Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by JB View Post
    Are they a gay couple or not?
    No, they are not. The male half of the duo is just a man who has objectified women and female gender role material to the point of sexual fetish. He believes that by 'becoming' a woman, he will live out his fantasies of female objectification (maybe he will, who knows?).

    The female half of the couple is just a sexually hesitant woman who is probably somewhat threatened by the ordinary demands of heterosexuality. If she considers herself to be a lesbian then hooking up with a sexually damaged man may be a safer option for her since lesbian relationships are more physically violent than heterosexual relationships.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    The best news in this story is that Miss Evans' 5 year old son lives with his grandparents in Jamaica.
    Jamaica is an intellectual cesspool, where gay people and transexuals are routinely attacked and/or murdered. Popular music celebrates the torture and execution of gay people in Jamaica. And you think this is a good place for a lesbian's child (or anyone's child) to grow up?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,970
    Quote Originally Posted by megimoo View Post
    THat former male critter looks like a coon hound..and she looks like a former Pineapple Harvest Queen long past her recall date ...SHIMS
    Those two are so ugly they would knock a buzzard off a shit wagon. :eek::)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    The best news in this story is that Miss Evans' 5 year old son lives with his grandparents in Jamaica.
    No, the worst news is that she has apparently abandoned a 5-year-old son.
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    i don't accept the transexual diagnosis and I think the treatment is ill advised at best. However, I think that if we objectively look at what this is, without all the BS we have wrapped around sex and identity, there isn't a huge difference between gender dysphoria and some other issues of self perception and the remedies people pursue. The major drawback of gender resassignment, and it's for the person getting it rather than us, is that it's destructive and functionally irrevocable.

    It's is, however, interesting that so many transexuals end up in relationships with biofemales or other transexuals of the same gender identity.

    And as fucked up as I might think the concept of transexualism is, for the life of me I can't figure out why it has some other people all worked up. Are you incapable of taking an objective look at these things? Do you honestly imagine that your every breath is in agreement with the world around you? Why are you so wrapped up in convincing yourself that some group of people are a menace when those people pose no threat to you whatsoever, never have, never will? What is the matter with you?
    On the contrary, I am looking at this objectively. He is clearly a deeply disturbed individual who is embarking on his fourth marriage. His medically mutilated genitalia will not change the most critical organ in any relationship, which is not between his legs, but his ears. This "marriage" will end badly, if the other three are any indication. I don't consider him a menace, so much as a symptom of a disease, one which is the ongoing effort to destroy the concept of marriage and sexual restraint. American Thnker had a superb article on the subject the other day, from which I take this excerpt:

    In truth then, what is being pursued is not any redefinition of marriage, but rather the "undefinition" of it -- an attempt to obliterate any fundamental parameters for what is to be perceived as moral and immoral sexual partnerships. To anyone paying attention over the last several decades, this effort should come as no surprise.

    The debate over homosexuality in our culture, after all, is nothing more than the current manifestation of a much larger crusade for sexual anarchy that has been raging since Alfred Kinsey's fraudulent sex studies of the 1950s. Engaging in nothing short of institutional pedophilia and sexual abuse of children as young as Kindergarten, Kinsey's "research" contended that average Americans commonly were engaging in all sorts of sexual activity. He and his acolytes urged the culture to act on his revelations by shedding their fears and shames about such behavior and embracing all forms of sexual activity as acceptable expression.

    The Kinsey cause morphed into the free love movement of the 1960s with its focus on breaking down societal barriers against almost any sexual expression. And ever since, we have experienced a relentless campaign from these forces of sexual anarchy to normalize previously forbidden recreational sex. When Kinsey started the fire, most resisted the idea that sex should be entertainment, until pop culture normalized it. Even then, most resisted the idea that divorce should be easily attainable, until pop culture normalized it. Even then, most resisted the idea that promiscuity should be celebrated, until pop culture normalized it. Even then, most resisted the idea that homosexuality and cross-dressing should be accepted, and now pop culture is normalizing it.

    If my assessment is accurate, we should be seeing the next stage in the crusade for sexual anarchy beginning to take shape. And right on cue, a news story emerges from the Salt Lake Tribune to validate as much.

    As columnist Lindsay Whitehurst explains, the nearly 38,000 polygamists in Utah are closely following a case in Canada where a court is now weighing a decision that could upend the country's ban on polygamy. What is astounding about the story is how frighteningly similar the polygamists' arguments are to those we are currently hearing from the homosexual and transgendered crowd in America.

    Calling the proceedings "historic," polygamy advocate Marlyne Hammon proclaimed, "If Canada were to drop that law, it would send quite an important message out to the world. They can see [polygamy] is not what everyone says. It's about people." Hammon added that the decriminalization of plural marriage in Canada would be a huge motivation to those fighting for its legalization in America. "We've established ourselves in our homes," she said. "We want to continue fighting for our civil rights."

    Utah's Attorney General's office spokesman Paul Murphy has said of the case, "I think it will inform us. Canada is tackling the same issues we have, in that we have this law but for the most part it hasn't been enforced by any law enforcement agency."

    Notice the similarity in language and sentiment being utilized: civil rights, anti-discrimination, self-fulfillment, personal happiness, don't judge, constitutional rights, personal expression. The very catch phrases currently employed by the sexual anarchists to achieve the acceptance of homosexual behavior are already being used to advocate for the next rung in their ladder. It should come as no surprise then that Tom Hanks, a vocal proponent of gay marriage, is currently the executive producer for the HBO series "Big Love," portraying (and normalizing) a fictional polygamous family in Utah.

    Once the trail has been forged by homosexuality activists, polygamy is nothing but the next logical step. Paul McCormack, a law professor at the University of Utah, confirms that if the Supreme Court takes up the question of same-sex marriage, it will open the door to other forms of personal sexual preference. "That would resuscitate the interest in polygamy," he stated.

    In light of all this, I simply ask those who support the legalization of "gay marriage" how they plan to deny marriage rights to those who advocate for polygamy? This has now gone beyond a "slippery slope" hypothetical question and has entered the realm of reality. The question deserves an answer, and any sane culture would demand one before proceeding further down the Kinsey path.

    If we remove the current moral guideposts defining marriage as the God-intended union of a man and woman, declaring them to be a violation of the civil rights of those who want to engage in homosexuality, how do we reposition those posts to reject the civil rights claims of polygamists?

    If we accept the arguments espoused by pop culture homosexual activists like Ellen DeGeneres who plead, "People are gonna be who they're gonna be, and we need to learn to love them for who they are and let them love who they want to love," how do we rebuff polygamy activists like Marlyne Hammon who say the same?

    The answer is we don't. That is the consequence of "undefining" marriage -- it becomes a meaningless term, once for all vanquished by the forces of sexual anarchy. This necessarily opens the floodgates to the legalization of every form of sexual activity, from polygamy to incest to bestiality. Before we uproot our culture's moral barriers, we might want to pause long enough to consider what awaits us on the other side.

    Peter is a public high school government teacher and radio talk show host in central Indiana.
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/...their_mov.html
    In short, a former man, who is now neither a man nor a woman, but some freakish hybrid, is marrying a woman who has a child which she does not raise, and appears to have abandoned. You claim that you consider transexuality to be "f***ed up", but then demand to know what is wrong with me when I say the same thing. What is wrong with me is that I do not mince words, evade truths or deny what is in front of my own eyes. What is wrong with you, that you can state that you consider this screwed up, but can't accept that anyone else can?
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    12,695
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Jamaica is an intellectual cesspool, where gay people and transexuals are routinely attacked and/or murdered. Popular music celebrates the torture and execution of gay people in Jamaica. And you think this is a good place for a lesbian's child (or anyone's child) to grow up?


    Yes, the child is with his grandparents. I have a retired friend who is living the good and cheap life in Jamaica. The cost of living is low, the weather is nice and it can't be any more homophobic than Detroit, where gay men are beaten on DOT buses.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Senior Member Apache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Tree rats are watching you
    Posts
    7,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    What is the matter with you?
    You first...
    Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.
    Ronald Reagan

    We could say they are spending like drunken sailors. That would be unfair to drunken sailors, they're spending their OWN money.
    Ronald Reagan

    R.I.P. Crockspot
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    CU Royalty JB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    The article doesn't mention Kerry ever being romantically interested in men. If we accept that Kerry is a woman, and if Kerry is romantically attracted to women, then by definition Kerry would be a lesbian. If one maintains that Kerry was a woman trapped in a man's body, then Kerry was a lesbian woman trapped in a man's body.
    I find your lack of pronouns in this reply disturbing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by JB View Post
    I find your lack of pronouns in this reply disturbing.
    JB means that JB finds Novaheart's lack of pronouns in Novaheart's reply disturbing. :D
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    CU Royalty JB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    JB means that JB finds Novaheart's lack of pronouns in Novaheart's reply disturbing. :D
    Hey, JB knows who JB is. :p
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,421
    That picture is proof that the British health care system is horrible. We could do better. Yes we can.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •