Hang in there Larry! Let's show how perverted & hypocritical you Repubs are!

[Plane]

<<Odviously due to prejudice against twelve year olds , who thereby are not receveing equal justice under the law.>>

If you feel that strongly about it, why not join the Children's Rights movement?  Or get on the real leading edge - - NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association.







(for the sake of sirs and others of the irony-immune persuasion, I had better point out that this is a JOKE.  Not that they'll believe it's a joke, but it's a joke nevertheless)

It is the same joke that is being offered seriously as unequal protection of law.

[sirs]

<<Odviously due to prejudice against twelve year olds , who thereby are not receveing equal justice under the law.>>

If you feel that strongly about it, why not join the Children's Rights movement?  Or get on the real leading edge - - NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association. (for the sake of sirs and others of the irony-immune persuasion, I had better point out that this is a JOKE.)

To be bluntly honest Tee, most of your rhetorical dren is a joke

[Michael Tee]

<<To be bluntly honest Tee, most of your rhetorical dren is a joke>>

I'll be bluntly honest too, sirs - - irony isn't the ONLY thing you're immune to.

[sirs]

 

[Xavier_Onassis]

I continue to maintain that anyone of any sexual preference that solicits sex from a stranger in a bathroom is at least somewhat sick.

[Knutey]

I continue to maintain that anyone of any sexual preference that solicits sex from a stranger in a bathroom is at least somewhat sick.

Yes they are!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6bW5iarpPg

[Michael Tee]

<<I continue to maintain that anyone of any sexual preference that solicits sex from a stranger in a bathroom is at least somewhat sick.>>

I would go with "adventurous" or even "reckless" before "sick," because "sick" sounds almost judgmental, and in purely personal matters such as an individual's sex life, there's really no place for judgment.  Who's to judge?

Old Larry can fuck hamsters for all I care (well, OK, consenting hamsters) but I think what most people would object to is the rank hypocrisy of a guy like that, to join an anti-gay ("family values") party and publicly espouse its homophobic agenda while attempting to conceal his own homosexuality.

[BT]

Old Larry can fuck hamsters for all I care (well, OK, consenting hamsters) but I think what most people would object to is the rank hypocrisy of a guy like that, to join an anti-gay ("family values") party and publicly espouse its homophobic agenda while attempting to conceal his own homosexuality.

You keep insisting the DoMA is anti-gay. That's like saying dui laws are anti-Irish. or lending laws are anti-semitic.

[Michael Tee]

<<You keep insisting the DoMA is anti-gay. That's like saying dui laws are anti-Irish. or lending laws are anti-semitic.>>

My comments are directed to the campaign to amend the Constitution to define marriage as a man-woman relationship.  There is only one possible reason for such a campaign and that is to deny same-sex marriage rights to gays if in fact they would otherwise be enshrined in the Constitution.

My comments are also directed to "family values" campaigns, which seem to be mainly, if not exclusively, the hallmark of Republican candidates, and were certainly relied on heavily by our pal Larry.  "Family values" is code for anti-gay and anti-same-sex-marriage.  You can parse this and tweeze it as long as you like, but at the end of the day, that is the only meaning it has for most normal people.

[BT]

My comments are also directed to "family values" campaigns, which seem to be mainly, if not exclusively, the hallmark of Republican candidates, and were certainly relied on heavily by our pal Larry.  "Family values" is code for anti-gay and anti-same-sex-marriage.  You can parse this and tweeze it as long as you like, but at the end of the day, that is the only meaning it has for most normal people.

If Republicans own "family values" does that mean democrats are anti-family?

[Michael Tee]

<<If Republicans own "family values" does that mean democrats are anti-family?>>

Only if you take their code words at face value, which would, IMHO,  be very foolish.  What it means is that Republicans have figured out that Democrats are vulnerable on their enlightened policies of tolerance and see therein an opening to the homophobic and sexually repressive  segments of the electorate, which they have now effectively captured.

[BT]

but if you look at the way family services are administered you will see that the married poor are pushed to the back of the line. Many women are advised to file for divorce if they want to fast track services such as food stamps and medicaid. One would think the dems would want to own aid to poor families but their policy seems to break up families.

So i ask again does that make the dems anti-family?

[Michael Tee]

<<but if you look at the way family services are administered you will see that the married poor are pushed to the back of the line. Many women are advised to file for divorce if they want to fast track services such as food stamps and medicaid. One would think the dems would want to own aid to poor families but their policy seems to break up families.>>

Uh, call me confused, but I thought that there was a Republican administration in Washington for quite a few years now, also in many states as well.  How is any of this the fault of the Democrats and what does this possibly have to do with the issue of Republican homophobia, which is at the heart of the thread?

<<So i ask again does that make the dems anti-family?>>

Well may you ask, I am asking, what the hell does any of this have to do with the Democrats?

[BT]

Uh, call me confused, but I thought that there was a Republican administration in Washington for quite a few years now, also in many states as well.  How is any of this the fault of the Democrats and what does this possibly have to do with the issue of Republican homophobia, which is at the heart of the thread?

So when the dems say they are for working families an the working poor and they pass legislation designed to helpthe same and fully take credit forr that legislation are they not to be elp responsible for not clearly specifying how that program should be administered?

And i think the govt should get out of the marriage business altogether. I certainly don't see where a federal definition of marriage is any different than laying out the prerequisites to form an s corporation.

[Plane]

"Family values" being the code words for homophobia based policy.

What is the code to use when what you mean is "Family values"?

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////