My point is, people should be demanding that the government has no say in marriage, gay or straight (not that I'm against gay or straight marriage). I'm against legal marriage. Legal refers to the Law of the Water (Commerce - corporate law/ Persons), and Lawful to the Law of the Land (People) (Article III).
I agree with you on legal marriage end, but once it involves legal benefits like insurance, right to citizenship, etc, I think some level of bureaucracy would still be required.
And much of this is obviously that, which is why if you go to a Muslim bakery and ask them to bake your cake, they'll tell you "no way, get lost," but gay people don't seem to care. It's hypocrisy and fascist to force a baker to break his freedom of religion. If they don't want to bake your cake, go somewhere else (because they'll spit in it anyway). It's about forcing people to accept your religious beliefs and violating theirs and that is criminal because you are violating their rights. You can't force people and I don't support that in any manner.
My point is, people should be demanding that the government has no say in marriage, gay or straight (not that I'm against gay or straight marriage). I'm against legal marriage. Legal refers to the Law of the Water (Commerce - corporate law/ Persons), and Lawful to the Law of the Land (People) (Article III).
Yes, If I go to a Muslim bakery they ought to bake my cake, because if they refuse to, it's like them saying I'm inferior, that I don't deserve to be treated like everybody else. They have to right to think and say (to one another, not publicly) whatever they want, but once they open a business to serve the entire community, they cannot discriminate. They must accept orders from whoever is able to pay for their service. You know there are many churches of all sorts being created every day. What if tomorrow they create a church which believes that black people should be sent back to the plantation? Is a member of that church entitled to kick a black consumer out of his store? The answer is no! The store's owner right to freedom of religion cannot be bigger than the consumer's right to dignity and equality. Freedom of religion is about being able to express your faith, not imposing it.
I'm going to tell you about the [bgcolor=#FF0000]TRUE hypocrisy[/bgcolor]: If Christians are discriminated and humiliated for being Christians, they call it hatred and prejudice. Take for example the persecuted minor Christian communities in Gaza and Lebanon. However, if gays, blacks or gypsies are discriminated by a Christian, they claim to be exercising their right to freedom of religion. So, once a Christian can spank to death a gay in the name of their god, why can't a Muslin murder a Christian to please Allah? It's just a matter of freedom of religion…
Transsexuals in the military isn't a problem when they aren't using the military to fund their transition.
It cost lots of money to train a soldier, then to have them laid up recovering from surgeries for most of the 4 year contract makes no sense, either from a money or troop readiness standpoint.
That's very simple: the army can accept only transgenders already operated and properly recovered. It's also important to say that most of trans people are not operated and do not wish for it.
First of all, being gay is not a choice, and transgender is. You may feel one way or another, but when you have a biological male competing against women and of course winning in a sports competition - it sets a precedent of unfairness which is obvious - and if you're for fairness, than that's not a winning path. Also, LGB is about sexuality, and T is about gender. They are not the same and I view transgender as a mutilation, like many other gays. Sex reassignment surgery is a new phenomena and not a natural thing. I also think the laws can be exploited to allow a man to put on a wig and some lipstick and fake boobs and perv on the ladies - which they are not happy about. Just my opinion.
Gays have always had the right to marry under common law - under their God, the difference in a legal marriage is that the judge is God. You don't understand the difference between legal and lawful, but most don't. You are popularizing the idea of trading rights for privileges and that sets a very dangerous precedent against our God given inalienable rights. Freedom of religion by it's very fundamental idea means the government has no say in it, so for you to get the government involved is only bringing more bureaucracy to the institution and complicating things. You are giving the government that you claim persecutes you even more power over your life, period. They should stay out of it entirely, because of the First Amendment - religious freedom. What happened to separation of church and state? You don't like religion and state in a Christian nation, so why are you all of a sudden for it when it suits you? Now you're giving up your freedom of religion, though you don't realize it because you don't understand what a license is.
You can have a license to practice law or medicine, to smoke medicinal marijuana, to hunt wild game and fish, to drive, etc. By it's very meaning, you are not understanding that a license can only be granted to do things that are already lawful to do. You cannot get a license to rape, murder, or steal. You are thereby begging for permission (the legal definition of apply, for a license in this case), begging for permission to do that which you already have the lawful right to do. Why would you ask for permission if you can already do it? Because you are being tricked into trading your rights for privileges and actually turning the idea of freedom upside down on it's head, unwittingly. The government only cares about one thing, power, because "govern" means control, and "ment" is Latin for mind. Words are very important and what may sound nice and wonderful is how the devil always works his contracts. Be careful what you wish for.
You still haven't proved that being transgender is choice. What you said is that a biological male competing among women is unfair. The choice here lies in competing or being allowed to compete; not in the feeling of belonging to a gender or another. You can think whatever you like about sex reassignment, as long as you don't meddle in people's right to cut off whatever they want, after all, it's their bodies.
Yes, I know the difference between legal and lawful. By the way, these words are actually more closely related than you think, that's why in many languages they mean the same. Anyway, common law is determined by legal cases precedent, which means a gay couple who wished to get married needed to resort to the court and wait for the judge's decision, whereas a heterosexual couple only needed to look for a notary's office nearby. The first time the rights that; according to you, we already had, started to be reinforced in practice, was after the Supreme Court ruled that state bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. Only 10 years ago, no law obliged notaries public to register a homosexual civil union. At present, many still refuse to do so. During the time DOMA was active, same-sex marriage could easily be overruled by the court based on its definition of matrimony, and the common law could be applied in these cases too, turning down unions already registered.
The problem with freedom of religion is that many see it as a right above all others, which, in turn, must be suppressed so that the freedom if religion can prevail.
Well Brazil is different, but conservatives are not after gay rights. Donald Trump has never tried to do anything to hurt gay rights. He's never went against gays in any way, and several of his managers at his casinos and hotels are gay. Transgender is about gender and LGB is about sexuality. They are different. You are born gay, you aren't born trans. Yesterday a feminist expressed her outrage on Tucker because Trans are usurping their sports and other things. I'm not against Trans, one of my best friends is Trans, but it has nothing to do with sexuality, and to lump them in is a stretch.
You aren't understanding the law as it is written, and though you are from Brazil, the law is the Uniform Commercial Code, a law that is universal by Vatican prefect. Van Koten VS Van Koten expressed that even though the Defense of Marriage Act states that a marriage is between a man and a woman, the SCOTUS ruled that it is actually between two persons and the government (a three party system). Problem is, government gets to decide everything and is the overruling party to the marriage because you asked them for permission to invoke your privileges. Privileges are not rights - in fact license to marry - a license means to beg for permission to do something already lawful. We shouldn't be asking permission to do what is lawful unless we are totally ignorant and needing of being placed in the ward of courts.
Conservatives are not trying to take your rights, and they never will at this point, because it cannot be challenged in court again unless YOU bring it. Then it's your fault, because you have everything you wanted and there's no reason. What about trying to marry in a Muslim Temple? Why don't you try to do that and see how far your rights go? It's hypocritical because the only people not following the law are the Islamic Citizens who refuse to follow the law as it is written. The left believe they are like Aladdin and Disney, and then attack conservatives who couldn't care less. Look at Europe, and even NY now they have their own Islamic Police patrolling and Sharia is being enacted. It's a shame that they are attempting to usurp the law because ultimately that will only lead to end gay marriage but you aren't concerned about that because you are ok with the hypocrisy.
The point is, as it was said, we vote Republican because we hate ourselves. No. You vote democrat because you can't be happy with what you have. It isn't about settling. You already have all the rights you could ever want. And you're pretending that you have a mission against the conservatives and that you're some kind of victim when you absolutely are not. You have it better than you ever have in history and you're acting like an ingrateful person towards what you have. That's obvious. You're hypothesis and theory that they would ban gay bars is beyond ludicrous. Most of them don't even believe in their own religion for starters. They don't know what to believe. It isn't because of liberalism, it's because that's the way nature is and they recognize it. You are weaving a hypothetical theory that doesn't make sense.
What?! Do you choose to perceive yourself like a woman even though you were born with a penis? Do you choose to wish you had a vagina instead? Getting operated is a choice, cross-dressing is choice, but feeling the way you feel about yourself and your body is not.
The Supreme Court only overruled DOMA 17 years later!
Firstly, we do not beg for privileges, we demand our rights to be respected! Insurance, social security and immigration benefits are privileges that may come with marriage, but marriage as a recognition of civil union is a right on its own. You act like gay couples were able to get married as freely and easily as the straight ones. Many clerks across the US and Brazil have refused to perform the civil union between same-sex couples. For decades, many states didn't recognized a marriage registered in another. How often that happens to a heterosexual couple?
"because you have everything you wanted" They way you put it seems like the LGBT supporters and demonstrators were throwing a tantrum when they were actually fighting for our rights as citizens and human beings.
The one being ludicrous is you. Islamic Police patrolling will end gay marriage? The US population is overwhelmingly christian. Before taking over the Senate and Supreme Court, they would have to convert most of the Americans, which I think is very, very unlikely. Islamic patrol can still hurt and kill many gays, if I lived there, in the UK or Germany, I'd be worried, but once I live in Brazil, the christians are potentially a lot more harmful.
"You already have all the rights you could ever want" No, we don't, and what we've achieved so far is due to our resistance to conservatism, not the political conservatism, but the intolerant and ignorant conservatism, which reinforces prejudice and hatred. We want the right to go out in streets not in fear of being killed or assaulted or humiliated. We want dignity to live as we want without anyone calling us freak!
Are you actually gay? Cause if you are, you must definitely hate yourself!
If you value army to being deadly more than being inclusive than it is what you should prefer.
Because by cutting expenses they are able to be more effective.
Transgender officers are not demanding any kind of special treatment, so they wouldn't overburden the army.
Because then everybody will be trying to get preferences for themselves.
I agree with you. In America it wouldn't work, but in Brazil there's a law to protect the black population from prejudice and violence. Of course some try to take advantage on that too, still the cases filed as hate crime are more likely to be taken seriously. So I believe it might be effective for LGBT as well
I think it can be a waste of money/time in school.
I don't mean having sexuality classes would be the answer, but it's important to be able to speak about it freely, at home, at school, anywhere.
Anyway my politics is based on disrespect to socialism.
I hate socialism too, but we should be cautious, because the more it leans towards the right, the closer to the left it gets. The economic policy
is still different, but all the rest becomes the same.
I'm a lot happier now, have the friends that I wish I had when I was out
What do you mean by that?
When I was younger I kinda felt like I needed to tell everyone, and it was also a strategy to find out those who would talk behind my back and those who would back me. I think letting people know you're gay as soon as you meet them has an advantage: they won't be disappointed in you (when they find out) and you won't be disappointed if some of your "friends" treat you differently from that moment on.
Now I tell only those to whom my sexuality may concern. Anyway, once I'm not so used to doing that anymore, when I feel like it's the right time to open up, I get somewhat ashamed and flinch a bit. I think it's important that you bear in mind that once you came out of the closet you must never come back in. Just deliberate if shame or fear had something to do with those times you kept you sexuality private. I mention that because sometimes a random subject comes up and I have to decide between lying or being honest. Ex: A friend that I'd just met and thus didn't know I'm gay thought I was flirting with a girl. He asked me if that was true 'cause he was interested in her. I could've just told him it wasn't, but I realized the context was right and that he deserved a better answer, so I also told him I'm not into girls. Now and then straight guys ask me what I think of a certain woman's tits. Either I'm evasive (and not completely honest) or I explain that tits are not my thing. I believe those brief coming out moments are a nice practice to make sure my self-acceptance is doing fine. I don't have to scream at the top of my lungs that I'm gay all the time, but I don't have a hard time saying it when it's needed, either.
Whether or not to advertise your sexual preference is a purely personal thing, of course. I think the real test though would be how you'd respond if someone assumed you were straight, or outright asked you. Would you correct them or tell them you're gay?
Couldn't agree more!
If you think that to force somebody to bake a cake using courts/police is making the country more liberal.
And you think you are not free until you can use other peoples money freely.
Then vote democrats.
No need to say untrue things about conservatives.
May be I am not informed but when was the last time they used law/courts/police to impose their lifestyle on you?
I'll give you some examples of how laws and courts can impose their lifestyle on us.
1. In Brazil, they're trying to enact similar laws to the North Carolina Bathroom Law, which would affect people I care about.
2. The Brazilian version of the Defense of Marriage Act which, if enacted, might make it easier to overturn a Supreme Court decision that allows same-sex marriage in the country. If they're ruling on my right to get married and foster, they are imposing their man and woman family concept on me.
3. The conservative party in Brazil is trying to pass an act whose aim is to forbid teachers from approaching the sexuality/homosexuality theme. Once we teach children that homosexuality and overall sexuality are taboos, they'll always be, and the next gay and female generations will most suffer from it.
4. Also in Brazil there's a bill which, if enacted, will criminalize homophobic-driven attacks and hate crimes. This means offenders will receive harsher sentences, whereas until now they can only be charged with assault. However, the conservatives are trying to suspend it.
5. Michigan foster care agencies are legally allowed to discriminate against gay applicants according to their faith-based opinions.
6. Trump said he would protect gay people from persecution, but his military transgender ban only drives homophobic officers to hunt them down.
I may not be directly affected by all of the laws above, but I sympathize with those who have. Sympathy: something most Republicans have a hard time understanding.
You can go out to the gay bar and have a good time, get a boyfriend, have a good life, and get married just like anyone else can. It seems like given all that, Liberals still aren't satisfied. The Conservatives leave you alone and let you live your life, and yet, you still aren't happy.
You only can do all that because the world has become more and more liberal. If conservative politicians get enough support, they may easily forbid gay bars or arrest you for having a boyfriend. I'm a liberal and I'm not still satisfied because we're not free yet, women are not free, immigrants are not free…How many white straight and middle class people get spanked or even murdered for being who they are?
The conservatives are the ones who DO NOT let you live your life. They wanna make you live as they believe it's right, the way they can't even live themselves.
It doesn't really matter to me at all that the Democrats are hypocritical. That's called politics. If Trump has to say he loves gay people to win his second term, he surely will. Trump has also said countless conflicting things about all sorts of matters. It's naive to think a politician believes a word they say. They'll do whatever it takes to get what they want and honestly, to me the only thing that matters is that their speech doesn't include telling me I'd be better off dead for being gay.
I couldn't understand you more, bobcat666! I live in Brazil and it has a political frame similar to the US'. The party that supports the LGBT is communist and treat us like victims. Such "support" exists just as long as they're getting our votes. The party that is economically liberal is socially conservative and vice versa.
Our current president is the Brazilian version of Trump, but not so wealth and far more religious. That makes me believe the gay population and all the other minorities are in a limbo, because even if you don't relate to the left wing agenda and ideology, you're forced to endorse it, once voting for the party that wants you dead sounds insane and stupid to me.
One might think the LGBT rights are just one out of hundreds of equally important issues and that it should not be prioritized; voting, thus, for the party that most meets their vision, even though it's homophobic. However, I think that is a misleading thought, because once your liberty, dignity and safety are at stake, what else matters? Issues like economy and foreign affairs will pale into insignificance when you get shot in the street and the bastard gets away with it for he was merely exercising his right to freedom of religion.
No matter how much you despise the Democrats, or how much I hate Brazilian Worker's Party (the LGBT supporter), backing the presidents of the US or Brazil is quite dangerous. They give local governments drive and legitimacy to do whatever they want and pass any absurd laws they hadn't managed to pass in a previously unfavorable political situation. If you're not LGBT, this should be just another issue; but if you are, it must be priority.
Nothing compares to massive furry pecs with big nipples!
Arms also do it for me: biceps, forearm, and triceps, the whole pack! Bulky triceps are even harder to get and totally irresistible.
Water Polo
I think water polo athletes are even hotter than swimmers, because instead of being manscaped, overly chiseled or disproportionally tall, their bodies are more natural and hairy.
Rugby and American football, because they produce a wide range of big bulked manly fellas, from slender guys to bears.
Some proof below:
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Gays can perfectly believe in god, jesus, saints or whatever they want to, but being gay and part of any religious organizations is like being a nazi Jew.
Obviously, if you get aroused by watching two (or more :cheers:) guys fuck, you're not 100% straight, even if you see yourself as such.
Brandon Manilow :cheers:
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)