This fuck up is a threat to John McCain's senate seat?

John McCain is a threat to "his" seat.

Of course, it is no more McCain's seat that the one in MA was Kennedy's. Just cause each of their fat asses have been planted in them for too long, doesn't give them ownership.

J.D. presents primary voters with a choice. It'd be quite a referendum on McCain if he couldn't even win his home state's primary just a couple of years after being his party's POTUS candidate. Reminds me of a certain guy from Connecticut.

And just like with Lieberman it wouldn't surprise me to see McCain run as an Indy if he loses the primary.

Just to put this in perspective, the guy is suggesting that people will begin to engage in man on horse sex because that nice guy who does your wife's hair mants to play house with another boy.

It sounds like you both agree with him...

Willlllburrrrrrrr

But what about Guns and God????

"Rachel pointed out on the air tonight that despite the insistence of J.D. Hayworth, the Massachusetts Supreme Court did not define marriage as "the establishment of intimacy." In case that definition exists in there and we just overlooked it, please let us know if you find it:"

Methinks this douchebag Haywire was left out in the sun too long.

Hayword: Gay Marriage Leads to Man-Horse Unions

.....Ann Culter should have the same right to get married as anyone else......

oohrah beat me to it!

Straight marriage leads to man-dog unions. You should see some of the barkers running around with wedding bands.

I don't mean to be absurd about it

Could have fooled Spud.

Irrational, ridiculous, absurdist statements like this are just further proof that the reality-challenged rtards should not be allowed near the levers of power any time soon.

Methinks this douchebag Haywire was left out in the sun too long.

Strewth.

Well, ya know wot they say...

"Only mad dogs and Republicans go out in the mid-day sun"

/All apologies to Noel Coward.

Be Well.

Oh, God.

Another Republican neigh-sayer.

The answer is why the fuck do people allow the state to have anything to do with marriage in the first place?

Get married in the church.

Dead issue.

Another Republican neigh-sayer.

#14 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore at 2010-03-16 11:51 AM | Reply | Flag: Now how is Spud supposed to get this nasal-spewed coffee off his keyboard?

Oh yeah, and a FF!

Ju crack Spud up, mang!

Be Well.

Hayword's Official Wedding Photos

#13 | Posted by dethspud

I guess you would know since you are on a leash at his feet.

J.D. is the product of the mating of a horse
and an ass.

JD believes in equus, I mean equality, for all.

"Slippery sloap" arguements can be valid and convincing but pretty much any time a politician is the person making one, they are complete assinine bullshit.

This is a slippery slope argument, but does take this stupid liberal idea to its final disastrous social consequences once moral standards are removed.

This is a slippery slope argument, but does take this stupid liberal idea to its final disastrous social consequences once moral standards are removed.

I detect stench of an asinine conservative talking point in this jumbled heap of nonsensical babble. Care to explain yourself coherently, so you can be properly ridiculed?

"This is a slippery slope argument, but does take this stupid liberal idea to its final disastrous social consequences once moral standards are removed."

If you think gay marriage naturally leads to inter-species marriage, you're a fucking moron. Or you like to fuck outside your species and you're engaging in wishful thinking.

There's no nice way to say it.

There is a morbidly facinating documentary on Man/Horse love available thru net flix called ZOO.

No pics, but lots of interviews. The most bizzar parts is that these guys are 'catching' not 'pitching'.

What a big world this is.

GOD-FreeMarkets-ManHorse

Finally, Conservatism makes perfect sense

J.D. is the product of the mating of a horse
and an ass. Still, I'd hit it.

#18 | Posted by tiger150 at 2010-03-16 12:30 PM

Methinks this douchebag Haywire was left out in the sun too long.

#8 | Posted by LetUsPrey

Or they parked his ass under an A/C duct for too ling-and now his so-called "brain" is freezer burnt....

Hetero Marriage Leads directly to divorce!

This is a slippery slope argument

#21 | Posted by RIGHTPOLICY at 2010-03-16 12:54 PM | Flag: Slipping

Lucifer son of the mourning, I'm gonna chase you out of earth!
I'm gonna put on a iron shirt, and chase satan out of earth
I'm gonna put on a iron shirt, and chase the devil out of earth
I'm gonna send him to outa space, to find another race
I'm gonna send him to outa space, to find another race

Satan is an evilous man,
But him can't chocks it on I-man
So when I check him my lassing hand
And if him slip, I gaan with him hand
-Max Romeo

McCain is going to beat this clown like a drum. Hayworth is one of those candidates who only looks good until the public gets to know him.

marriage requires consenting adults, last time I checked animals can't consent!
Hayshit is an asshole!

Ugh Hayworth. I see my work is cut out for me again in getting the word out about Gary Johnson.

"If there's a heaven above
Let's live in love
If there's a hell below
We all gonna go go go!"

Max Romeo

"marriage requires consenting adults..."

There's a lot of religious retards that have difficulty understanding this concept.

If you think gay marriage naturally leads to inter-species marriage, you're a fucking moron. Or you like to fuck outside your species and you're engaging in wishful thinking.

There's no nice way to say it.

#23 | Posted by Sully

What does gay marriage lead to?

What does gay marriage lead to?

If yer lucky it leads to lifelong monogamous relationship replete with full human rights and contributes to a more stable and equitable society.

If not then it, just like straight marriage, leads to divorce.

Why? Wot did you think it lead to?

Be Well.

Oh Yes! Now that I've been LEGALLY GAY-MARRIED TO MY HUSBAND for 5 years, I don't want him any more.

I woke up this morning and now I want my Neighbor's Horse!

In fact, that's what I always wanted! The gay thing was just a ruse to fool you!

What a pile of shit spewing Morons the Religious Politacl Right has become!

What does gay marriage lead to?

If yer lucky it leads to lifelong monogamous relationship replete with full human rights and contributes to a more stable and equitable society.

#37 | Posted by dethspud

Monogamy?? Given the fact that promiscuity runs rampant in the homosexual community, far surpassing heterosexual promiscuity, what does monogamy have to do with homosexuality?

#39 | Posted by Sabbatai at

What exactly are you basing that off of?

I am interested in seeing ANYTHING that backs that up.

There it is. The "gay's are too promiscuous, so lets not let em marry" chestnut.

Surprised it took this long to show up

Go figgure.

marriage requires consenting adults,....
hay, white men will do all the consenting needs doing in America -- for everyone and everything. it's "God's dominion", it's a white man thing, you wouldn't understand.

Given the fact that promiscuity runs rampant in the homosexual community ...

If you genuinely believe that, you should support gay marriage. Isn't one of the selling points of marriage the promotion of stable monogamous relationships?

Monogamy?? Given the fact that promiscuity runs rampant in the homosexual community, far surpassing heterosexual promiscuity, what does monogamy have to do with homosexuality?

Are gay folks more likely to be promiscuous than straight folks?

Ummm, let's ask Tiger Woods or John Edwards or Newt Gingrich or Bill Clinton or David Letterman or that Italian PM guy.

Also, understand that you are making the argument for gay marriage by stating wot you just did. If gay marriage becomes a legal option in all fifty states then gays are much more likely to settle down be less promiscuous.

Nice to see you on the side of the angels for a change there! ^_^

Obligatory quote time...

"Same sex marriage? Ask anyone who's been married. After a while the sex is always the same anyways"

That all noted, here's a neat little sidebar on the nutty factor in Arizona politics.

Sheriff Joe is strongly considering a run fer governor again.
No, this time he means it.

Given the fact that promiscuity runs rampant in the homosexual community ..

Straight community too. In fact, I hear commercials everyday on the radio for a dating service to hook up married people with "people who have just as much to lose as you." Sanctity of marriage my ass.

AT SABBATAI:
what does monogamy have to do with heterosexuality? ...or marriage for that matter?

I woke up this morning

#38 | Posted by DUMPLING1 at 2010-03-16 02:24 PM

Do you take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wife:

Groom: I do

Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded husband:

Bride: Neighhhhhh

JD's nomination will be the best thing for AZ democrats in years. Might even bring back 'yellow dog democrats' where repubs are so unpopular that even a yellow dog could beat one.

Speaking of which JD, can I marry 2 horses? I mean, one of each sex of course, I'm not weird or gay.

Or marry one horse and one yellow dog? Or a yellow dog and a blue one?

Oh. Maybe I have gay genes after all.

If a colt can fit up there why can't I? I love my horse all night...

AT SABBATAI:

You may as well urinate into a fan.

Sabbatai is one of the most idiotic shit-fer-brains r-tards to ever post on the Drudge.

Hell, he makes afkabibble look sane.

#39 | Posted by Sabbatai at

What exactly are you basing that off of?
I am interested in seeing ANYTHING that backs that up.

#40 | Posted by NoGov4Me

Have you looked?

The data for homosexual conduct indicates that it has a very poor track record so far as enduring monogamous relationships are concerned. The 1992 National Health and Social Life Survey focused on the sexual habits of all Americans, surveying 1,749 women and 1,410 men. The number of homosexual/bisexuals included in the survey was small (39 males, 24 females). The figures show that homosexual/bisexual men have two to six times more sex partners than heterosexual men, whil women who have same-gender partners have three to four times more sex partners than women who have no same-gender partners.

One of the largest studies to date of he sexual habits of homosexual men (nearly 5,000) was the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study published in 1987. It fund that "a significant majority of these men (69% to 83%) reported having fifty or more lifetime sexual partners. By contrast, the same study reported that at least 83.4% of heterosexual males have had fewer than 21 sex partners since the age of eighteen. Nearly half had four or fewer, and nearly one quarter had one or none.

There are plenty of other studies, that show the same. Even within the context of a relationship, homosexual males rarely exhibit serial monogamy, let alone lifelong monogamy. A Dutch study of the habits of homosexual male couples published in 1994 reported that, on average, each partner had seven other sex partners in just the one year preceding the survey. Nearly two thirds of these "close-coupled" gays were non-monogamous in that same one-year period. The number of outside partners in the first year of the relationship averaged 2.5; by the sixth year of the relationship the number increased to eleven.

So much for monogamy!

Oh. Maybe I have gay genes after all.

#50 | Posted by 88120rob at 2010-03-16 03:06 PM

881, I won't argue with you about you being queer.

#53 | Posted by Sabbatai

So what you're saying is that Gays should get married so they have an incentive to be monogamous?

Sounds good to me!

So what you're saying is that Gays should get married so they have an incentive to be monogamous?

Sounds good to me!

#56 | Posted by TFDNihilist

So you think marriage would solve the promiscuity problem? Hmmmm, I wonder if we would just offer marriage to other paraphilias those problems would go away too?

Sorry, marriage won't cure your problem. I think you know that. I also think you know the real reason for wanting gay-marriage; it would be one more way a perverse behavior could gain legitimacy from a legitimate human institution. Afterall, it's pretty obvious that marriage isn't held in high esteem anymore, but if a perversion could gain legitimacy through marriage, why then we're all for it!

Go fuck yerself, sabbatass.

The only perversion here is the one festering in the cavity between yer ears.

Sabbatai is just afraid the horse will hear about this and demand a ring.

Not sure why gay men think they need to marry horses, don't they get enough cock as it is?

#60 | Posted by SpokaneJim

Well, given there's nothing but steers and queers and horses in Spokane, why don't you tell us?

Given the fact that promiscuity runs rampant in the homosexual community

And the heterosexual community as well.

Dumbfuck.

Do you ever have a point to make (beside the expected display of blind hatred)?

Me? If monogamy is really the measure, I only want the same rights to marriage as the average professional basketball player.

I think you know that. I also think you know the real reason for wanting gay-marriage; it would be one more way a perverse behavior could gain legitimacy from a legitimate human institution.

Sabbatai, you have not established homosexuality as a "perverse" behavior, nor have you heterosexual exclusivity as the aspect of marriage that makes it a "legitimate social institution". Until you do so, you haven't got a fucking leg to stand on.

By the way, don't waste your time cracking a bible for talking points. Superstitious babble carries no weight in an argument concerning reality... your hocus-pocus and pontification amount to nothing more that a steaming pile of subjective horseshit. If you are going to attempt to prove the "perversity" of homosexuality or the exclusive legitimacy of heterosexual marriage, you must do so with an argument from credible empirical evidence. Unless ridicule is your goal, that is...

"Monogamy?? Given the fact that promiscuity runs rampant in the homosexual community, far surpassing heterosexual promiscuity, what does monogamy have to do with homosexuality?"

Sabbatai:

In the hands of hetero-centric lawmakers, very little. When you make it legally difficult to stabilize relationships, you are contributing to, if not actually enforcing, promiscuity.

What I think many people are afraid of is gays making more of a success of marriage than straights - and with the hetero divorce rate what it is in this country (43-50% within 15 years of marriage, according to the National Center for Health Statistics' estimates), they might just be right.

What I don't understand about folks with views like yours is: Why on earth don't you want the incredibly flawed system we have now to change? With things the way they are, there is huge pressure on people with same-sex leanings to marry someone of the opposite sex, or to have their same-sex relationships "on the down-low." That means that straight men and women can be deceived into marriages with people incapable of loving them fully. It also means that there's a fair chance of their partner screwing around on them, because they're not getting what they really want at home.

Now tell me, would you want your son or your daughter subjected to this? Wouldn't it be better for the gays among us to be free to do their own thing, instead of being forced or coerced into lies and deceit that damage the lives of other people? What harm comes of it if Adam and Steve have a nice civil ceremony and settle down in a little ranch house? Isn't that better than Adam marrying your daughter because he feels some huge pressure to conform to society's expectations, then devastating her emotionally when he finally decides he can't hack the lie any more? Or worse, having her find out that he's been seeing guys on the side for years?

This happens all the time, the way things are. I happen to think that not only do gays deserve better, straights do too. The clearer we are about who is straight and who is gay, the better off people in the marriage market will be, because people will be likelier to end up with partners who won't be coming home one evening to say, "Uh, I have something to tell you. Better sit down."

And the heterosexual community as well.
Dumbfuck.
Do you ever have a point to make (beside the expected display of blind hatred)?

You bet he does!

He just has to find the studies from the late 80's and early 90's to prove it, damnit!

#65

Newsworthy, MTW.

As usual, you cut through the bullshit and go straight at the heart of the matter. Nicely done.

Ooh, little dullboy tried to make a joke. How cute.

STFU and put the bag of oats back on, Jimmah.

Thanks, Danny.

I could have gone on - marriage is good for people, and society. People in good marriages are generally more stable, often better contributors to society by their economic performance (as both producers and consumers), less likely to welsh on debts, less likely to descend into substance abuse and generally healthier - all kinds of good stuff that society could really use right now.

I think we need more married people, not fewer. If that means a few more wedding-cake toppers with two grooms or two brides, whatthehell.

Arizona Republican Sen. candidate J.D. Hayworth said"I mean, I don't mean to be absurd about it..."

Well, whether you meant it or not, the truth is that you are absurd!

Republicanism leads to rectal-cranial inversions.

Republicanism leads to rectal-cranial inversions.

Inversions or invasions?

The frontal lobes of many good republicans have been damaged by human ejaculate after bouts of merciless skullfucking at the hands of the religious right.

Oh Yes! Now that I've been LEGALLY GAY-MARRIED TO MY HUSBAND for 5 years, I don't want him any more.

#38 | Posted by DUMPLING1 at 2010-03-16 02:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

I was always suspicious. Now it's confirmed.

It's easy to do a Google on 'gay monogamy' and find overwhelming evidence that gays are much more promiscuous, even those in a committed relationship.

This is not an assertion or a 'nugget' but a well documented fact.

"It's easy to do a Google on 'gay monogamy' and find overwhelming evidence that gays are much more promiscuous, even those in a committed relationship."

Vernon:

As matters stand, you may well be right. But ask yourself this: Why is this the case? Could it be that gays have had so little encouragement to become monogamous, because they can't get married in most places, and are actively reviled when they do try to settle down openly?

Your mention of a "committed relationship" means little until such relationships have the backing of society and the law. Even the most loving and dignified shacking-up is still just shacking up; there's a big difference between someone's "understanding" keeping them from being a ho-dog and having to pay alimony and settle up on property if they're caught straying. You know perfectly well that unmarried straight couples often don't fare as well as married ones; that "little piece of paper" turns out to have a lot more weight than its detractors would have you believe.

In my opinion, gays have long been forced into promiscuity by the "outcast" status they've held for so long. They couldn't get married, they couldn't live openly together in many places, their partnerships weren't treated with respect even by their own families and they were usually dependent on gay bars for social interaction. That's damn poor training for monogamy, buddy.

Don't revile someone for not meeting your standards when you actively militate against that possibility with your votes and your rhetoric.

It's obvious from the headline that religious fundamentalism requires immediate sex therapy. What an insultingly low-brow way to equate husbandry with marriage.

The answer is why the fuck do people allow the state to have anything to do with marriage in the first place?

So blacks and whites won't marry. How antiquated is that? Not letting gay people marry is quickly becoming passe. Time to wake up and vote for Lincoln, right?

Sabbatai, you have not established homosexuality as a "perverse" behavior, nor have you heterosexual exclusivity as the aspect of marriage that makes it a "legitimate social institution". Until you do so, you haven't got a fucking leg to stand on.

By the way, don't waste your time cracking a bible for talking points. Superstitious babble carries no weight in an argument concerning reality... your hocus-pocus and pontification amount to nothing more that a steaming pile of subjective horseshit. If you are going to attempt to prove the "perversity" of homosexuality or the exclusive legitimacy of heterosexual marriage, you must do so with an argument from credible empirical evidence. Unless ridicule is your goal, that is...

#63 | Posted by ZombieHunter

I haven't "established" it according to your optimized ethics? LOL When you wear a certain lens, nothing can be established.

I call homosexuals perverts because it is an accurate description of what they do: to pervert is to "use wrongly or badly".

Humans are designed as sexual beings, and the design is clear: tab A fits into slot B. This design is also indicated by that fact that A+B results in the perpetuation of the human race.

Combining tab A with tab A or slot B with slot B is like trying to put together two puzzle pieces that aren't supposed to go join: you're going against the will of the designer and it just doesn't work unless you damage the pieces and thereby corrupt the design. And promulgating the lie by use of "consenting adults" or "committed relationship" does not change the fact of perversion. But it will then corrupt the larger community, as can be seen in the further degeneracy in sexual mores where now it's not only accepting homosexuality, but all other perversions and gender confusion.

GLBT = Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered. Notice the regression here? Why not allow another letter on this mutants list? How about GLBTI - Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered, Incest? Or, if you're a Kevin Jennings of the Obama admin., why not GLBTIMbl - Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Incest, Man/boy love?

Accept a perversion, promulgate a perversion, rid the public of its moral compass and conscience, and you can soon frack whatever you want to frack.

The wonderful world of "Optimized Ethics"!

What I don't understand about folks with views like yours is: Why on earth don't you want the incredibly flawed system we have now to change? With things the way they are, there is huge pressure on people with same-sex leanings to marry someone of the opposite sex, or to have their same-sex relationships "on the down-low."

#64 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore

A flawed system? And it's flawed because it won't abide a perversion? It's flawed because there's nothing in the system that would bless and legitimize the perversion? And because there's no acceptable category (ie. gay marriage) in the flawed system that would bless the perversion, this then explains the the reason for the promiscuity we witness in the perversion itself?

MTH, here's a thought for you. Can you tell us how it is happening right now in America that child molestation can become "man-boy-love"? Imagine if those poor souls in NAMBLA, who suffer every day the stigma of a prejudiced populace, imagine if those poor souls could be free from the anti-social behavior resulting from the stigma? IF we would just create a category for them to live under, without the stigma? It would probably go a long way to healing our flawed system?

Hey Sabb,

what if I want to put my A tab into slot C or D even would that be okay but only if it is a girls slot C or D? And sometimes I even put slot B into my slot C and lick mmmm...

BTW, comparing child molesters to grown consenting adults is quite a stretch even for you. Though I'm not sure why it would bother you since your precious bible promotes incest unless it is only the fact that it is two males...

I haven't "established" it according to your optimized ethics?

You haven't established the "evil" or "perversion" of homosexuality according to anything beyond your own idiotic superstitions. If you want to demonstrate that homosexuality is somehow wrong and only heterosexual marriage is legitimate, you should be able to do that without falling back on hocus pocus, ad hoc statements, and your own thinly-veiled hatred. You do not defend your statements with anything beyond the froth dripping from your flapping lips. It is behavior to be expected from a shit-for-brains fundamentalist.

Humans are designed as sexual beings, and the design is clear: tab A fits into slot B. This design is also indicated by that fact that A+B results in the perpetuation of the human race.

Reproduction is not the only role of sex in human societies, dumbfuck.

why not GLBTIMbl - Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Incest, Man/boy love?

Notice that the most virulent homophobes resort to comparisons of homosexuality and child molestation because they cannot argue exclusively against homosexuality. Please, sabbatai, continue to mindlessly regurgitate the talking points of backwater preachers and bigoted filth. Until you learn a thing or two about staying on topic, your arguments will only resonate with those who share your delusional worldview.

Accept a perversion, promulgate a perversion, rid the public of its moral compass and conscience, and you can soon frack whatever you want to frack.

You do not produce valid evidence that homosexuality is a perversion. You do not provide evidence that your personal moral compass is worth its weight in steaming shit. You do not provide any link between homosexual rights and inevitable sex crimes. In short, the whole of your argument rests on a collection of untenable nonsense and tribal superstitions.

Even considering the spiteful cunt that you are, sabbatai, you don't seem too bright. All you have presented is a meaningless slippery slope argument that conceals an utter lack of substance in your hate-filled babble. Arguments from ignorance and mindless rambling may convince the toothless fucks in the trailer nextdoor to you, but they don't persuade the majority of people who actually graduated high school.

what if I want to put my A tab into slot C or D even would that be okay but only if it is a girls slot C or D? And sometimes I even put slot B into my slot C and lick mmmm...

BTW, comparing child molesters to grown consenting adults is quite a stretch even for you. Though I'm not sure why it would bother you since your precious bible promotes incest unless it is only the fact that it is two males...

#79 | Posted by richardspirit

The point RS is nature's design. Nature's intention can be seen in the male-female complimentarity. You can put your slot C in a horse if you wish, but that is not nature's intent.

And regarding "consent," have you seen what the NAMBLA crowd is doing with the consent argument?

Be honest, the "consent" argument, when used to reproach pedophilia, really has nothing to do with why pedophilia is so repugnant. On the contrary, the "consenting adult" argument was created in order to give a kind of moral rationale to the abhorrent and repulsive feelings most humans have for pedophilia.

But remember, that same feeling was once felt toward homosexuality by the greater population just a generation or so ago. Thanks to the Homosexual Agenda, and folks like Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen who wrote After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays, Americans have now optimized their ethics, and are more and more embracing this perversion. Now we call evil good, and do so with a smile on our face. Isn't that wonderful?

Well, what's good for the goose is good or the gander. If homosexuals can change our innate repulsion for their perversion, via concerted campaigns to do so, then folks at NAMBLA can will do the same. Ol' Kevin Jennings is a picture of that, and it's just a matter of time!

The Wonderful World of Optimzed Ethics!

The Wonderful World of Optimzed Ethics!

Congratulations, dumbass. If there was ever any doubt concerning how far detached you were from reality, your previous post did away with it.

You will never be able to regute Darwinian ethics because you do not understand it well enough to make an intelligent criticism. You are either too stupid to comprehend it or too stubborn to try. Either way, you can rest assured that your puerile worldview will not be threatened so long as you maintain your ignorance.

Sabb,

You get lost making a circular argument and you can't even keep your own analogy straight...hmmm are not so straight? is that the problem....hee hee...

I have better discussion with my 10yr old because at least she can keep her argument straight.

You haven't established the "evil" or "perversion" of homosexuality according to anything beyond your own idiotic superstitions. If you want to demonstrate that homosexuality is somehow wrong and only heterosexual marriage is legitimate, you should be able to do that without falling back on hocus pocus, ad hoc statements, and your own thinly-veiled hatred. You do not defend your statements with anything beyond the froth dripping from your flapping lips. It is behavior to be expected from a shit-for-brains fundamentalist.

#80 | Posted by zombiehunter

There are any number of negative effects that affirming homosexuality will have on a society, and are having an effect on ours. For one, afirmation will lead to an increase in the incidence of homosexuality and bisexuality, which in turn will lead to a larger number of people afflicted with serious health problems and shortened life expectancy. This is why AIDS is such a threat, not only to the person, but to the agenda. If my behavior can kill, I must do something to show why the behavior is still good, even though it kills. How to do this? - Portray myself as a victim!

"You bigot, O'Connor, you're killing us!" screamed one protestor, while signs called the archbishop "Murderer"! That's right, blame the church for the consequences of your behavior!

It's intersting Zombie, on another post you were telling me why incest was morally wrong...because of the negative and adverse effects such sexual behavior could have on the offspring. Remember?

So incest is wrong because of the damage that can come from the act. I wonder if you might also apply the same "optimized" standard to those who engage in homosexual sex? I would bet more homosexuals have died as a consequence of AIDS than offspring from incest!

The Wonderful World of Optimized and Double Standard Ethics!

Sabb,

You do now that AIDS can infect anyone? Gay, Straight, you and old...Your argument is still stuck somewhere in the early 80's when it was referred to as the Gay Cancer. Also, there is more likelihood of a junkie getting a serious disease from sharing needles.

You do now that AIDS can infect anyone? Gay, Straight, you and old...Your argument is still stuck somewhere in the early 80's when it was referred to as the Gay Cancer. Also, there is more likelihood of a junkie getting a serious disease from sharing needles.

#85 | Posted by richardspirit

Yes RS, but remember the history. Go back to the 80s and remember how a certain community was in apoplepsy for what was supposedly a universal disease? Thank God it spread to the heterosexual community. WHEW! that was a close one! Saved by the universal disease argument...and one savvy campaign!

Sabbatai:

While you have every right to your opinion, I'm not sure expressing it in a thread devoted to how looney-tunes most people think Hayworth is was the best idea.

Some day they will find a cure for gay. Oh wait, Iran found one. They don't have any they say.

Thank God it spread to the heterosexual community.

HIV emerged in the heterosexual community, dumbass.

What it it that zat says? A battle of wits against an unarmed opponent...

I wonder if you might also apply the same "optimized" standard to those who engage in homosexual sex? I would bet more homosexuals have died as a consequence of AIDS than offspring from incest!

You clearly don't know shit about HIV, otherwise you would realize the absurdity of your statement. By the butchered logic of your post, no heterosexuals should be having sex, either, as they have always been and continue to be the demographic hardest hit by HIV. If you're looking to make an argument from the standpoint of harm reduction, nobody should be having unprotected sex unless it's with a spouse. Heterosexual or homosexual.

It is becoming painfully obvious that when the facts simply don't fit into your comically oversimplified worldview, you can be counted on to fill in the blanks with bullshit. It is a characteristic quite common among the many worthless pukestains who rationalize blind hatred with their superstitions. It also explains why you cannot respond to my posts with anything other than incoherent fundie-babble and seething hatred.

Sab is trying to take his argument out of the roots from fundamental religion to something more palateable, like it's responsible for disease.

There are STD's no matter who you have sex with, this is such a strech it is rather humourous.

Just say God says it's bad, because that's all you really have.

Now I for one like the idea of making it illegal to get a divorce. I mean, after all marriage is so important, especially to red staters, that we shouldn't have divorce. So either put up (make divorce illegal) or shut up (allow gays to marry).

Just say God says it's bad, because that's all you really have.

#91 | Posted by bigjohn_1972 at 2010-03-17 02:50 PM

Seriously, putting it in some dude's pooper?

Is there a difference between a guy's and a girl's? Seriously. I have always felt that, if you are willing to put your dick in one shithole, you will put it in any.

Is there a difference between a guy's and a girl's? Seriously. I have always felt that, if you are willing to put your dick in one shithole, you will put it in any.

#93 | Posted by kanrei at 2010-03-17 02:59 PM

Doesn't help that a friend told me once he was anally banging some chick and got a piece of corn stuck on his dick.

Mr. Zombie,

While your arguments and assessments may be sound and spot-on, they are completely lost on ignorant turdburglers like sabbatass.

But your efforts are, however, commendable.

"I have always felt that, if you are willing to put your dick in one shithole, you will put it in any."

I dunno...while the aforementioned fudge packing isn't my cup of tea, I'd have to admit that the presence of boobs and a twat would make a significant difference.

You clearly don't know shit about HIV, otherwise you would realize the absurdity of your statement. By the butchered logic of your post, no heterosexuals should be having sex, either, as they have always been and continue to be the demographic hardest hit by HIV. If you're looking to make an argument from the standpoint of harm reduction, nobody should be having unprotected sex unless it's with a spouse. Heterosexual or homosexual.

#90 | Posted by ZombieHunter

Clearly yours is the "optimized" presumption. Isn't promiscuous sex the cause of what are called "sexually transmitted diseases"? Your optimized ethics says that incest is wrong because of the harm that can be caused. But that sounds similar to the abstinence argument as it pertains to std's. Ah, but that's oppressive, telling someone to abstain.

You would employ your "optimized ethic" on those who engage in incest, but conveniently exempt yourself when your own behavior can harm. It's become painfully obvious that your "optimized ethic" is self serving, and thus intellectually vacant. Sure, let me frack whomever I want, regardless of the harm it may bring, but there should be a law against incestuous relationships because of the harm it can cause! This is called inventing ethics as you go!

What a frackin' joke!

HIV emerged in the heterosexual community, dumbass.

#89 | Posted by ZombieHunter

You know the jury is still out on that one, but you skew the history, just as you skew the biology and claim homosexuality is due to heredity.
Again, review the 80s when the disease hit the public. And then look who was blamed for the consequences of the disease.

"Evil has a penchant for attacking the innocent!"

Imo, to deny someone any potential benefit of indulging exploring their sexual horizons, however disgusting, with their partner(s) seems rather communist Chinese of the Christian community. I'm not advocating animal abuse, coprophelia or even a blow job from graduates of the Anna Nicole Geriatric Handlers & Panners Institute - it's simply not our National interest to define ourselves through such a limited mindset as sexual conduct defining a marriage or even necessarily a moral person. The standard for marriage isn't "You must promise to have sex once per month?" Just as we can't say "Putting carrots up your ass and chocolate-dipping your balls discounts you from marrying."

There are obvious medically definitive dangers to searching out this horizon - and in reality those limit-pushers are quite fringe, representing a minority within a minority, their popularity mainly perpetuated through notoriety. They do not set or represent anything recognizably "standard", rather, being socially "extreme" sexual expression (and hopefully private). We should allow all adults the same rights to defile themselves as they see fit. I do agree that the gay parades are mainly adult in nature - adults who deserve the right to marry and sex with whomever will have them. Lucky that there is an entire culture craving this luxury, and it apparently is a shared interest with those whom already legally enjoy it's benefits. Perhaps the homosexual element will improve the model significantly enough to restrict marriage to "only those managing with a tasteful five bean salad instead of that cheap arugula." Face it - we are fabulous at many things, running other peoples weddings has never been in question. We all naturally compliment one another so let's marry together as equal adults?

Gay human beings deserve the same rights and privileges as straight ones. To consider otherwise is merely inventing a lesser-class of human. To define sexuality as only offshoots from the natural requirement for sexual reproduction ignores the very expansive breadth of sexual expression in both it's personal and social permutations. Every human is entirely individualized in how it's sexuality is expressed. This happens since before the over 6 billion populated the surface and invented chat roulette (which, btw took me 20 hits before I saw dick). We are constantly evolving, sexuality included. Aren't the old boogie-men getting tired? Their scuffing the linoleum with listless back peddling, like an undead moonwalk of the damned.

Simplified, it would appear that the Christian community is purposefully in a bind. Either they vote secular American or they are fundamentalist Saudi. Isn't it obvious by now which nations ideals their "Christian" choices are favoring?

Sabbatai:

While you have every right to your opinion, I'm not sure expressing it in a thread devoted to how looney-tunes most people think Hayworth is was the best idea.

#87 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore

Probably, true, but I give Sabbatai a lot of credit for standing strong for his views considering the reflexive beating he was going to receive---it was interesting to watch how the tenor of the hysteria changed before and after he supplied his data in post #53.

give Sabbatai a lot of credit for standing strong for his views considering the reflexive beating he was going to receive

Punching bags are always welcome on the retort. I love the internet. You can pound on a sack of shit relentlessly, and your hands never get dirty.

#102 | Posted by ZombieHunter

Zombie, but when you're the sack------?

They transmit just fine without "promiscuous" sex. That's why most STD's have evolved decreased virulence over time. It is an adaptation to survive and transmit in the face of non-promiscuity. If you are a parasite infesting someone's cock (a rather accurate description of Sabbatai), chances of transmission are greatest when you are not I'll give you a hint, dipshit... host-parasite coevolution is not a topic you want to broach with me. Especially considering the fundamentalist caricature of reality you subscribe to.

Deflection! What does the "ST" stand for in the abbreviation STD? I don't need to broach host-parasite coevolution with you. The condoms in your wallet have nothing to do with coevolution!

If you're doing so, then you're not following the ethic of reciprocity. Are you too fucking stupid to understand my previous posts, or do you just ignore them so you can persist in making asinine statements? Considering the disorganized heap of idiotic statements that precedes the quote I selected, I'm beginning to suspect the former. Even by the standard of a blithering sack of fundamentalist shit, you're a slow learner.

If one were to diagram this paragraph it would be fair to say that the use of vitriol and vulgarity is the writer's method of establishing his case. Though ineffective, it continues to be the preferred tactic of the group ACT-UP.

Not exactly, dumbfuck. You're blathering on about the 1980's (the time when cases first started to appear in the US) when HIV was already well-established through the heterosexual population of Africa at that point. Once again, the facts are not on your side. The inanity you regularly pull out of your ass may amuse the stupid cunts in your trailer park, but it lacks any basis in reality. Cockroaches like you aren't even qualified to wipe the shit off their own asses.

See my previous statement!