How do you administer enough without dying from respiratory failure and cardiac arrest? How do you avoid the oxidative tissue damage from large and extended exposure?
You're talking about extremeses. Hydrogen Peroxide has proven to cure every disease.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/canjclin.43.1.47/epdf
I love fat men, I am the opposite. I feel atracted by hairy, fat and bald men. It is my dream being fucked by one.
:cheesy2: What are you doing Friday night? >:D 
Honestly, when anyone says skinny, I say, WTF? He's HOT! I donno why thin guys turn me on so much. I just go with it. We should all do that more often. And if a guy takes offense because you don't want to date him, forget him. Trust me, you didn't want to date that guy no matter WHAT he looks like. He's the type that will put your bunny in a pot of water on the stove.
He has no point. He has nothing. It is exactly like all of the cops who now are crying about being targeted. Well, how does it feel? What happened in Dallas was a horrible horrible thing. But any thinking person would realize that this is EXACTLY what every black, gay, Hispanic, yadda, yadda, yadda, name a minority, has felt from a lot of cops for years. The shoe is on the other foot, and I doesn't fit very well, does it?
I would rather he show some sympathy for the families of his fallen comrades or even denounce the easy access to firearms the perp had. The hatred in this man's heart shows through. And that is obviously the best he has to offer.
I love it! But there are 2 things involved here. First, I only do it to guys that I really really like, not just any Joe Schmoe. And by like, I include LUST. I can look at any guy on the street and tell you if I'd eat his ass on a first date or not. Some I would, some, absolutely not. But that's not to say that after I get to know a guy that I may change my mind and find the thought very exciting later on. You see, it's kind of a trust and empathy thing. "I like you, a LOT, I want to intensify our intimacy." At least, that's how it works for me. Being a top, I do LOVE man ass, so I almost LOOK for an edible ass when I'm on the prowl. The second thing is, of course, the guy's hygiene. The cleanest looking guy in the place can fool you sometimes. At the first hint of less than stellar, all bets are off.
I gotta believe that if you've ever had it done to you, and done right, you would re-think your opposition. But maybe I'm wrong about that. The feeling is like nothing else. It's like 1000 volts going through your body in a most pleasurable way. Why wouldn't you want to return that favor or share it with someone you love or really like?
Trent, looking back, my post may have been misleading in that the headline I posted is, unfortunately, related to time, as is my point. The headline could just as easily have read "Scouts Refuse to Allow Gays To Join" and said nothing about them wanting to delay their decision. My point is that I do not think that now is the time for gays in the U.S. to fight this fight with the BSA. What the Scouts are doing is not illegal. It is done all of the time all across the U.S. We (none of us) want laws forcing them to allow gay Scouts. This fight is very different than the civil rights fight for equality. What we want there is to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. That is, in my opinion, the single most important struggle we should throw all of our resources behind right now. To get laws changed to allow is all of the liberties that straight people have. In the case of BSA, what is needed there is for them to have a change of heart, on their own. Of course, with a little prodding from us. As I stated in my original post, the struggle for full racial equality within the realm of private clubs is still not fully realized. If they wanted to, BSA could legally bar any Latino or Jewish people. Now, in the case of either of them being barred, those groups already have full legal rights within the U.S. so it would behoove them to take up that fight immediately. And you can bet that most of the U.S. population would be behind them. A much larger percentage than is behind us now. I believe that would be better for us to wait until we have more backing and stand a better chance of winning them over than to make multiple attempts, failing again and again. Each time it will become easier and easier for them to say no.
In sort, I think that we have enough on our plate at the time. The laws of this land do not even consider us equal, it is a stretch to expect the BSA to at this time.
And by the way, thanks for responding. Even if we disagree on this, it is nice to have the conversation.
I submit this for your perusal only, not to start arguments about any religion. I thought it was beautifully written and speaks volumes about issues beyond the Catholic church's views.
An article about a "gay" dog written by a straight man.
by Hunter of Daily Kos
This is one of those things that sat in an open browser tab for a week, on my computer. For the most part, it is a petty little nothing; the remaining sliver, though, nagged at me. Those of you who know the name Bill Donohue know that he is chief mouthpiece of something called The Catholic League, a group that prides itself on challenging "anti-Catholicism." His apparent relationship with the church hierarchy is, inexplicably, tight. As a man, he is a poison. In the media, through press releases, even through tweets, he exists to hurl bile at all those that challenge the church, or seek to reform it, or dare to condemn it, and at some point he decided that the entire world was but a subsidiary of the church, and that the code of the church would govern all, or at least his own extraordinarily narrow view of it would, and damn the rest of the Catholics, the people who sit in the pews on Sundays, and damn the objectors, and damn everybody else besides. The gays, the birth control users, the insufficiently kowtowing government and their health insurance schemes, Hollywood, the Jews, and everything else: There are few social issues of any sort that Bill Donohue, bishop-authorized defender of the Catholic faith, does not point a crusty finger at, and condemn. There is no forgiveness involved, nor any defense of the poor or the sick. He may, however, dismiss you as a whore.
He is the happy Inquisitor. There is not a speck of God in any of it, or Jesus; he could just as easily be rising to the defense of a brewing company or a shipping magnate as a church. Catholicism begins and ends, in Bill Donohue's mind, with Bill Donohue. He is the Church; the Church is him. And while Bill Donohue is not one of the reasons I drifted from my old church, he has played a large role in me coming to despise it.
Donohue works outside the Catholic hierarchy, but is not isolated from it. He has far greater support among and access to the bishops than you or I have, or ever would. He has defended the church vigorously through the long, slow, and still ongoing slog of pedophilia and other claims of sexual assault against the church, and the church has been conspicuously silent about Donohue using the Catholic name to launch a long string of mean invective and vicious crusades on every other subject he might wish.
On the last day of January, Bill Donohue heard a story about a dog. His reaction encapsulates, and summarizes, and even morbidly parodies all that is left for me to parse out from the bones of my old church. Where there should be understanding, there is outrage; where their should be forgiveness, there is condemnation; where there should be God, there is not. Because it is about Sex, and about the Gay, and about the Gay threatening, through demands for acceptance—no, through mere stubborn existence—us all.
The missive is called, in all caps, EUTHANIZING GAY DOGS. _> The quest for autonomy has reached such a macabre level in the Netherlands that last year the Royal Dutch Medical Association expanded the list of conditions legalizing euthanasia to include “loneliness.”
In the state of Washington, a debate is currently raging over whether to expand the list of conditions legalizing euthanasia to include those who are not terminally ill, as well as those who are mentally disabled.
The common theme, then, is to be euthanasia. One can certainly have moral or spiritual convictions about the matter; whether the Dutch approach, or the Washingtonian approach, is to be favored or objected to is certainly within the bounds of conversation. We are then led into the story of a Tennessee dog that was turned in to be euthanized because his owner saw the dog humping another male dog, and decided that would not do. [click [URL=http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/01/elton-the-gay-dog-spared-the-gas-chamber/]here to read the story].
By contrast, this week in Tennessee a dog was rescued from being euthanized (one news outlet said he was being spared “the Gas Chamber”) because the condition driving the dog’s death was his alleged homosexuality (the owner was ticked when he saw his Fido hunch another male dog). For reasons that appear entirely reasonable, the gal who rescued the dog named him Elton.
The place where Elton was dropped, Euthanasia Jackson TN, encourages dog adoption, but it also promotes dog euthanasia. Not, however, in Elton’s case: the shelter has no stomach for putting dogs down on the basis of sexual orientation. It must be said, though, that the shelter is not exactly inclusive in its policies. To wit: Had poor Elton not been identified as a homosexual, his heterosexuality would not have been enough to save his hide.
The moral of the story is: Being gay is not only a bonus for humans these days, it is a definite plus for dogs as well. As for straights, the lonely and the disabled, that’s another story altogether.
So then, there we are.
Upon hearing of a dog owner abandoning their pet for such a strange (and, in-arguably I would hope, cruel) reason, I would like to think that for most people, the first reaction to that little news trinket would be … horror? Anger? Mild disapproval, at the very least? The thought that there is a dog owner anywhere that does not know dogs sometimes engage in such things is surprising, at best—anyone who has conned themselves into believing homosexual behavior is unique to humans has never visited a farm, or visited a zoo, or, yes, owned a dog. The further thought that there is some person, deep in their own little social wilderness somewhere in Tennessee, who upon seeing their male dog mount another is so angry at the behavior that they decide to kill their dog makes it clear that between that specific dog and that specific human, the dog has the better soul.
The rest of the story is not quite as Donohue relates it. Yes, the dog was put up for adoption by the shelter; yes, the dog's new owner named him Elton. (Bill Donohue's thoughts on the matter are illustrated with a picture of Elton John, the famous homosexual, holding a dog; Bill seems to be particularly tickled by that detail.) But the dog was not put up for adoption as a special favor to the dog, but as routine endeavor by the shelter. Reading the story Donohue linked to also clarifies other things: the dog was also probably not acting gay, despite what the dismally stupid former owner claimed, but merely engaging in usual dominant/submissive behaviors; the dog may have been used for fighting, or was destined for fighting, but found lacking, thus perhaps cluing us in further on the motivations of that owner. But no matter, let us continue on with the simplest possible story, the story of the dog who was abandoned by his owner for no reason other than being gay, who was subsequently rescued by a kinder, less monstrously bigoted person, and whose story made the news due to the surprising heartlessness of the former owner's act.
The shelter told the dog's story when trying to get him adopted. This, in Donohue's very Catholic mind, is indistinguishable from giving the dog special treatment. Had poor Elton not been identified as a homosexual, Donohue says, the shelter would not have saved him. To you and I the moral of the story was the meanness, and stupidity, of the owner; to Donohue, the lesson learned was that not putting a dog to death for being gay was an undeserved bonus given to the dog. One that would not be given to straight dogs, or straight humans. We see a dog narrowly escaping a mean fate; Donohue sees a dog that has taken advantage of the bonus given to homosexuals. The bonus, he says.
When I initially saw Donohue's all-uppercased title scroll by on Twitter, I was not sure if Euthanizing Gay Dogs was a euphemism for something. I did not know whether Donohue would be for euthanizing gay dogs, or against it. I did not know if it was a sudden, hardline reference to events in Africa where, in no small part thanks to a few particularly loathsome American preachers, homosexuality can be an offense deserving of execution. That particular battle still continues. There may be no possibility that homosexuality will be met with tolerance, on the part of the American and local promoters of the new morality codes; it may be considered a bonus, however, if agreement can be reached so that gay citizens are not put to death. (That all those thoughts entered my mind before ever reading Donohue's little musing should tell you the low opinion I have of the bitter crank, and that Donohue managed to sink roughly to the level I expected of him satisfies me, at least, that I have his moral character pegged.) Whether he his for or against the execution of gay dogs is left unsaid, but that escaping that execution is undeserved, and worthy of scorn, and worthy of mockery (Elton, the dog has been named!) is written plain and clear. A dog was not put to death even though his owner identified him as One of Them; in a Catholic world, Donohue suggests, no such leeway should be expected.
As I said, Donohue's little musings sat on my desktop for a cold week or so. For all that week, and the month before that, and for the last year and then some, our own dog suffered from steadily failing kidneys. It is an effect of old age. She was 14, and had been with us all but the first few months of that lifetime. Our daughter has never known a home in which the dog, that dog, our dog, has not been always been with us.
By last Tuesday evening her now bone-thin body could take no more; she began to refuse all further food, and no longer would even drink; blood flowed from the corner of her mouth, a sign her organs had begun to hemorrhage. It was the end. Wednesday morning we made the arrangements; we spread a towel down in the car, and drove her to the vet; my wife carried her in; we were with her and held her as they gave the two injections that ended her life quietly, on a large heavy blanket. We had promised ourselves and her that she would not suffer, when the end came. We would keep her as long as we selfishly could, for every possible moment we could, through hand feedings and shifting diets and restless night times acting as constant butler for an animal that can manage very much, but never a door handle, but when the morning came when she could no longer even hold her own insides from spilling out, we let her go.
I cannot think of any better way. When my own time comes, as it will, I can only hope to be carried softly into death by those I love most, surrounded by those I love most. If our fate is to be given the barest glimpse of life only to have it tugged back from us, an entire universe based on the cruelest and most vicious of pranks, then I would gladly give up those last hours, the very worst ones, full of sorrow, and pain, and panic shifting into struggle and delirium. No, I would like to be put down like a dog, because we grant our dogs a gift we do not as easily grant ourselves. We give them the gift of one less day, when we know for certain that that last, final day would be the cruelest one. When we see that blood, we let them go.
Maybe that, then, is the bonus. Not just granting life when life should be granted, but granting peace when the alternative is crueler.
I do not think I trust Bill Donohue's thoughts on death any more than his thoughts on life. I know there is conviction in his words; whether there is thought, or grace, I am not so sure. If life is precious, surely granting it to one more cannot be considered a bonus. If being accused of being gay is sufficient to be discarded or at least sufficient reason not to be overtly saved, then the sanctity of all other lives must be considered tarnished as well. I think this man who rails against euthanasia treats death too lightly and life too dismissively. If we are to dismiss the conscious, thinking, running, loving lives of those we find lacking of value, but still stubbornly battle against the last wishes of even those we cherish most, in all the other cases, it does not sound like any of those lives are thought very highly of at all.
I do not know what to do about Bill Donohue. He may not speak for my old church, but in their continued silence, they have countenanced viciousness that erases whatever scriptures are mawed at on each successive Sunday. I would like, once, to see the same convictions from the church on the government's role towards the sick and the poor, on war, on executions, and on hatred that echo with even half the same decades-long passion reserved for anything having to do with sex. I would like to see a politician refused Communion because of their votes to strip the poor of food or the sick of care, or because they allowed an execution that a single stroke of a pen could have stopped. I would like to see a row of gray-haired faces in black insist on their church's opposition to war with half the angry, fuming conviction present when condemning the rights of a secular employee to birth control if their employer does not wish it. But I have waited for all of these things for a very long time, and they do not come. Instead the church obsesses over sex, and is defined by their positions on sex, and has come undone through sex, and rotten, bitter cranks like Bill Donohue consider themselves the sword and shield of the bony old church, and revel in their roles.
So there is the story of one small story that sat on my desktop, and of one man, and a whole church, and of me losing a little more of my faith. And it is a story about two dogs: one that was saved, and another that passed only a few short days ago. I wish both of them all possible happiness._
Has this discussion been brought up before? Most likely, but let's resurrect it.
hXXp://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/06/16869379-boy-scouts-we-need-more-time-for-decision-on-gay-membership#comments]Boy Scouts: We need more time for decision on gay membership
In my opinion, this is not the fight to fight at this time. I am sympathetic with current gay Scouts who are stuck in the middle of this mess, but priorities need to be set. Also, this muddies the waters in a most unusual and emotional way, as much of the concern here is about children. Kids, at best. That fact alone makes me lean towards putting this off for another day. But there is an even bigger reason.
Some of us are old enough to remember the local "Country Clubs" that were whites only clubs. Obviously that was dead wrong. But I doubt that it was foremost in Dr. King's mind as he marched from Selma to Montgomery.
A brief look at the Commonwealth v. Pendennis Club decision, decided in 2004 by the Supreme Court of Kentucky
In that case, the Kentucky Court held that the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights (KCHR) had the authority to investigate private country clubs to determine if they deny membership based on race. If the Commission concludes that a club discriminates in its membership practices, Kentucky law prohibits members from taking tax deductions for amounts paid to the club.
Pendennis is an important decision that upholds the KCHR’s authority to look into the practices of private clubs and “refuse endorsement” of discriminatory conduct by disallowing tax deductions to members. Yet, questions remain regarding whether the state is doing enough to end racist policies at country clubs. The KCHR’s mission is “to eradicate discrimination in the Commonwealth through enforcement of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act.” While Pendennis was a victory for the KCHR, it does not fully satisfy the KCHR’s goal of eradicating discrimination.
My point being that even today, this issue has yet to be eradicated in even what could be classified as a robust manner in the racial arena. And while I certainly do not advocate never taking the BSA to task on the matter, I think we do more harm than good by trying to do so now.
You selected a great "teacher" in Ray Bradbury. I love that man and his writings.
Your post was moving and enjoyable. The English was nearly perfect. One note: stay away from slang. Your writing is better than that. (thingies, fellas, wanna) Use the proper words (things, fellows, want to) your writing deserves it.
If I may, it is well established that the morality of humans is completely changed in a war. Soldiers, along with those trapped in a war zone, do not abide by, nor do they witness, a morality that is anything close to the norm for them. That is exactly the cause of Post-traumatic stress disorder that occurs in so many people directly engaged in a war. I submit that a discussion on morality must be broken into two different discussions when war comes into the discussion. My comments above were made with the exclusion of war time morality. The two do not and cannot exist together. Ask any soldier who has been in heavy combat. Ask any civilian who has been in the midst of a firefight or bombing. Ask yourself, if you have ever experienced war up close and personal. The normal rules are suddenly turned upside down. It was my understanding that this particular discussion was about "normal" morality. That is, a peacetime morality. If we are to bring wartime morality into it, that is a different discussion all together. However, having said that; minus specifics of the battleground, the impetus for wars and the will of a people not in the war zone to promote an ongoing war is probably fair game for this discussion.
Let's take a step back and look at what this ruling truly means.
From Dylan Byers of Politico
The Associated Press has nixed "homophobia," "ethnic cleansing," and a number of other terms from its Style Book in recent months.
The online Style Book now says that "-phobia," "an irrational, uncontrollable fear, often a form of mental illness" should not be used "in political or social contexts," including "homophobia" and "Islamophobia." It also calls "ethnic cleansing" a "euphemism," and says the AP "does not use 'ethnic cleansing' on its own. It must be enclosed in quotes, attributed and explained."
"Ethnic cleansing is a euphemism for pretty violent activities, a phobia is a psychiatric or medical term for a severe mental disorder. Those terms have been used quite a bit in the past, and we don't feel that's quite accurate," AP Deputy Standards Editor Dave Minthorn told POLITICO.
"When you break down 'ethnic cleansing,' it's a cover for terrible violent activities. It's a term we certainly don't want to propgate," Minthorn continued. "Homophobia especially – it's just off the mark. It's ascribing a mental disability to someone, and suggests a knowledge that we don't have. It seems inaccurate. Instead, we would use something more neutral: anti-gay, or some such, if we had reason to believe that was the case."
"We want to be precise and accurate and neutral in our phrasing," he said.
The changes made to the online Style Book will appear in next year's printed edition.
Note that they have only banned the word from reporters using it as an adjective to describe a person or incident, not the use of the word in quotes. This is not so different than a reporter stating that a thief is a kleptomaniac with no knowledge of the person's past. What credentials does a reporter have to know if a person is truly a kleptomaniac? It is the use of the -phobia suffix that is the concern. Writers must conform to a high standard to retain credibility. Given free will, many assertions could be made about anyone. Would it be fair if a reporter described homosexuals as "gay pedophile types" at the drop of a hat? I think that is at the very crux of agis' point.
Also recall that in the U.S. this style guide is used by more than just reporters. Anyone who gets through college without butting up against it should question their instructors. The guide sets a standard for all writers in the U.S. including in business, the arts, and maybe, just maybe some of it trickles down to all of us. After all, reporters are paid to NOT be emotional in their writing. I would like to see it remain that way, for all of our sakes.