Killington Pride weekend

[rogman]

A party? That's easy, I'm in!

As for this nonsense about the LGBT community threatening "traditional marriage" (basically code words for denying a particular group their rights via hate, fear, and bigotry),this is the BS part, what RIGHTS are being denied? none priveleges may not be extended simply because qualifications have not been met... that is the issue... what are teh qualifications for specific benefits... Clouding the issue with the "code word bla bla fear hate bigotry bla bla" is simply a way to rally the useful idiots... it is important to remember that "traditional marriage" up until recently was a contract, where a woman's legal rights were transferred from the father to the husband. And no, this isn't about sex either, get your minds out of the gutter. It is about basic human rights and decency.

So if an individual doesn't meet your "qualifications", it is permissible to deny them specific rights and benefits? So for example, if they are black, it is permissible to deny them the right to sit in the front of the bus?

[Bubba]

how does "bisexual" fit in with " born that way" ? are child molesters " born that way"? Zoophiliac's " born that way"? rapists? polygamists? is every " deviant" (departing from usual or accepted standards, esp. in social or sexual behavior.) behavior now acceptable? if so doesn't that eliminate any type of social mores and erode society itself? does it not create a "free for all" collapse of civilization eventually?

which leads me back to : If everyone were gay the world would be a much better place... In about 100 years...

why is everyone avoiding the real question at hand?

Well, when you start off by calling being gay "deviant behavior" and including it with child molestation, etc., then the discussion is kind of closed, isn't it? Homosexuality is, from what we know today, a naturally occurring trait in a certain percentage of the population. As long as the behavior occurs between two consenting adults, it has no negative impact. And, if two adults love each other, who are we to judge?

[Nyknicks4412]

.

[MrsG]

why is everyone avoiding the real question at hand?

Is homosexuality contagious even in the cold?

OMG, that made me laugh Reno - best post of the thread

By the way, I'd be here celebrating with friends if we were going to be here . . . some of you need to

[freeski]

If any of you do go just be careful. For example, if you are standing at the bar and someone asks "can I push in your stool?" it may not mean what you think. Also, never get involved with a game called "just the tip" it is never just the tip. Just a couple of things to keep in mind.

[shortski]

Is this information from first hand experience...just askn'.

[RENO]

What about if I want to have 10 wives?

What about if I want to have a husband and a wife?

PolyGAYmy?

[MrsG]

If any of you do go just be careful. For example, if you are standing at the bar and someone asks "can I push in your stool?" it may not mean what you think. Also, never get involved with a game called "just the tip" it is never just the tip. Just a couple of things to keep in mind.

Most inappropriate post EVER on this site . . . even Humpty's posts don't come close

[madhatter]

how does "bisexual" fit in with " born that way" ? are child molesters " born that way"? Zoophiliac's " born that way"? rapists? polygamists? is every " deviant" (departing from usual or accepted standards, esp. in social or sexual behavior.) behavior now acceptable? if so doesn't that eliminate any type of social mores and erode society itself? does it not create a "free for all" collapse of civilization eventually?

which leads me back to : If everyone were gay the world would be a much better place... In about 100 years...

why is everyone avoiding the real question at hand?

Well, when you start off by calling being gay "deviant behavior" tell me how it 's not "departing from usual or accepted standards" or do you not understand the definition of deviant even when it follows the word? rhetorical, I know you chose to ignore the reality in favor of your argument... and including it with child molestation,gee the dads used to sell em or give em away gladly, as a far more common and accepted standard than homosexuality, still do in many places etc., then the discussion is kind of closed, isn't it? apparently your eyes and mind are, be interested to see you step outta this one... Homosexuality is, from what we know today, a naturally occurring trait in a certain percentage of the population. so are a whole host of other birth defects, is that your point? As long as the behavior occurs between two consenting adults, it has no negative impact. And, if two adults love each other, who are we to judge?no one is "judging", there were no tax benefits or any other benefits allotted for, provided for or intended for gays who co-habitate or share " love" any more than there are for single people, couples who for whatever reason co-habitate and "share love" but are not married etc... it's not like they are being singled out, they simply aren't being added, despite their insistence...summed up: yer gay? who cares? oh you want a reward for that? no...

calling BS... I SPECIFICALLY included the exact definition of "deviant" after the word...so gays are "born gay" but pedhohile, zoophiles, XXX-philes are not? THAT was an important part of the question... stop w the PC useful idiot control propaganda, it carries no weight with me...


so again:

is every " deviant" (departing from usual or accepted standards, esp. in social or sexual behavior.) behavior now acceptable? if so doesn't that eliminate any type of social mores and erode society itself? does it not create a "free for all" collapse of civilization eventually?

[freeski]

Is this information from first hand experience...just askn'.

My only homosexual experience was in Montreal in 1984. A guy was hitting on me and put his hand on my ass. I gave him an upper cut (admittedly a sucker punch) and knocked him out cold. The police came, but when I told them he touched me and others backed me up they did not press charges.

[Bubba]

So if I wanted to marry my sister it's cool right? Is she a good looking chick and good in bed?

What about if I want to have 10 wives? One is generally enough. How much nagging can you take?

What about if I want to have a husband and a wife? Just makes your affair more legitimate.

It's all in the name of love...

Seriously, if you want to say it's a slippery slope, just say so. But, if society evolves toward multi-person relationships and it's all among consenting adults, then that is what society will evolve to. The right or wrong of it is a judgment call. We developed to where we are today as a result of many factors, including religion and asset ownership. But there was at least one religion we all know - Mormon - where multiple wives were the norm and the religion only disavowed that in order for Utah to become a state. There is no absolute right or wrong when it comes to love and behavior between or among consenting adults and society will evolve however it may.

[Bubba]

how does "bisexual" fit in with " born that way" ? are child molesters " born that way"? Zoophiliac's " born that way"? rapists? polygamists? is every " deviant" (departing from usual or accepted standards, esp. in social or sexual behavior.) behavior now acceptable? if so doesn't that eliminate any type of social mores and erode society itself? does it not create a "free for all" collapse of civilization eventually?

which leads me back to : If everyone were gay the world would be a much better place... In about 100 years...

why is everyone avoiding the real question at hand?

Well, when you start off by calling being gay "deviant behavior" tell me how it 's not "departing from usual or accepted standards" or do you not understand the definition of deviant even when it follows the word? rhetorical, I know you chose to ignore the reality in favor of your argument... and including it with child molestation,gee the dads used to sell em or give em away gladly, as a far more common and accepted standard than homosexuality, still do in many places etc., then the discussion is kind of closed, isn't it? apparently your eyes and mind are, be interested to see you step outta this one... Homosexuality is, from what we know today, a naturally occurring trait in a certain percentage of the population. so are a whole host of other birth defects, is that your point? As long as the behavior occurs between two consenting adults, it has no negative impact. And, if two adults love each other, who are we to judge?no one is "judging", there were no tax benefits or any other benefits allotted for, provided for or intended for gays who co-habitate or share " love" any more than there are for single people, couples who for whatever reason co-habitate and "share love" but are not married etc... it's not like they are being singled out, they simply aren't being added, despite their insistence...summed up: yer gay? who cares? oh you want a reward for that? no...

calling BS... I SPECIFICALLY included the exact definition of "deviant" after the word...so gays are "born gay" but pedhohile, zoophiles, XXX-philes are not? THAT was an important part of the question... stop w the PC useful idiot control propaganda, it carries no weight with me...


so again:

is every " deviant" (departing from usual or accepted standards, esp. in social or sexual behavior.) behavior now acceptable? if so doesn't that eliminate any type of social mores and erode society itself? does it not create a "free for all" collapse of civilization eventually?

So now I'm not sure whether your argument against gay marriage is a moral one or an economic one. Are you against civil unions as well as gay marriage?

[freeski]

If any of you do go just be careful. For example, if you are standing at the bar and someone asks "can I push in your stool?" it may not mean what you think. Also, never get involved with a game called "just the tip" it is never just the tip. Just a couple of things to keep in mind.

Most inappropriate post EVER on this site . . . even Humpty's posts don't come close

What about the Humpty Habitrail post which I thought was funny. Wasn't that close. I did not mean to offend you and I admit it was a bad post.

[madhatter]

A party? That's easy, I'm in!

As for this nonsense about the LGBT community threatening "traditional marriage" (basically code words for denying a particular group their rights via hate, fear, and bigotry),this is the BS part, what RIGHTS are being denied? none privileges may not be extended simply because qualifications have not been met... that is the issue... what are the qualifications for specific benefits... Clouding the issue with the "code word bla bla fear hate bigotry bla bla" is simply a way to rally the useful idiots... it is important to remember that "traditional marriage" up until recently was a contract, where a woman's legal rights were transferred from the father to the husband. And no, this isn't about sex either, get your minds out of the gutter. It is about basic human rights and decency.

So if an individual doesn't meet your "qualifications", it is permissible to deny them specific rights and benefits? So for example, if they are black, it is permissible to deny them the right to sit in the front of the bus?

no, see below regarding benefits allotted etc... and stop w the BS "your" qualifications I didn't write the law as it pertains to marriage benefits and tax status nor did I factor into the intent of said law as it was written when it was written, simply more strawhatter tactics in a weak attempt to bolster your argument... sorry there;s no there , there...

is there anyone capable of using facts to make a point? or is it simply that there are no facts to support the point you are trying to make?

[madhatter]

how does "bisexual" fit in with " born that way" ? are child molesters " born that way"? Zoophiliac's " born that way"? rapists? polygamists? is every " deviant" (departing from usual or accepted standards, esp. in social or sexual behavior.) behavior now acceptable? if so doesn't that eliminate any type of social mores and erode society itself? does it not create a "free for all" collapse of civilization eventually?

which leads me back to : If everyone were gay the world would be a much better place... In about 100 years...

why is everyone avoiding the real question at hand?

Well, when you start off by calling being gay "deviant behavior" tell me how it 's not "departing from usual or accepted standards" or do you not understand the definition of deviant even when it follows the word? rhetorical, I know you chose to ignore the reality in favor of your argument... and including it with child molestation,gee the dads used to sell em or give em away gladly, as a far more common and accepted standard than homosexuality, still do in many places etc., then the discussion is kind of closed, isn't it? apparently your eyes and mind are, be interested to see you step outta this one... Homosexuality is, from what we know today, a naturally occurring trait in a certain percentage of the population. so are a whole host of other birth defects, is that your point? As long as the behavior occurs between two consenting adults, it has no negative impact. And, if two adults love each other, who are we to judge?no one is "judging", there were no tax benefits or any other benefits allotted for, provided for or intended for gays who co-habitate or share " love" any more than there are for single people, couples who for whatever reason co-habitate and "share love" but are not married etc... it's not like they are being singled out, they simply aren't being added, despite their insistence...summed up: yer gay? who cares? oh you want a reward for that? no...

calling BS... I SPECIFICALLY included the exact definition of "deviant" after the word...so gays are "born gay" but pedhohile, zoophiles, XXX-philes are not? THAT was an important part of the question... stop w the PC useful idiot control propaganda, it carries no weight with me...


so again:

is every " deviant" (departing from usual or accepted standards, esp. in social or sexual behavior.) behavior now acceptable? if so doesn't that eliminate any type of social mores and erode society itself? does it not create a "free for all" collapse of civilization eventually?

So now I'm not sure whether your argument against gay marriage is a moral one or an economic one. Are you against civil unions as well as gay marriage?

I'm asking a question, not advocating for one side or the other, I'm also trying to leave the economic factor out of it as that will soon divert the argument to a "political" one... but I'm sure you are quite clear on where I stand when it comes to expansion of the state and its dependents...but is the argument not two sided? the advocates say who is anyone to deny love ( and economic benefits) using the tear jerker argument to manipulate the useful idiots to vote based on "feelings" that simply don;t pan out w reality...this argument is just one of many designed to make the opposition out haters of " whatever wonderful thing no one could ever be against" and ignoring the actual argument of the opposition altogether...

similar to whats happening here:

your rules

you said deviant

argument is closed

etc etc etc





so again:

is every " deviant" (departing from usual or accepted standards, esp. in social or sexual behavior.) behavior now acceptable? if so doesn't that eliminate any type of social mores and erode society itself? does it not create a "free for all" collapse of civilization eventually?[/quote]


we can talk about the possible economic impacts of that once we've crossed the bridge above...