Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
and omg cannedxxpear, in your pic, where you get your purple tutu thing?
In case anyone is wondering, the town I referred to is this one:
A small town in England
Unless IAB`s autocensor breaks urls as well...let`s see.
The name is too old to be certain of the meaning, although `thorpe` means `settlement` and 923 years ago there was an `e` at the beginning of the name. Yes, we have written records that old (and older) here. Likely meanings are (from Danish) "Settlement on a bend of the river Esk" and (from Norse) "Skuma`s Settlement".
...after the apocalypse, the few scattered groups of surviving humans struggled for survival against the most despised of insects, now mutated into giants the size of chickens - the roosterroaches!
aaarrggh! A swarm of roosterroaches, OMG!
I`d prefer the people who run IAB to have enough decency to be honest about what they have their system do. Rather than changing words and passing the result off as something a poster has written, they should have their system insert "<CENSORED>" instead. At least then it would be clear who wrote what.
How many young children want to drive? Quite a few, I`d say. I certainly did. So should we allow 6 year olds to drive on public roads if they want to?
There are genuine and relevant differences between humans based on age. Simple numbers, such as 18, are a crude and inaccurate approximation, but the differences are real.
There are also genuine and relevant differences between humans and other animals.
The same differences do not apply between adult humans.
Therefore homosexuality is not "very much the same as" beastiality or paedophilia.
Therefore your argument is at best merely specious and it fails.
You`re the one showing your ignorance, and you`re a hypocrite. You say people should be able to love whoever they want when it suits your beliefs, I`m sure Pedophiles think exactly the way homosexuals do "Why can`t I just love who I want?".
If you`re going to be for free love, you should go all the way with it, not "People should be able to love whoever they want, except for..."
You can say that it`s different, but it`s very much the same, a group of people convinced that they truly love another group of people.
Maybe the killing was done in valor to save a mate, to gain a purple heart or something?
Dont even get me started.
Who is going to post stuff on one trivial website and be worried about it appearing on another trivial website?
@kikayoaka: I was hoping you`d respond with something puerile like "you must be pro-bestiality and pro-paedophilia!". It just shows your ignorance. Animals and children do not have the ability to give full, informed consent. Therefore neither of those is acceptable under the rule I stated.
Animals may well qualify, but until we can get the translation right, we can`t really judge it well enough (it`s hard to understand "no means no" from a horse). But then again, if you kill them and eat them, how can you be against drating them? Surely the killing is worse. I do neither; the killing/eating or the drating.
As for children, there is an age where someone becomes responsible for themselves. Personally, I think 18 (or as some crazy places have it, 21), is way too late. Maturity and puberty should go hand in hand. It`s 16 for sex in the UK. It really should be "as soon as your body is adult, whatever age that happens to you personally, we expect you to act like one; make sure you`re ready for it".
So neither of those is like homosexual relationships, which is just two people living with who they want, and doing what they want with their wieners. Why do you care?
But, you are wrong because individual rights should always trump whatever somebody else`s religious views say. Should an islamic country tell you that you can`t drink alcohol even if you`re not islamic? Should bacon be illegal because jews don`t like pork? Why should your particular religion affect what somebody else wants to do with their penises?
That "unless" clause doesn`t belong there; it`s nobody`s business EVEN IF irreparable harm is caused to one or more parties involved, so long as it is consentual; a person of adult age is responsible for themself, and any harm to themselves that they consent to is nobody else`s business, and nobody has the right to protect them from themselves.
Otherwise, wouldn`t the surgeon or the peircing artist be guilty of a crime; surgical scars and holes through the ear could arguably be described as "harm".
ANYTHING done between consentual adults, that does not negatively affect anyone else who does not consent to be involved, should be the business of nobody else but those involved.
While you could argue that it MAY cause harm to one of the parties, but there is about as much proof of that as there is that homosexuality causes harm.
But don`t get me wrong, I don`t support Bestiality or Adults having relationships with children. It just seems kind of hypocritical, I mean, love is love right?
Though I could be wrong, maybe you do support Bestiality and NAMBLA, I`m just assuming you don`t.
while you can go on and on about how someone cant do this and that,YOU JUST CANT BAN SOMETHING YOU HAVE/CAN HAVE from the people you dont like or agree with.
Anti-Gays: I`m not educated in my religion enough to provide examples why homosexuality is wrong other than "cuz god says so", though I can`t even quote scripture to backup that statement.
You`re all basically just saying: I`m right because I said so, and my opinion is the best.
What if straights weren`t allowed to marry and gays were? How would you feel if the table was turned?
Love knows no gender (:
If you want to get personal, you can try, by all means. I won`t stop you. However, all you do is provide ample evidence to your true character. You can claim that I am too young to understand the complexities of your nature, but I`ll have to counter with saying you`re too old to think you are so wise or complex.
Also, it has long been my belief that the younger the person, the better the judge of character as a whole; despite an inability to intellectualize the reasoning. Not nearly as many prejudices clouding your judgment.
Again, this wasn`t about you and your pride in either yourself or your nation. "It ain`t all about you. That`s vanity."
"Lighthouses are more helpful then churches." - Benjamin Franklin
*coughs* Since when does allowing for gay marriage to be recognized by the government so that gay couples can have the same rights as heterosexual couples mean that the government is forcing churches to marry them? I`m an atheist and as such would never be allowed to marry within a Catholic church, unless I changed my ways and completed classes. Churches don`t have to condone or conduct gay marriages. The only thing wanted here is equality in the eyes of the government - not in the eyes of your god or the church.
Um... because... you`re... already effeminate enough to satisfy her...?
Some possible reasons:
i) Religion.ii) Misunderstood religion.
iii) Projecting their own mind onto others, i.e. imagining themselves doing it, finding the idea disgusting and projecting that disgust onto others. It`s like me and cooked cheese. The smell makes me feel sick. Slimy, stinking cack - *to me*. It would be easy to overlook that part of it and say "cooked cheese is disgusting".
It`s often impossible to tell up front, so people aren`t always going to realise unless you tell them. If some guy flirts with you, just politely tell him you`re straight. No fuss, no drama.
"i understand why a gay marriage shouldn`t be legalized. By all means civil unions i agree but to force churchs to do something they don`t believe in goes against the very thing this debate fights for."
The questions there are "what is marriage?" and "what should marriage be?" Religious? Political? Legal? Financial? All of the above? It wasn`t always religious in the past.
Here in the UK, it`s all been quietly handled by avoiding the contentious word "marriage". Civil partnerships are the same thing(*), but avoiding that word.
We could use "wedding" to refer to everything, as that`s nothing to do with religion. It`s from the OE `weddian`, meaning "to vow, to pledge".
* They`re enacted by signing vows rather than speaking them, but that`s just a reflection of modern literacy as opposed to past illiteracy. Speaking the vows would probably count by itself, given UK law, but no-one`s tested that.
"coz its fudgeen disgusting"
Or because narrowminded people like you are still around, perhaps?
coz its fudgeen disgusting
Might explain the reason for the discharge.
Also at 18-29 you certainly haven`t lived long enough to truly be a great judge of character, Especially mine. Maddog made yet another anti-US statement, I rebutted it. That`s all.
Um. no. About 4000 years out, that was Moses.
Marriage is a civil agreement that some people choose to do with a religious service. That`s all. Gay people, like me, just want the same as straight people; the right to have that civil agreement without prejudice, and to have that religious service with any church that is willing. We`re not forcing anyone to participate.
Wow and here I`ve been hearing the guy loved everyone. False advertising if you ask me. :(
and thanks to pariahnola and bumbleBB for keeping the peace. Not a lot of people do that, you two are awesome, cheers :)
so very true.
And Nido, that is freaky as hell but it made me lol
Anyway, my point is, unless gay people actually seriously have an effect on you, which I seriously doubt they do, why don`t you all grow up and let other people live the way they want to live.
this world should be not be a place for discrimination against something an individual sees as different but a place for love and respect for one another.
And to the anti-gay "Christians" on this thread... please start acting more Christ-like.
Most...unique offering I`ve ever seen outside the flowers and angel statue group.
What about those of us who are neither anti-gay nor pro-gay?
He didn`t. He claimed that he used to be homosexual. Totally different thing. "the queer community" is a group some homosexuals choose to join, not all homosexuals.
The graveyard down the street used to be my thinking/writing/journalling spot. It was so calm...
Elaborate, if you think you`re an expert?
As for ChristianU2b, I have some very interesting thoughts about sexual development, in both physical and orientation manners. As a teen, people will experiment, and will find out what their preferences are. Mine are mostly homosexual, yours are now mostly hetero. I don`t think you `used to be` gay, as it is not a choice, it is just part of who you are. If you truly were, then you would still be gay, and are probably in denial. If you definitely are NOT now, then you probably never were, and were likely finding out for yourself where your preferences lay.
Quit claiming to be a "former" part of the queer community. It`s true what they say: Once queer, always queer. I was in denial as a teenager too, mostly based on my religious upbringing. Now I embrace it fully.
I`d also like to state that the concept of "war" as we know it in human history originally started as small-scale raiding and had no political concept until... well, the rise of politics.
So, if your God exists, he didn`t invent men and women so daddy could go fight in wars. Also, Garden of Eden, biblical mythos, etc. Your statement is fallible and wrong.
Word for the wise: troll logically, young padwan.
Actually... it IS the saddest tombstone I`ve seen today.
Me and graveyards see each other more often than not. Great spots to chill.
The word "homosexual" and the concept of being "gay" is new. I assure you this.
Until the late 1800`s, there were gay acts. There were romantic relationships between women. There were men sleeping with men. But they were not considered gay. They were considered as individual acts of sex. --------------------------------------------------
Wrong...well partially anyway..about the individal acts of sex. Achilles and Patroclus where two ancient Greek lovers...however..due to the nature of Greek culture at the time it wasnt anything out of the ordinary (for ancient Greece anyway). Historically if you even admitted being gay terrible things would happen to you. Life in prison..excecution etc. Better to admit to a single act and repent than be loud and proud. You can blame the church for that one. Bloody hel..it happens today still. Look at Iran. Th
Go on, tell me where. Chapter and verse, please. Preferably with the original language (which isn`t English, obviously).
I can use your own holy texts to prove you`re wrong about how Christians should view homosexuality. I`m not the only person, either - I noticed Blakcat71388 succinctly making the same point.
Basically, you`re wrong. Even within the context of your own religion, you`re wrong firstly because the translations you read are wrong and secondly because you`re contradicting yourself concerning Christian adherence to Mosaic law without even knowing that you`re doing so.
If you do rule out Mosaic law on the basis that Jesus brought humanity a new covenant with God, you`re left with a Greek word that doesn`t exist outside that one letter of Paul`s. So what does it mean? No-one really knows. Paul wasn`t Jesus or god, anyway.
Christians should know more about their own religion than atheists do.
wait, wait, wait...Tv AND the bible?? well its settled then. couldn`t be more wrong.
As for being looked at - soldiers aren`t delicate Victorian ladies who`ll have an attack of the vapours if a man merely looks at them. If someone is staring rudely, that can be dealt with like anything else. A reasonable "<name>, stop staring at my arse" should do the trick. Not a big deal, really.
The real issue is relationships between soldiers, especially of different ranks. That`s a major issue that would of course crop up a lot more with open homosexuality in the military.
Applaud a man who murders and yet punish him for love
And tis a sad tombstone.
Until the late 1800`s, there were gay acts. There were romantic relationships between women. There were men sleeping with men. But they were not considered gay. They were considered as individual acts of sex.
I agree. I doubt it`s actually the real kid, and if it`s not, that`s sad. Imitating people shows you wanna be more like the person being imitated. Looks like the "stop calling me homo" kid has a groupie!
P.S. Welcome to I-A-B.
so says the man with Paul Rubins as his avitar.
But yeah, that is sad. I`m ashamed in all of these people saying such homophobic things.
I`m not sure "Massive" is the best word for that sentence. XD
"Don`t ask, don`t tell, enjoy eternity in hell."
I hope you`re kidding
Uhh... Greeks and Romans?""
Right so...to clarify here, I think what Blakcat is trying to say is that the idea of describing someone`s sexual preference in terms of `gay` or `straight` didn`t come up until the 1800s. There have certainly always been people who prefer romantic and sexual relations with others of the same sex, but `gay` as a social category distinguished from `straight` is only a very recent phenomenon. For those lovely Greeks and Romans, men taking on male partners were not `gay` or any other term to set them apart. That was just something that people did. You could just as easily separate people in terms of what sexual activities they enjoy, in which settings, or with which types of men or women - it`s important to remember that `sodomy` originally meant anal and oral sex between any two partners.
A great source for this sort of information is Eve Sedg
When considering the rights of one group, you can`t ignore the rights of another. Like the right to a comfortable, non-stared-at shower. If I took a shower with a bunch of women, I would get a boner. Simple as that. Don`t deny that gays would have the same result in a room full of naked men. If not, they`re fake gays.
Whoa whoa whoa.
They passed all of the physical and mental exams just like everyone else. Careful with your words there.
"That`s the problem. heterosexuals can just ge ta prostitute (although then we have STD problems) while homosexuals can fall in love WITHIN the military."
You know there are men prostitutes, right? And women in the military too?
Just an heads up... o_O
Uhh... Greeks and Romans?
Homosexuality wasn`t just invented by some bored guy in the 1800`s. Many ancient societies not only had it, but embraced it. Humans have found out that sex is great with many different kinds of people for a long long time.
P.S. Something tells me he isn`t really paying attention to the shellfish part of the bible... c:
Please, don`t start... I am no longer gay. I am VERY interested in girls now. Being gay is wrong. It was on Tv and in the Bible too.
The government labeled gay people as a security threat similar to communists. Gays were not able to have government jobs, either.
So, we`re immoral. Terrorists. Or sick.
Come on. Really?
No, it`s a load of bull.
That`s the problem. heterosexuals can just ge ta prostitute (although then we have STD problems) while homosexuals can fall in love WITHIN the military. unless you can keep your love life clear of anything military, then there will be problems.
but instead of trying to integrate the army with homos who probably have higher levels of the wrong hormones for their sex, which could possibly downplay on their fighting ability, let`s try to stop war. amiright?
That`s a purely military perspective. Now I`m not in the military, but that`s what I get from reading book like ALl Quiet on the Western Front and all that jazz.
although war altogether prob aint too good either.
That`s why I`m hoping it`s a parody account.
Your homework: Do a little research on the *actual* Bible texts that are being used against homosexuals now. What was the original word? What did it mean?
You may be surprised by what you find.
And I hope you`re also giving up shellfish and football, `cause God said those are bad, too. :3
I got booted from YouTube because of some stupid rule.
But in those days, the controversies weren`t as well documented for many reasons. Now we have 24/7 media coverage and the public still suffers from the Vietnam Syndrome, so we see the backlash from DADT as it stands today.
History has shown the military eventually comes around to changing to new social mores. It just shouldn`t be forced too quickly, as I have constantly been blathering. :-P
I hope that`s a parody account. XDDD
But on the bright side, homophobia is falling out of style. Our allies are coming out more and more frequently. I`m loving all the support.
Do away with DADT. ><
Which, of course is bull: if homosexuals can`t have sexual activity during their enlistment, heterosexuals shouldn`t be able to either. XD
"So that`s where the government can get involved. Make them aware a change should be made. Make deadlines. Offer more funding to do it quicker, threaten to remove funding if it is not done."
I like that idea.
I hadn`t thought of that situation, and I agree that could be easily done away with quickly. And the ramifications would be mild at best."
I don`t expect ANY soldier to be flaunting their sexuality, gay or straight or anything else, during active war-situations. Your private life has no place in that action.
Just like you don`t talk about that crap at a normal job. Military work is a job. Treat it as such.
The main reason I have a problem with DADT is that it pries into the life you have off-base. If you`re not in uniform 24/7, I don`t see why you can`t be dating whomever you want.
It`s not just DADT I have a problem with. As a solider, you can be discharged or tried in a Military Court of Law for having a threesome, for instance, even with your spouse`s consent and participation. It`s bull.
Its not surprising though that the military isn`t doing much on its own. It would take money and resources and as of now the status quo has gone relatively smoothly.
So that`s where the government can get involved. Make them aware a change should be made. Make deadlines. Offer more funding to do it quicker, threaten to remove funding if it is not done.
I`m not a huge fan of politicians getting their dirty fingers involved with the military, but for bipartisanship, and the good of the country, it appears to be the most viable option.
I`m just going to assume you`re ignorant of statistics on AIDS. A lot of people are, sadly. Many think that more homosexual people get it. Guess what? According to National Institutes of Health, National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease - December 2000,80% of HIV infections resulted from Heterosexual intercourse.Crakrjak:
There`s a difference between expressing your opinion and infringing upon other peoples` rights. `nuff said.
I hadn`t thought of that situation, and I agree that could be easily done away with quickly. And the ramifications would be mild at best.
I just fear that because of that situation, some more uninformed leaders will decide to make a wholesale change based completely on that situation.
But I have presented a viable option. Take it slowly. Make the military aware of the situation, and take time to prepare. And then if something goes awry the military can be held accountable. But if the repulsion of the policy is done within the next few years, and if backlash comes, not only will it be undue on the military, but it will be severely crippled.
And we may need a strong military in good morale sometime in the future. Just maybe.
You can ask soldiers all you want to put aside their feelings, but if something in their environment has created an instinctual reaction in their mind, asking wont do anything. As I said below it needs to be a slow process, so those reactions can be slowly dissolved.
Your argument against accountably is true. The military can`t run around unchecked. BUT, if you force them into instituting a new policy, one that has not been thoroughly researched, and then it backfires, it is not right to hold them accountable. Its like an owner starving and beating a dog. Then when he backs it into a corner it bites his arm. He`ll hold the dog accountable even though it was his actions that led to the result. ...Continued
It`s not only that they can`t express it in a close fraternity. That makes perfect sense to me; love and romance and sex have no place in times of war.
But servicemen and women can`t be who they are, OUTSIDE of a base. If you`re a man dating a man and you`re enlisted, you`re discharged if you even mention it.
This isn`t "ooh, I`m totally gay and there`s nothing you can do about it!!"
This is getting discharged for mentioning, "me and Tommy went to the movies tonight. I love him so much." When any other man could replace "Tommy" with "Tina" and get away with it.
i agree with this, yet so far the military has done nothing to address this issue. yes personnel should have to be required to accept their gay bretheren before the homosexuals start coming out in the military, however the military hasn`t begun to work on this at all. they keep the don`t ask don`t tell stance with no plans for integration. and i see people taking the stance that we should take the gays out of the military cause everyone else can`t handle it. well its not really everyone else`s problem now is it?
That worked well and there was little problem with a slow implementation with segregation. So let`s make a note and integrate slowly. Crack open a history book Obama, no dismantling in 2010. Make it a gradual process.
If you`re willing to kill a fellow serviceman, regardless of why, you`ve got more problems to worry about. The US military isn`t going to let murders happen in their own force.
"When hate crimes and killings start appearing in the ranks, nearly all public military support will crumble. Can we afford a disenfranchised military in this day and age?"
The military SHOULD be held up to be accountable for all its actions. Military support is already crumbling, anyway. Instead of upholding back-water ideals, why not tell your soldiers to put their prejudice aside for their fellow servicemen and save it for the terrorists?
La la la la la la la.....
I should clarify, Don`t Ask Don`t Tell could be removed at some point. But I completely disagree with a set date and time that it will be removed. There needs to be feasibility studies, training, and preparations made before a change in policy can go into effect. If a wholesale change is made as some commentators want and as Obama is pledging, we could have an ugly situation in the Military.
huh? Please explain (you may wanna check my profile before you do).
Ever since Vietnam, the military has been walking a fine line and must be accountable for all of its actions. When hate crimes and killings start appearing in the ranks, nearly all public military support will crumble. Can we afford a disenfranchised military in this day and age?
The sad part is, by saying that, you`re still using being homosexual as a means to insult them, because you know they`ll take it as an insult.
In a way, you`re no better than they are. -_-;;
Whether or not US soldiers are some of the best is debatable, for one.
And 22 out of 26 NATO countries permit homosexuals to openly serve in the military. The important thing to focus on is not whether the person is homosexual, rather, on sexual harassment conditions and guidelines. Straight men and women are just as capable of sexual harassment, after all. Ask anyone who`s left basic training to go onward to technical training if they`ve ever felt sexually harassed. Playing grab-ass with your buddies isn`t any less "gay" if they`re straight, and even if they are straight, do you really want your ass grabbed?
As for "treading a fine line with the Constitution," how are we supposed to defend our rights if we do not grant them to our
They way I see it is, you join the military, they prepare and ask of you to give of your life if necessary. They ask that you fight and perhaps die for millions of people you will never know. Is asking someone to not outwardly express a sexual orientation that is uncomfortable in such a close fraternity worse than asking them to die for their country?
I`m not supporting Don`t Ask Don`t Tell because of anti-homosexual sentiments. I support it because I believe the third party opposition has not truly considered the ramifications of what they are requesting. And I believe those ramifications could be dire.
Sadly Mondo, your voice is only one of millions. Take a seat.
How about next time look at all your shortcomings then approach them like you do for this guy and others. Chances are you`ll realize how ridiculous your actions have been.
i dont want a gay guy fighting for me. Let him pack sh*t in the comfort of his own home.-----
The problem is that the military cannot function in such black and white terms. Some of the practices in boot camps and training could definitely be brought under Constitutional scrutiny, however they are necessary to make a citizen into a soldier. These practices have given the United States some of the best soldiers in the world; should we get rid of them because they tread a fine line with the Constitution? I argue no, the ends definitely justify the means.
When you see him, tell fred that he looks totally gay in a cowboy hat.
"Unless one of the exceptions from 10 U.S.C. § 654(b) applies, the policy prohibits anyone who "demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because it "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The "don`t ask" part of the policy indicates that superiors should not initiate investigation of a servicemember`s orientation in the absence of disallowed behaviors, though mere suspicion of
OPIE, what the hell? Is that your normal hair color? Do you have a normal hair color? GAH, I should just change my age in my profile so I don`t look creepy.
srsly, being a douche gets you nowhere
Our opinions aren`t provided for us, Like in the nanny state."
Huh? I just tabbed through three pages of opinion here, and must say it is a good discussion. Who is being a nanny here? That comment makes no sense.
It`s a sad commentary on our society....
and a flame war starter :P
Unlike in Europe we in the US are free to like/dislike and love/bash anything we choose to.
Our opinions aren`t provided for us, Like in the nanny state.
Ok..fair enough. I disagree with your analogy of modern society however. The problem is the few intollerant douches who make it hard for everyone else. I would not attempt to force anyone to accept homosexuality if it made them truly uncomfterbal. That is freedom of choice. However..if that person decideds to act upon that dislike..i.e taking it further with verbal or physical assault then we have a problem. Obviously in the case of homosexuality there is a HUGE issue in the overal subject.
As with your original statement..you would not attempt to make shellfish an illigal food and have it banned for the millions who do love it. Thats not the case with many homophobes thus my inherant urge to kurb stomp every member of the westboro baptist church!
It`s because I`m a self-righteous hypocrite, isn`t it?
people like you make me sad. and not for the reason that i`m sure everybody here will assume.
I hate stereotypin stuff but, aids?
if i had had 2 lesbian teachers, i wouldn`t have gotten much done in college....i would spent the entire class time fantasizing....
Not to be insensitive or anything, but I think everybody should get a gay friend and a friend of a different race. Helps a lot (I`ve had 2 lesbian teachers in the last 4 years and I can attest that they`re perfectly normal and do NOT in any way detract from the classroom whatsoever...well at least 1, I`m pretty sure the other is lesbian...well, that came off far more bigoted than I meant it to...um...awkward)
Btw Sentinel, amazing avatar
Oh, and yes, Mondo is an idiot and should be moved to Iran, where they "have no gays"
Opie, to answer your question, as far as I know the "Don`t Ask; Don`t Tell" policy is still in effect. Ben and I have discussed it before. I don`t like it, but he defends the policy by stating that it actually protects gay service men and women. Even though we`d like people to be open minded; allowing soldiers to be open about their "alternative" sexuality could lead them to be disgraced from the rest of their unit, putting lives at risk in combat zones, and making it more difficult to get effective work done.I believe the only way to move towards acceptance and understanding is to force people to deal with it, and punish those who would seek to cause harm. You don`t have to like the personal life choices others make, but you should have to respect them.
And I think this "modern society" is really funny. In the same way that 50 years ago, anyone who supported gays was made fun of, called stupid. Nowadays, anybody who doesn`t support gays if made fun of, called stupid. We haven`t moved anywhere, we still have beliefs forced upon us by what is considered right in society.
((Sorry for the double post, these forums need an edit feature.))
Considering the number of straight men that don`t even consider defending their country, it`s really pathetic that there`s discrimination against the gay ones that do...
Are you that daft you compare disliking shellfish to bashing gays?
Just so you know, I`m not a homophobe, I just have an understanding of other peoples views.
this was so sad. =[[[
Indeed. Freedom of speech dosnt stop people from being small minded bigoted fools sadly!
Doesn`t make him any less ignorant though.
Even sadder is Mondo48`s comment. That`s not cool, dude. If you don`t want him fighting for you then, why don`t you go fight yourself? It`s ignorant pieces of sh*t like you that deserve to die; and I`m not taking any of that back!