Reply With Quote
So the US Military is not part of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, and the President of the United States is not the Commander In Chief of the US Military?
translation
you're right...
So the US Military is not part of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, and the President of the United States is not the Commander In Chief of the US Military?
so you can't answer if it would be right or not.
So the US Military is not part of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, and the President of the United States is not the Commander In Chief of the US Military?
You are changing the description. Not public but when representing the company (at work, in uniform)
do I think it would be OK to fire 2 gay guys for swapping spit right there in the workplace?
yeah, I think it would be OK.
I think a company the freedom to decide who they want to represent their company. What they do in their public life was not brought up.
And I could also make a good case for firing a heterosexual couple doing the same thing.
Of course. This is a non-issue and has no bearing on the legal definition of marriage. But it provided an opportunity for someone to reference NAMBLA and another to condemn "bigots" from their WiFi throne.
Manny calling us bigots on a daily basis is nothing new. This gay marriage issue seems especially important to him, though. Maybe he wants to be the one in white at his wedding?
really, i still am so baffled at the "biological" and "genetic" arguments being made here. with all that is going on with brain mapping, neuroscience studies and the discoveries we are making about the brain regarding behavior, including such attributes of the brain referred to as 'plasticity', how can anyone create any sort of definitive premise one way or the other. the fluidity of behavior is not so black and white and so to make it that way, for the sake of convenience in an argument, is just erroneous. still, the complexity of behavior appears to be too much for some, who would rather just confine the brain and mind to narrow and atavisitic perceptions of the world.
The primary reason these facets of the argument came about is because conservatives need a reason to dislike sexuality. If they were to accept that people are actually born gay then they come accross as bigots. So now they are hanging on to the "prove it's biological" schtick to give them cover.
Firstly, no, you didn't. That scenario is an obvious work of fiction.
Secondly, anal sex, giving and receiving, is not a uniquely sexual male practice. Deciding that you don't want to engage in anal sex is not the same thing as deciding that you aren't attracted to other men. Plenty of heterosexual men women in the ass and/or are ed in the ass by their wives/girlfriends. And plenty of sexual men find anal sex as unappealing as you apparently do. sexuality (or heterosexuality, or bisexuality) is NOT about sex.
Lastly, even if the above scenario were remotely true, that would be an example of recognizing your existing motivations, not of making a conscious choice in determining those motivations.
Good for you.
You also disagree with empirical research.
Jack...
Have to say I agree here. Some men do it to women also, I find that disgusting as I bet you do to.
Dubya did it to all of us for 8 years
The next in line for "human rights" as defined in the Cons ution by a
Liberal judge.
"Man/Boy Love: Propaganda versus reality"
http://www.nambla.org/To explain man/boy love today, one must first explain what it is not: It is not what you view on television or read in newspapers. It’s not what you hear on Oprah or Geraldo, nor is it the propaganda put out by police and politicians.
It’s the love of a man for a boy, and of a boy for a man. Enjoyable, consensual, beautiful.
xray's late too the party and showed up emtpy-brained as usual.
Oh, Gee! Really?
Jack does not find anal sex disgusting. He says he does because he's super ashamed of the fact that when he closes his eyes at night, he can't help but dream of big s and leather collars.
CC you can try to compare what you guys want to DADT but the context is completely different. If Clinton today advocated keeping DADT instead of repealing it then yes, he would be a bigot too.
If you don't like being called a bigot, don't hold bigot views.
Was that actual testimony for the ban in this specific case?
RIF
Why are you visiting the NAMBLA site and encouraging others to, x?
Seriously, why are you opponents so afraid of gays' getting married?
Why are you so in favor of it. Are you in love?
I'm in favor of equality across the spectrum. That is why I'm for it.Why are you so in favor of it. Are you in love?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions