Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think Anderson Cooper coined the phrase "teabaggers" accidentally because it was a regular expression in his lexicon and he made a Freudian Slip. I have not heard any Tea Party folks refer to themselves with that expression, but then I wouldn't be surprised since I doubt many of them know what Anderson Cooper did about what "teabagging" really involves.
i pesonaly think that sexuality should be private, i dont go flaunting my straightness around in west hollywood, so why should they talk about their homo-lisiousness when im around?
In that case, I expect you to refrain from ever talking about a girlfriend, boyfriend, husband, or wife in public.
I think Anderson Cooper coined the phrase "teabaggers" accidentally because it was a regular expression in his lexicon and he made a Freudian Slip. I have not heard any Tea Party folks refer to themselves with that expression, but then I wouldn't be surprised since I doubt many of them know what Anderson Cooper did about what "teabagging" really involves.
Nice try, but tea partiers named themselves "teabaggers":
As off topic as this is, if someone doesn't like being called a n*gger nor do they like the word perpetuated, perhaps they, themselves, should stop ****ing saying it.
That really pisses me off when people use racial slurs in the safety zone of referring to themselves.
Then I guess you're going to be pissed off for the rest of your life.
Language and communication are not as simple as you'd like them to be. Another example: Most people don't talk to their mothers using the same language that they use with their sex partners.
Then I guess you're going to be pissed off for the rest of your life.
.
And so will you I suppose because not everyone is going to see eye to eye with you about homosexuality. Just deal with it like you told that other poster.
And so will you I suppose because not everyone is going to see eye to eye with you about homosexuality. Just deal with it like you told that other poster.
No, sorry, I don't get pissed off about that. I just recognize that there are simple-minded people who:
1. Will never understand the nuances of language and communication
2. Don't have the mental or emotional capacity to understand the complexities of human sexuality
I may get frustrated with people from time to time, but I can take comfort in the fact that I know better than they do, and that experts agree with me. If someone prefers to be simple-minded and unevolved in their thinking, that's mostly their problem, not mine.
Last edited by AnUnidentifiedMale; 10-05-2010 at 12:53 PM..
I think this supports my theory. I see a photo of an 80 year old lady with a sign that says "Teabagging for Jesus." Do you think she has in mind Michael Jackson's testicles and scr0tum spread all over Anderson Cooper's face? My guess is that she didn't know what it meant or she would not have made the sign. Most of the religious 80 year olds I know are not likely to joke about testicles and scr0tum.
Originally Posted by MilkDrinker
The marriage is not a civil right! It's a religious practice! Sorry but we can't change the religions just to accommodate the failed ones!
Civil unions are not really a right neither but they can have it! In my country the state doesn't have anything to do with the marriage! People get married at the city council then at the church (does that are not religious remain just with the civil union made by the state). The marriage at the church is not official!
Actually I think that just in US the marriage made by the church is recognized by state!
Quote:
Originally Posted by kshe95girl
Before you go shooting your mouth off about something you are completely ignorant of, (or are you just pretending to be disingenuous?) I would suggest reading up on laws in the US.
One has to get a marriage license from the STATE to be married here.
Actually, he had a really good point. The opposition to gay marriage is religiously based--I haven't heard another, rational argument against it. I go to a Christian church that supports gay marriage, so it isn't an across the board "Christian" thing. Since there are so many legal rights and benefits to being "married" to someone, (taxes, estates, health care decisions, you name it), many countries have removed churches from the process. EVERYONE (gay or straight) goes to the court house and signs the contracts creating a civil union. Then, if you believe marriage is a union before God, you have the option of going to your church and performing a traditional religious ceremony there. The court house is the legal portion, the church service is an expression of faith, and is legally non-binding. That way, if your church doesn't support gay marriage, they don't have to marry gay people. I think that's what we need to go to here, and the problem is solved.
One last comment--I'm a devout Christian who thinks MY religious rights are best protected by keeping government out of the church, and vice versa.
We don't give pedophiles a pass, do we? Immoral is immoral.
Children are not capable of consenting to a relationship. Pedophilia has no place in this argument.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
