View Single Post
Old 02-05-2005, 09:10 PM   #116 (permalink)
daswig
Banned
 
Location: BFE
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Hell freezing over yet? I guess we both just got tired of yelling at each other. I'm actually coming to respect daswig to a certian extent. Go fig.

DON'T DO IT!!!!

I really was both pissed off and amused by the "you're a bigot!" thing earlier. If you had ANY idea about my background, ties to the homosexual community, et cetera, you'd understand why.

BTW, in my book, calling somebody or an entire class of somebodys a pervert/s is not what I'd consider to be an insult. I generally define a "pervert" as somebody who engages in illegal sex acts of one form or another. Considering what sex acts are illegal where I am, active homosexuals are, by definition, perverts in my book, just as I'm a pervert, ALMOST all of my friends of perverts (I know one couple that used to be perverts, but then got fundie religion, and now obey the law, meaning they have sex only for procreation, in an unlit room, on a bed, wearing 80% body coverage with nightclothes, in the missionary position, and they don't enjoy it, but for some unknown reason, we've "grown distant"...These are the same people who begged my wife and I to go to church with them, and then introduced us to their pastor as "our Heathen Friends"... ) my wife is a pervert, hell, my MOM is presumably a pervert. The ONLY person I know FOR SURE isn't a pervert in my book that I really, really "dig" is my daughter, who is under 7 months old. A homosexual could potentially NOT be a pervert, but ONLY if they were celibate. If you were to come up to me and a group of my friends and ask "which one of yall are perverts!", we'd all gleefully raise our hands. I s'pose it's kind of like the people who write "Yes, please!" in the "sex" box on a job application.


As another "BTW", I oppose same-sex marriage. That doesn't mean I couldn't come up with a potentially agreeable solution to the problem for most of the people on this board that I would agree with. It would involve removing the State from the marriage business alltogether.

Last edited by daswig; 02-05-2005 at 09:13 PM..
daswig is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360