The homophobic thread :>

[homerfobe]

No, he said he considers it his business if it's with family members, not necessarily that he objects. Dang, you're dumb.

You've lost, grow up and get over it.

What? and miss out pissing off you queer lovers? Not a chance. I love being home for the weekend.

[O Really]

I don't consider it any of my business whatsoever if a friend, acquaintance, colleague, or stranger has sex with whom, how, or how often (unless it's with me or my family.)

So your saying it's OK that faggot sex is OK as long as it's not in your family. Got it.

I have no problem with the people in my family who are gay. If they get married, get divorced, get a job, lose a job, whatever, I have an interest. And it may be my "business" because they choose to make it so. But I certainly would not ever think it my right or place to tell anybody -family or not - who or whether they can marry.

[bannination]

Same-sex couple tests marriage ban at (Hendersonville) courthouse

Eva has outdone herself again in the comments. What a twat.

[O Really]

Interesting how people like to define a particular space - state, city, yard - as being exempt from federal law if a majority votes for something. So, letting the imagination run loose a little, I considered the town of Leith, ND, that is under attempted buy-out and control of white supremacists. IRL, it looks like that attempt will fail for a variety of reasons, but let's say it was successful. The town would have a majority white supremacists, and would ostensibly vote not to let any mixed race couples live in their town. Would that be OK? But there are a lot of white supremacists, or at least bigots, in the US. Disney World grew out of swampland, could Leith turn into a white supremacist Orlando? Suppose it did. It would have a big effect on the state, and white supremacists would probably control the ND legislature. They'd probably go as amuck as the NC legislature did and pass all sorts of laws protecting their white supremacy. Would that be OK? If anyone answered "no" the the OK questions, how could they answer "yes" that it's OK for the "majority" to vote away some other citizens' rights?

[bannination]

Interesting how people like to define a particular space - state, city, yard - as being exempt from federal law if a majority votes for something. So, letting the imagination run loose a little, I considered the town of Leith, ND, that is under attempted buy-out and control of white supremacists. IRL, it looks like that attempt will fail for a variety of reasons, but let's say it was successful. The town would have a majority white supremacists, and would ostensibly vote not to let any mixed race couples live in their town. Would that be OK? But there are a lot of white supremacists, or at least bigots, in the US. Disney World grew out of swampland, could Leith turn into a white supremacist Orlando? Suppose it did. It would have a big effect on the state, and white supremacists would probably control the ND legislature. They'd probably go as amuck as the NC legislature did and pass all sorts of laws protecting their white supremacy. Would that be OK? If anyone answered "no" the the OK questions, how could they answer "yes" that it's OK for the "majority" to vote away some other citizens' rights?

If majority rules then the tea partiers in congress have some explaining to do right now.

[Wneglia]

Same-sex couple tests marriage ban at (Hendersonville) courthouse

Eva has outdone herself again in the comments. What a twat.

It will be interesting to see if the lesbian couple who live across the street from me (in H'ville) tie the knot.

[homerfobe]

Deluded, wrinkled old twat twinkies. Anything to get their pictures in the paper. What did they accomplish other than that? Nothing but making a fool of themselves which they were to begin with. Now they're bigger idiots.

Thanks Verde for keeping this thread going. I love being a pathetic, deluded, joke, at least I'm not a filthy ass faggot.

[homerfobe]

I appreciate that you bathe.

This is one of many tactics in a war that gays and the tolerant are clearly winning, that's what's accomplished and you're the one that's "Deluded", idiot.

At least you've acknowledged that queers are faggots, filthy or clean. Way to go. I don't give a rat's ass if they do win, they're still faggots and twat twinkies.

Those two old wrinkled bags in the paper's picture probably have old prune looking snatches that hang down to their knees from all that vacuum cleaner-like action over the years. Might even find a few barnacles attached.

[homerfobe]

Eva has outdone herself again in the comments. What a twat.

Ewww. Emailed just now:

Hi Eva,

Re: Same-sex couple tests marriage ban at courthouse
http://www.blueridgenow.com/article/201 ... c=obinsite

I read your comment and am very disappointed by it.

This is home state of the lunch counter sit-ins. Should those blacks have meekly respected the will of the majority?

Are you unaware of the crucial role that direct action has played in the environmental movement you're part of over the past decades?

Besides, the courthouse action didn't even involve lawbreaking and the couple did not expect the clerk to break the law. Rather, it is part of a long term campaign to get the law changed as you suggest. What's your gripe with that?

I encourage you to consider all this along with the direct replies to your comment and post a retraction.

Peace,
(Vrede)

Now, let's look at what Eve wrote:
They may do well to remember that this is still a country that respects the will of the majority and established law. Fully more than 61% of North Carolinians voted not to support state sanctioned marriage for same sex couples. Homosexuals have every right to try and change the law through legal process and have gained success in a country tilting ever more secular but would they be as charitable if they had a majority on an issue and the minority denied it? The majority have spoken and respecting that is a fundamental safeguard to our system.

So, you two clowns; the fact that she reminded you that same-sex marriage was voted down in a lawfully held election, in a way befitting democracy,
you two shit your britches because why? She rubbed your nose in your loss? Eve said nothing derogatory in her post against those two hags, but you
two came all unglued (oh wait---disappointed) because she said essentially that wasn't the way to get the law changed; that is making asses of themselves going to the county clerk with their parade of queer lovers for support. They didn't get nuttin'---hahahaha!

[homerfobe]

You are confused, as usual. She did not write anything against homosexuality and I did not email her as if she did. Rather, I'm disappointed because she, a long time activist, expressed such a shallow understanding of how change has been historically accomplished. Having obeyed someone else's orders your entire life I can see that the concept would be foreign to you. She could have been writing about highway expansion or school equality and my note would have been largely the same. You've screwed up, again.

OK, got it. You're disappointed because she's a long time activist, but she has sense enough to realize that the majority of the people have spoken out in the form of a vote against the queer-shits who want to tell the world that we are to accept their filth whether we like it or not. All she did was to remind readers that the people have spoken and that a public display of arrogance was not the way to get the law repealed.
Again, she didn't speak for or against their actions. You're 'disappointed' because she didn't express support for your love of faggots.

Just press Ctrl-Alt-Del and get over it. The sun will shine again, tomorrow. You've screwed up, again. I'm sure Eve's crying her eyes out.

[Bungalow Bill]

I've always thought Rtichie was one of those small business assholes,
but it's no big deal now because she's on the losing side of history.
GFY trolley shithead.

[Bungalow Bill]

That's true. I get the feeling that she was likely in the 61%,
which is her right. To me, a little of Eva goes a long way.

[bannination]

You are confused, as usual. She did not write anything against homosexuality and I did not email her as if she did. Rather, I'm disappointed because she, a long time activist, expressed such a shallow understanding of how change has been historically accomplished. Having obeyed someone else's orders your entire life I can see that the concept would be foreign to you. She could have been writing about highway expansion or school equality and my note would have been largely the same. You've screwed up, again.

OK, got it. You're disappointed because she's a long time activist, but she has sense enough to realize that the majority of the people have spoken out in the form of a vote against the queer-shits who want to tell the world that we are to accept their filth whether we like it or not. All she did was to remind readers that the people have spoken and that a public display of arrogance was not the way to get the law repealed.
Again, she didn't speak for or against their actions. You're 'disappointed' because she didn't express support for your love of faggots.

Just press Ctrl-Alt-Del and get over it. The sun will shine again, tomorrow. You've screwed up, again. I'm sure Eve's crying her eyes out.

Why do you guys care so much about what other people do that doesn't affect you in the slightest possible way?

[mike]

Why do you guys care so much about what other people do that doesn't affect you in the slightest possible way?

Quick guess?
The closet door is still locked for them and they have no idea how to open it even though they have the key.

Repression is hard on those doing the repression ... it shows in their vehement diatribes full of derogatory missives as they search for some type of verisimilitude:

... You're 'disappointed' because she didn't express support for your love of faggots.

They are as easy to spot as a burgeoning sunflower in a field of newly-planted corn (non-GMO, preferably).
They doth protest too much.

[Boatrocker]

Latents like homerfool glow in the dark.

[homerfobe]

Latents like homerfool glow in the dark.

Latent fools such as yourself don't need darkness to shine.

[mike]

Deflection and repression of their own tendencies.

Indeed, Boatrocker, people like Homophobic glow in the dark even as they attempt to hide their own confusion.
It is in the dark where they shine otherwise they would be prefer enlightenment (they shun such).

[homerfobe]

Deflection and repression of their own tendencies.

Indeed, Boatrocker, people like Homophobic glow in the dark even as they attempt to hide their own confusion.
It is in the dark where they shine otherwise they would be prefer enlightenment (they shun such).

I'm sure you're the one who really ought to know. So how did you hurt your foot? Broad-jumping in the Gay Olympics?

[rstrong]

NJ Gov. Christie drops gay marriage appeal

Fourteen states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington), the District of Columbia, several counties in New Mexico, and six Native American tribal jurisdictions.

The fight over same-sex marriage is essentially over.

There will be hold-out states, but they're becoming irrelevant. It's already official that for federal employees it doesn't matter if you live in a hold-out state. If you were legally married in a pro-civil rights state, you still get marriage benefits and protections. This is the route that national corporations will take.

Nor can the federal government, military and major corporations take away marriage benefits when they transfer someone to a hold-out state. Their marriage benefits will be the same even in those states. And so the hold-out states' policies become irrelevant. Any attempt to block this will force REAL money and legal muscle into the battle.

It's over. Once again, civil rights won.

[Boatrocker]

NJ Gov. Christie drops gay marriage appeal

Fourteen states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington), the District of Columbia, several counties in New Mexico, and six Native American tribal jurisdictions.

Can't quite decide about Christie. I can't shake the suspicion that he is, in reality, a closeted realist/centrist with fiscally conservative ideals, trying to represent a state full of diverse folks. But his apparent unwillingness to publically tell the teabagger klan to fugg off won't let me make the leap completely. I'll be watching him.