.
The police arrested more than 300 of them.
This particular city and area around it is a strange mixture of people from surrounding hills (typically considered to be right-wing, religious, backward, not too educated, stubborn) and great people from the city itself, with a tradition of Mediterranean openness, hospitality and intelligence. Roman emperor Diocletian lived there when he retired, for example...

This is a big political issue because we had elections half a year ago and lefties are in power now, so many ministers will join the Pride this year, including the minister of interior affairs.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: ce on June 07, 2012, 06:39:49 PM
A fresh fruit fancier from Split
Couldn't tolerate Hillbilly sh**
She grabbed one by the neck
So his face she could wreck
As she busted his mouth with her tit
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: 08087 on June 07, 2012, 07:22:06 PM
This particular city and area around it is a strange mixture of people from surrounding hills (typically considered to be right-wing, religious, backward, not too educated, stubborn) and great people from the city itself, with a tradition of Mediterranean openness, hospitality and intelligence. Roman emperor Diocletian lived there when he retired, for example...

This is a big political issue because we had elections half a year ago and lefties are in power now, so many ministers will join the Pride this year, including the minister of interior affairs.

I love how you use a broad stroke when describing those from the hills as "typically considered to be right-wing, religious, backward, not too educated, stubborn" Is it only those that disagree with you that get labeled this way or is everyone from the hills this way, and how did you verify this? Sounds pretty closed minded to me that one would not consider their views as sincere to them.

And as for the "minister of interior affairs, is that the same as being in the closet? LOL!!!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: axy on June 07, 2012, 08:36:15 PM
I love how you use a broad stroke when describing those from the hills as "typically considered to be right-wing, religious, backward, not too educated, stubborn" Is it only those that disagree with you that get labeled this way or is everyone from the hills this way, and how did you verify this? Sounds pretty closed minded to me that one would not consider their views as sincere to them.

And as for the "minister of interior affairs, is that the same as being in the closet? LOL!!!


In countries where there is no dictatorship, "minister of internal affairs" is in fact a chief of police overseeing police force work, an independent figure. I hope you do not live in a dictatorship, or a country where one person is pulling all the strings because they generally do not have that figure in the government.

As for you being worried about anti-homo bigots, the people I am talking about are equal to hillbillies, rednecks or hicks, whatever you call them.
If you want to see pictures of those people attacking Gay Pride people, here are some pictures:

http://www.aktual.hr/Resource/CropAndResize?url=%257e%252fCms_Data%252fContents%252faktual%252fFolders%252fSlike%252fVIJESTI%252fOSTALO%252f%257econtents%252fTBBJWX2TW8A35MDS%252fgaypride-moskva-afp625.jpg&x=0&y=0&width=800&height=506&destWidth=612&destHeight=0 (http://www.aktual.hr/Resource/CropAndResize?url=%257e%252fCms_Data%252fContents%252faktual%252fFolders%252fSlike%252fVIJESTI%252fOSTALO%252f%257econtents%252fTBBJWX2TW8A35MDS%252fgaypride-moskva-afp625.jpg&x=0&y=0&width=800&height=506&destWidth=612&destHeight=0)

http://www.novilist.hr/var/novilist/storage/images/vijesti/hrvatska/bocama-kamenjem-petardama-i-uvredama-na-rivi-docekani-sudionici-gay-pridea/gay-pride-u-splitu-1-foto-ante-cizmic/552713-1-cro-HR/Gay-pride-u-Splitu-1-Foto-Ante-Cizmic_ca_large.jpg (http://www.novilist.hr/var/novilist/storage/images/vijesti/hrvatska/bocama-kamenjem-petardama-i-uvredama-na-rivi-docekani-sudionici-gay-pridea/gay-pride-u-splitu-1-foto-ante-cizmic/552713-1-cro-HR/Gay-pride-u-Splitu-1-Foto-Ante-Cizmic_ca_large.jpg)

http://static.nacional.hr/img/9a2b2f1d0f650d93fdcbc188d464b762_700x550.jpg (http://static.nacional.hr/img/9a2b2f1d0f650d93fdcbc188d464b762_700x550.jpg)

And my favorite: http://www.google.hr/imgres?start=98&hl=hr&client=opera&hs=VZk&sa=X&rls=en&channel=suggest&biw=1647&bih=967&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=VYlyOQhg_o3QXM:&imgrefurl=http://www.balconn.com/site/dnevnik/vijesti-aktivizam/934-i-ovakav-pride-je-pomakao-granice.html&docid=YhvG1pqinPSjmM&imgurl=http://www.balconn.com/site/images/stories/vijesti_aktivizam/split-pride-01.jpg&w=900&h=590&ei=4Q_RT4fvJ-W64AS_mZSMDw&zoom=1 (http://www.google.hr/imgres?start=98&hl=hr&client=opera&hs=VZk&sa=X&rls=en&channel=suggest&biw=1647&bih=967&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=VYlyOQhg_o3QXM:&imgrefurl=http://www.balconn.com/site/dnevnik/vijesti-aktivizam/934-i-ovakav-pride-je-pomakao-granice.html&docid=YhvG1pqinPSjmM&imgurl=http://www.balconn.com/site/images/stories/vijesti_aktivizam/split-pride-01.jpg&w=900&h=590&ei=4Q_RT4fvJ-W64AS_mZSMDw&zoom=1)

These guys are generally just a notch above monkies and they are preparing riots for the Pride next weekend again.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: 08087 on June 07, 2012, 09:48:24 PM
In countries where there is no dictatorship, "minister of internal affairs" is in fact a chief of police overseeing police force work, an independent figure. I hope you do not live in a dictatorship, or a country where one person is pulling all the strings because they generally do not have that figure in the government.

As for you being worried about anti-homo bigots, the people I am talking about are equal to hillbillies, rednecks or hicks, whatever you call them.
If you want to see pictures of those people attacking Gay Pride people, here are some pictures:

http://www.aktual.hr/Resource/CropAndResize?url=%257e%252fCms_Data%252fContents%252faktual%252fFolders%252fSlike%252fVIJESTI%252fOSTALO%252f%257econtents%252fTBBJWX2TW8A35MDS%252fgaypride-moskva-afp625.jpg&x=0&y=0&width=800&height=506&destWidth=612&destHeight=0 (http://www.aktual.hr/Resource/CropAndResize?url=%257e%252fCms_Data%252fContents%252faktual%252fFolders%252fSlike%252fVIJESTI%252fOSTALO%252f%257econtents%252fTBBJWX2TW8A35MDS%252fgaypride-moskva-afp625.jpg&x=0&y=0&width=800&height=506&destWidth=612&destHeight=0)

http://www.novilist.hr/var/novilist/storage/images/vijesti/hrvatska/bocama-kamenjem-petardama-i-uvredama-na-rivi-docekani-sudionici-gay-pridea/gay-pride-u-splitu-1-foto-ante-cizmic/552713-1-cro-HR/Gay-pride-u-Splitu-1-Foto-Ante-Cizmic_ca_large.jpg (http://www.novilist.hr/var/novilist/storage/images/vijesti/hrvatska/bocama-kamenjem-petardama-i-uvredama-na-rivi-docekani-sudionici-gay-pridea/gay-pride-u-splitu-1-foto-ante-cizmic/552713-1-cro-HR/Gay-pride-u-Splitu-1-Foto-Ante-Cizmic_ca_large.jpg)

http://static.nacional.hr/img/9a2b2f1d0f650d93fdcbc188d464b762_700x550.jpg (http://static.nacional.hr/img/9a2b2f1d0f650d93fdcbc188d464b762_700x550.jpg)

And my favorite: http://www.google.hr/imgres?start=98&hl=hr&client=opera&hs=VZk&sa=X&rls=en&channel=suggest&biw=1647&bih=967&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=VYlyOQhg_o3QXM:&imgrefurl=http://www.balconn.com/site/dnevnik/vijesti-aktivizam/934-i-ovakav-pride-je-pomakao-granice.html&docid=YhvG1pqinPSjmM&imgurl=http://www.balconn.com/site/images/stories/vijesti_aktivizam/split-pride-01.jpg&w=900&h=590&ei=4Q_RT4fvJ-W64AS_mZSMDw&zoom=1 (http://www.google.hr/imgres?start=98&hl=hr&client=opera&hs=VZk&sa=X&rls=en&channel=suggest&biw=1647&bih=967&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=VYlyOQhg_o3QXM:&imgrefurl=http://www.balconn.com/site/dnevnik/vijesti-aktivizam/934-i-ovakav-pride-je-pomakao-granice.html&docid=YhvG1pqinPSjmM&imgurl=http://www.balconn.com/site/images/stories/vijesti_aktivizam/split-pride-01.jpg&w=900&h=590&ei=4Q_RT4fvJ-W64AS_mZSMDw&zoom=1)

These guys are generally just a notch above monkies and they are preparing riots for the Pride next weekend again.

I have no desire t see photos of these people, I'm just pointing out how they were "all" labeled as right wing, religious, backward, not too educated and stuburn. Glad I don't live in the hills.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: axy on June 07, 2012, 10:09:37 PM
Not all. I said that in that particular city there are some great people who are not these illiterate backward thugs planning to throw Molotov cocktails at gays.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: 08087 on June 07, 2012, 10:53:23 PM
Not all. I said that in that particular city there are some great people who are not these illiterate backward thugs planning to throw Molotov cocktails at gays.




This particular city and area around it is a strange mixture of people from surrounding hills (typically considered to be right-wing, religious, backward, not too educated, stubborn)

Sorry I read this as meaning everyone from the hills are as you described above, not sure how I mistook it.
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on June 07, 2012, 11:20:20 PM
Sorry I read this as meaning everyone from the hills are as you described above, not sure how I mistook it.

You all can't trick ME. All hillbillies are fags. I Saw Deliverance. So it is really more of a case of mountain fags vs valley fags. It's really just an excuse to grope each other in a giant street orgy.
Thought you would get that one by huh? I woke up early today... :-*
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on June 09, 2012, 07:50:34 AM
How do you silence a crying baby fag?










Stick a pacifier up his ass!!!!!!


on topic..
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: axy on June 09, 2012, 06:49:01 PM
Everything was peaceful, not because hillbillies suddenly became fag-lovers, but because there were 300 gays in the Pride walk and 900 special police forces protecting them.

Some pics from SG: http://www.spaceghetto.st/?q=content/split-pride-2012 (http://www.spaceghetto.st/?q=content/split-pride-2012)
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: 08087 on June 09, 2012, 07:34:04 PM
How do you silence a crying baby fag?










Stick a pacifier up his ass!!!!!!


on topic..


That's not a pacifer, thats a fist!
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: wordslinger on June 09, 2012, 10:58:56 PM
thats a fist!


..this is where i respectfully bow out of this thread...


                                      8)





peace
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: Vivo on June 11, 2012, 08:57:23 AM
Gay Guns


(http://www.gunspictures.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/pink_gun_gunspictures-190x190.jpg)
Title: Re: Not looking to start a riot
Post by: zombie on June 12, 2012, 03:17:08 AM
Gay machine gun... Skeet skeet skeet skeet click