Jun
02
Banning gays from pro sports: It won't affect golf, and makes as much sense as gay marriage ban
There was a time long ago when homosexuals wouldn’t dare speak of gay marriage. In 2006 however, a freedom permeates the land, allowing people from all walks of life to dream of liberties otherwise denied.
Which likely explains why we need to ban things like gay marriage at the constitutional level.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I see President Bush’s ploy of talking up a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage for what it really is – a “Stop looking at Iraq and out-of-control government spending” issue.
Nonetheless, it’s vital that we back the president at this time. Plus, c’mon, it’s cool to back Bush now. I mean, no one else is doing it. It’s subversively hip.
This is why, in line with Bush proposing to take away the civil rights of people based on their personal and sexual tastes, I believe we should go further. It’s time we ban homosexuals from taking part in professional sports.
This actually shouldn’t be very hard. At last check, defying all known statistical surveys on homosexuality, there was not a single gay male participating in a group sport. So baseball, football, soccer, hockey, etc., you’re all free to go.
Which brings us to professional golf. Rosie Jones came out in 2004, but face it, that’s the last interesting thing she did. She’s out. Karrie Webb keeps her personal life extremely private, which is to be commended. She’s still out, though. Think of the children.
Luckily, on the PGA Tour, there doesn’t appear to be a single homosexual. Same goes with the Champions Tour. There may be a gay professional golfer out there somewhere, but you’d likely have to dig fairly deep into a mini-tour to find an openly out one.
Nonetheless, this shouldn’t stop us from banning homosexuals from professional sports. If the President can get a constitutional amendment taking away a group of people’s rights based on pandering to voters, than I say, we should be able to go whole hog. Plus, once you get the taste for this sort of thing, random acts of oppression can become addictive. So sorry homosexuals, no military, marriage or pro sports for you.
Because in the end, it comes down to this: Why even have power if you aren’t going to use it to take away the rights of a group of people that can’t yell as loud as you.
Which is why I believe now is the time to ban homosexuals from professional sports. They devalue the athletic achievements of heterosexual athletes and leave our children confused. Now is the time to act, because while there could, perhaps, maybe be homosexuals in pro sports, they won’t say a word. They never do.
Let’s ban homosexuals from professional sports. It makes as much sense as banning homosexuals from marriage, and if you’re going to make a mockery of the constitution, why be subtle about it?
–WKW
| « Michelle Wie on top of these golf rankings, win or lose | What does a guy need to do to get a golf ball hit into orbit, anyway? » |
31 comments
Comment from: Johnny N. [Visitor]
Your sarastic blog is just silly William.
I am not for banning gays in professional sports.
However I am 100% in support of George Bush's position to ban gay marriage because gay marriage would make a mockery of marriage.
Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman, in which they make a commitment to each other and provide a more secure place to bring up children.
And that is the whole issue, children.
I am all for gay rights. They should be free to do whatever they want to each other in the privacy of their own homes and they should not be denied that right.
However when it comes to children, no matter how long two gay people stay together and no matter what activities they pursue together, they will never produce a child.
That is for a very important reason. A child needs a mother and a father.
Obviously there will be unfortunate cases where a parent leaves or is deceased, but that takes nothing away from the principle that hetrosexual couple are the only couples who can have children.
If homosexuals want to come up with their own form of commitment to each other than let them do that. But I do not want the santity of my form of marriage to be diluted.
If homosexuals are allowed to marry, what next? Should we perhaps allow a man to marry his dog or some other pet?
Homosexual rights are simple. Homosexuals should be free to pursue whatever they wish to as long as they are consenting adults.
However, that doesn't mean that they should infringe on other peoples rights to have the sanctity of marriage protected.
I am not for banning gays in professional sports.
However I am 100% in support of George Bush's position to ban gay marriage because gay marriage would make a mockery of marriage.
Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman, in which they make a commitment to each other and provide a more secure place to bring up children.
And that is the whole issue, children.
I am all for gay rights. They should be free to do whatever they want to each other in the privacy of their own homes and they should not be denied that right.
However when it comes to children, no matter how long two gay people stay together and no matter what activities they pursue together, they will never produce a child.
That is for a very important reason. A child needs a mother and a father.
Obviously there will be unfortunate cases where a parent leaves or is deceased, but that takes nothing away from the principle that hetrosexual couple are the only couples who can have children.
If homosexuals want to come up with their own form of commitment to each other than let them do that. But I do not want the santity of my form of marriage to be diluted.
If homosexuals are allowed to marry, what next? Should we perhaps allow a man to marry his dog or some other pet?
Homosexual rights are simple. Homosexuals should be free to pursue whatever they wish to as long as they are consenting adults.
However, that doesn't mean that they should infringe on other peoples rights to have the sanctity of marriage protected.
06/02/06 @ 09:52
Comment from: Kevin Nichols [Visitor]
I can personally vouch for John Daly as being so totally not gay. Don't even TRY to go there, if you know what I'm saying. Chubsie (as I always call him) is a MARVELOUS swinger and can do wonders gripping a club ...... but the beee-yatch has NO sense of adventure. Trust me.
06/02/06 @ 10:04
Comment from: Kiel Christianson [Visitor]
I have to laugh at the whole "sanctitiy of marriage" argument. How much sanctity is there when 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce? For Pete's sake, call it a civil union and be done with it already. Then all the holier than thous can tsk-tsk, and the rest of us human beings can go on loving whomever we want, with all the legal rights and privilages that entails.
06/02/06 @ 16:18
Comment from: Johnny N. [Visitor]
Kiel,
I support gays being allowed to do whatever they want in their own homes.
I abhor any violence or discrimination againts them, just because of their sexual orientation.
However marriage is between a man and a woman. You know, those two forms of human being who come together to create the next generation.
I also support gays being able to have inheritance rights passed over to their partners, but what they have is not marriage and never will be.
I support gays being allowed to do whatever they want in their own homes.
I abhor any violence or discrimination againts them, just because of their sexual orientation.
However marriage is between a man and a woman. You know, those two forms of human being who come together to create the next generation.
I also support gays being able to have inheritance rights passed over to their partners, but what they have is not marriage and never will be.
06/02/06 @ 16:37
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Wolfrum,
You are, without a doubt, a complete and total idiot. First of all, what does this have to do with golf? It's quite obvious that you simply wanted to vent your spleen about this issue and loosely tied it in with sports in order to justify the piece's presence on this site.
Secondly, I won't waste my time explaining how devoid of substance your "position" is, except to say that if you can't understand the profound difference between sports, which constitute frivolity, and marriage, which is one of the building blocks of civilization, you're not even fit to write about golf.
What a moron.
You are, without a doubt, a complete and total idiot. First of all, what does this have to do with golf? It's quite obvious that you simply wanted to vent your spleen about this issue and loosely tied it in with sports in order to justify the piece's presence on this site.
Secondly, I won't waste my time explaining how devoid of substance your "position" is, except to say that if you can't understand the profound difference between sports, which constitute frivolity, and marriage, which is one of the building blocks of civilization, you're not even fit to write about golf.
What a moron.
06/02/06 @ 17:14
Comment from: Johnny N. [Visitor]
For USA people,
In the UK, the government recently brought in gay marriage.
They have also got proposals to change the education system to show different types of families and among these types of families include same sex couples.
If this isn't bad enough, they want to teach this to 5 year old kids. Basically the system has gone crazy.
What are they trying to do to the poor kids who should be able to enjoy being children.
Luckily I now live in Ireland.
There they have a much better system.
They are going to bring in a system where gay people can have register and have inheritance rights and other rights. But they are doing this under the umbrella where they allow two family members, or just two friends co-habiting to have the same inheritance and other rights.
This is the correct approach and should be applauded.
In the UK, the government recently brought in gay marriage.
They have also got proposals to change the education system to show different types of families and among these types of families include same sex couples.
If this isn't bad enough, they want to teach this to 5 year old kids. Basically the system has gone crazy.
What are they trying to do to the poor kids who should be able to enjoy being children.
Luckily I now live in Ireland.
There they have a much better system.
They are going to bring in a system where gay people can have register and have inheritance rights and other rights. But they are doing this under the umbrella where they allow two family members, or just two friends co-habiting to have the same inheritance and other rights.
This is the correct approach and should be applauded.
06/02/06 @ 18:19
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Johnny N.,
That is just the first step toward what you have in England. Don't be fooled. It's called "incrementalism."
That is just the first step toward what you have in England. Don't be fooled. It's called "incrementalism."
06/02/06 @ 18:27
Comment from: Johnny N. [Visitor]
Judge Smails,
Ireland is a very different country to England.
There is no abortion, and there will be no gay marriage either.
Ireland is a very different country to England.
There is no abortion, and there will be no gay marriage either.
06/02/06 @ 19:31
Comment from: Yamathan [Visitor]
And children who are told that, yes, there are families in which both parents are the same sex are robbed of their childhood HOW?
Pardon me, but I found this article entertaining and nice. I also found most of the responses to be flawed and unbased. Gay people are people, and legally they should be respected on the same level as heterosexual people.
Pardon me, but I found this article entertaining and nice. I also found most of the responses to be flawed and unbased. Gay people are people, and legally they should be respected on the same level as heterosexual people.
06/02/06 @ 20:32
Comment from: BJohnson [Visitor]
>>>You know, those two forms of human being who come together to create the next generation.
06/03/06 @ 00:58
Comment from: BJohnson [Visitor]
"You know, those two forms of human being who come together to create the next generation."
The sole purpose of the "coming together" of a male and female is to create a zygote, and it's possibly the least signficant of the events that determine whether or not that zygote becomes a fetus, a baby, a respectful child, and eventually a respectable adult. Therefore, creating the "next generation" is not dependent on whether or not the biological parents are married.
There are brainless morons procreating like mad out of wedlock, so what difference does it make whether or not the "sanctity of marriage" is preserved?
Furthermore, there are married male-female couples out there trying to raise children, yet I wouldn't trust them to take care of a goldfish.
So, again, why is it so important to protect the sanctity of marriage as the vehicle of procreation when:
1) What little sanctity there ever was has already been lost due to out of wedlock births
2) A marriage between a man and woman is no guarantee that the child will be reared correctly anyway
The sole purpose of the "coming together" of a male and female is to create a zygote, and it's possibly the least signficant of the events that determine whether or not that zygote becomes a fetus, a baby, a respectful child, and eventually a respectable adult. Therefore, creating the "next generation" is not dependent on whether or not the biological parents are married.
There are brainless morons procreating like mad out of wedlock, so what difference does it make whether or not the "sanctity of marriage" is preserved?
Furthermore, there are married male-female couples out there trying to raise children, yet I wouldn't trust them to take care of a goldfish.
So, again, why is it so important to protect the sanctity of marriage as the vehicle of procreation when:
1) What little sanctity there ever was has already been lost due to out of wedlock births
2) A marriage between a man and woman is no guarantee that the child will be reared correctly anyway
06/03/06 @ 01:14
Comment from: Johnny N. [Visitor]
BJohnson,
Not all marriage is perfect.
In fact, many many marriages are not even good ones.
That doesn't mean that it should completely eroded by allowing gay marriage.
There are plenty of people who just don't think their comments through. For example Kiel said that everyone should be allowed to love who they want and get the legal rights that entails.
For example there was a father-daughter couple who wanted to get married. Should they be allowed?
They are people.
Not all marriage is perfect.
In fact, many many marriages are not even good ones.
That doesn't mean that it should completely eroded by allowing gay marriage.
There are plenty of people who just don't think their comments through. For example Kiel said that everyone should be allowed to love who they want and get the legal rights that entails.
For example there was a father-daughter couple who wanted to get married. Should they be allowed?
They are people.
06/03/06 @ 10:32
I would rather have two people of the same sex caring for an otherwise unloved child than two people of the opposite sex who have no idea how to raise him or even better, didn't want the kid in the first place.
Watch a Jerry Springer show sometime...
Watch a Jerry Springer show sometime...
06/03/06 @ 16:34
Comment from: MikeW [Visitor]
LOL, Johnny. So you believe that a couple should have a fertility test and have to sign a letter of intent stating that they will have children before they are allowed to get married? Procreation is a choice, not a requirement of married couples.
In 2000, there were an estimated 21 million children in single parent families. That's nearly one in five kids growing up without a mother or a father in the home. Guess what? Almost all of them were the result of heterosexual couples. Tell me again how gay marriage could make things worse?
My brother has a gay brother-in-law. He is in a stable, long term relationship, has a beautiful, well-adjusted, intelligent child (not adopted) whose biological mother lives next door and is fully involved in her kid's life. While the family arrangements may be unorthodox (and will no doubt have you spitting blood) I have yet to come across two more loving and attentive parents, gay or straight.
BTW: While abortion is illegal in the Irish Republic, women can obtain counselling and information about all their options, one of which is to travel to the UK and obtain a perfectly legal abortion there. So abortion is freely available (within British law) to any Irish women who seeks it without fear of prosecution.
In 2000, there were an estimated 21 million children in single parent families. That's nearly one in five kids growing up without a mother or a father in the home. Guess what? Almost all of them were the result of heterosexual couples. Tell me again how gay marriage could make things worse?
My brother has a gay brother-in-law. He is in a stable, long term relationship, has a beautiful, well-adjusted, intelligent child (not adopted) whose biological mother lives next door and is fully involved in her kid's life. While the family arrangements may be unorthodox (and will no doubt have you spitting blood) I have yet to come across two more loving and attentive parents, gay or straight.
BTW: While abortion is illegal in the Irish Republic, women can obtain counselling and information about all their options, one of which is to travel to the UK and obtain a perfectly legal abortion there. So abortion is freely available (within British law) to any Irish women who seeks it without fear of prosecution.
06/03/06 @ 18:10
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Judge Smails,
Ireland is a very different country to England.
There is no abortion, and there will be no gay marriage either.
John,
You could have said the same thing here 40 years ago, and in England as well at one time. Don't be naive. Sheesh!
Ireland is a very different country to England.
There is no abortion, and there will be no gay marriage either.
John,
You could have said the same thing here 40 years ago, and in England as well at one time. Don't be naive. Sheesh!
06/03/06 @ 22:35
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
All of you are merely nominal thinkers, and it's quite obvious that you're driven by a desire to justify your own homosexuality or that of someone you have an affinity for.
Again, I won't waste time explaining the fairly obvious to the fairly obtuse. But if, and I say IF, you're interested, here's a good article on the subject written by a man who has created many good treatments of it:
Again, I won't waste time explaining the fairly obvious to the fairly obtuse. But if, and I say IF, you're interested, here's a good article on the subject written by a man who has created many good treatments of it:
06/03/06 @ 23:04
Comment from: Johnny N. [Visitor]
MikeW said:
LOL, Johnny. So you believe that a couple should have a fertility test and have to sign a letter of intent stating that they will have children before they are allowed to get married? Procreation is a choice, not a requirement of married couples.
************************
When did I say that Mike. When?
I said that marriage is a stable place to bring up kids. I did not say that everyone who gets marriage should or needs to have kids.
That is their own choice. However where precious children are concerned especially in the case of adoption, couples should have made the commitment of marriage before they are even consider to be allowed adopt a child, and same sex couples should never be allowed to adopt a child.
The reasons for that are many.
Perhaps you should just look at the cases of child abuse by priest.
What were most of these priests?
Peodophiles? Yes.
However they were also homosexuals, who used the cover of the church and the respect that gained in order to abuse.
If same sex couples are allowed to adopt children easily there will be the same scandal coming out in a few years, as came out about the church.
I'd just like to note that the vast majority of priests are good people and have nothing to do with this.
The substantive point though is, where there is homosexuality, there is abnormality. Does this mean they should be prosecuted? No it does not.
However, we should remember the fact, that homosexuality is not normal, and for it, a persons sexuality has been misaligned.
This happens for a variety of reasons, too numerous to be going into here, but they are all related to the mind, and childhood experiences.
Homosexual people should not be prosecuted, just as people with diabetes should not, but lets not call it normal.
LOL, Johnny. So you believe that a couple should have a fertility test and have to sign a letter of intent stating that they will have children before they are allowed to get married? Procreation is a choice, not a requirement of married couples.
************************
When did I say that Mike. When?
I said that marriage is a stable place to bring up kids. I did not say that everyone who gets marriage should or needs to have kids.
That is their own choice. However where precious children are concerned especially in the case of adoption, couples should have made the commitment of marriage before they are even consider to be allowed adopt a child, and same sex couples should never be allowed to adopt a child.
The reasons for that are many.
Perhaps you should just look at the cases of child abuse by priest.
What were most of these priests?
Peodophiles? Yes.
However they were also homosexuals, who used the cover of the church and the respect that gained in order to abuse.
If same sex couples are allowed to adopt children easily there will be the same scandal coming out in a few years, as came out about the church.
I'd just like to note that the vast majority of priests are good people and have nothing to do with this.
The substantive point though is, where there is homosexuality, there is abnormality. Does this mean they should be prosecuted? No it does not.
However, we should remember the fact, that homosexuality is not normal, and for it, a persons sexuality has been misaligned.
This happens for a variety of reasons, too numerous to be going into here, but they are all related to the mind, and childhood experiences.
Homosexual people should not be prosecuted, just as people with diabetes should not, but lets not call it normal.
06/04/06 @ 10:06
Comment from: Johnny N. [Visitor]
Mike said:
BTW: While abortion is illegal in the Irish Republic, women can obtain counselling and information about all their options, one of which is to travel to the UK and obtain a perfectly legal abortion there. So abortion is freely available (within British law) to any Irish women who seeks it without fear of prosecution.
________________________
Mike,
Abortion is not available in the Republic of Ireland.
Ireland is not the type of country who would stop it's citizens from travelling to another country.
How exactly would you police that anyway?
In any case, I am not in favour of prosecuting women who have abortions.
Yes abortion is the merciless killing of an innocent child, but I believe that in todays society poor unfortunate young girls have been brainwashed.
The fact is that in many abortion cases, the pregnant woman is very scared. They are given this option, and told that it is their choice, and it is a simple proceedure.
What isn't actually emphasised is that they are terminating the child inside them. It is more presented like having a tooth pulled or cutting someones nails.
I have nothing but sympathy for these women, many of whom later suffer from depression, many of whom attempt suicide when they realise what they have actually done.
So I agree with Ireland's law. Women should be given help and support, even after an abortion. They are victims too and should be well cared for.
BTW: While abortion is illegal in the Irish Republic, women can obtain counselling and information about all their options, one of which is to travel to the UK and obtain a perfectly legal abortion there. So abortion is freely available (within British law) to any Irish women who seeks it without fear of prosecution.
________________________
Mike,
Abortion is not available in the Republic of Ireland.
Ireland is not the type of country who would stop it's citizens from travelling to another country.
How exactly would you police that anyway?
In any case, I am not in favour of prosecuting women who have abortions.
Yes abortion is the merciless killing of an innocent child, but I believe that in todays society poor unfortunate young girls have been brainwashed.
The fact is that in many abortion cases, the pregnant woman is very scared. They are given this option, and told that it is their choice, and it is a simple proceedure.
What isn't actually emphasised is that they are terminating the child inside them. It is more presented like having a tooth pulled or cutting someones nails.
I have nothing but sympathy for these women, many of whom later suffer from depression, many of whom attempt suicide when they realise what they have actually done.
So I agree with Ireland's law. Women should be given help and support, even after an abortion. They are victims too and should be well cared for.
06/04/06 @ 10:15
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Johnny,
These are people who haven't analyzed the issues logically; they're governed by nothing but emotion.
These are people who haven't analyzed the issues logically; they're governed by nothing but emotion.
06/04/06 @ 13:16
Comment from: Johnny N. [Visitor]
Mike,
You are very naive indeed.
Do you know how many Irish women were prosecuted before 1995 for having abortions in foreign countries?
The answer is none. So the law made absolutely no difference whatsoever.
As regards abortion, yes indeed it is the killing of an innocent life. Do you dispute that?
Are you so naive that you believe that a baby suddenly forms inside a woman after 9 months. The reality is that the baby forms there right from the start.
On the women who have abortions, I do not believe in prosecuting them, because I understand the leftist agenda that they have to listen to day in and day out.
It is no wonder that women who find themselves in this very difficult position of an unwanted pregnancy can be influenced by leftist idiots.
Anti-abortion propaganda?
It is the pro-choice people who are full of propaganda.
Any time the abortion debate has come up on television in Ireland, the pro-choice people only mention the case of rape, or of a child being raped, to try to make the people sympathise with women or children in those situations, and make a change to the law to let in abortion.
That is propaganda at its very height, because those pro-choice people basically want open abortion for anyone in any circumstance.
Luckily the Irish people have not been taken in by these people as of yet.
You are very naive indeed.
Do you know how many Irish women were prosecuted before 1995 for having abortions in foreign countries?
The answer is none. So the law made absolutely no difference whatsoever.
As regards abortion, yes indeed it is the killing of an innocent life. Do you dispute that?
Are you so naive that you believe that a baby suddenly forms inside a woman after 9 months. The reality is that the baby forms there right from the start.
On the women who have abortions, I do not believe in prosecuting them, because I understand the leftist agenda that they have to listen to day in and day out.
It is no wonder that women who find themselves in this very difficult position of an unwanted pregnancy can be influenced by leftist idiots.
Anti-abortion propaganda?
It is the pro-choice people who are full of propaganda.
Any time the abortion debate has come up on television in Ireland, the pro-choice people only mention the case of rape, or of a child being raped, to try to make the people sympathise with women or children in those situations, and make a change to the law to let in abortion.
That is propaganda at its very height, because those pro-choice people basically want open abortion for anyone in any circumstance.
Luckily the Irish people have not been taken in by these people as of yet.
06/04/06 @ 18:25
Comment from: Fabrizio [Visitor]
Hey MikeW, your comments are absolute disgrace.
Some homosexuals may be peodophiles or perverts, but it is outrage that you say all gays the same.
Gays have been put down too long, it is time that gays had the same rights as anyone else.
To love, and be loved.
To marry or not whatever is chosen to do.
You can either bend over or just go away and let gays get on with it.
Some homosexuals may be peodophiles or perverts, but it is outrage that you say all gays the same.
Gays have been put down too long, it is time that gays had the same rights as anyone else.
To love, and be loved.
To marry or not whatever is chosen to do.
You can either bend over or just go away and let gays get on with it.
06/04/06 @ 20:08
Comment from: MikeW [Visitor]
Fab, I believe you missed the tone of my comment. It was a sarcastic reply to Johnny since *he* seems to think that all (or, at least most) gays are peodophiles. I most certainly do not.
Perhaps I should have added a flag to make that clear. :-)
Perhaps I should have added a flag to make that clear. :-)
06/04/06 @ 22:00
Comment from: MikeW [Visitor]
Johnny, unsupported comments about lots of women being suicidal or depressed after an abortion are the result of scare tactics of abortion opponents. They are not supported by the evidence from scientific, dispassionate studies. At best to studies indicate there may be a slight increase in risk, but then there is also a increased risk of depression and suicide amongst teenaged, single mothers also. Distorting the facts doesn't help to make your case.
Not wanting to prosecute women who have abortions is a very big inconsistency in the typical pro-life position. At one moment they decry abortion as murder, but then the next they don't want to hold the very person who had it responsible. The problem is that if they say "lock them up" then nobody would support them, so they have to make up some wishywashy excuse about understanding the feelings of the woman to avoid seems too harsh.
Frankly if you believe that most women who have abortions are brainwashed to the point they can't tell right from wrong then you are very much mistaken. This is not a decision made lightly by most women - they have to think long and hard about their options. It's probably one of the hardest decisions a woman is ever faced with. The idea of a frantic, cornered woman being arm-twisted into having an abortion may happen in a few cases, but it's hardly a typical picture of what really happens.
Not wanting to prosecute women who have abortions is a very big inconsistency in the typical pro-life position. At one moment they decry abortion as murder, but then the next they don't want to hold the very person who had it responsible. The problem is that if they say "lock them up" then nobody would support them, so they have to make up some wishywashy excuse about understanding the feelings of the woman to avoid seems too harsh.
Frankly if you believe that most women who have abortions are brainwashed to the point they can't tell right from wrong then you are very much mistaken. This is not a decision made lightly by most women - they have to think long and hard about their options. It's probably one of the hardest decisions a woman is ever faced with. The idea of a frantic, cornered woman being arm-twisted into having an abortion may happen in a few cases, but it's hardly a typical picture of what really happens.
06/04/06 @ 22:18
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Homosexuality is a perversion, and one perversion tends to lead to another. Moreover, when you have sex with boys, it is, by definition, homosexuality.
06/04/06 @ 23:49
Comment from: MikeW [Visitor]
Gah! Save us from the inanity. Are you for real or simply trolling, Judge?
06/05/06 @ 00:36
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Mike W.,
I'm for real and for good, and I'm right. What I said is absolutely factual.
I'm for real and for good, and I'm right. What I said is absolutely factual.
06/06/06 @ 16:42
Comment from: Johnny N. [Visitor]
Judge,
You are right on the homosexuality issue.
I don't know the rules where you live, but here, there is an age of consent of 18 for homosexuals, and it is 16 for hetrosexuals. Actually it just went up to 17 for hetrosexuals about one week ago.
The liberal movement have been trying to bring it down for homosexuals, and that is really just a front, for those men who want to have sex with boys.
On the one pervention leading to another, that is definetely the case.
You are right on the homosexuality issue.
I don't know the rules where you live, but here, there is an age of consent of 18 for homosexuals, and it is 16 for hetrosexuals. Actually it just went up to 17 for hetrosexuals about one week ago.
The liberal movement have been trying to bring it down for homosexuals, and that is really just a front, for those men who want to have sex with boys.
On the one pervention leading to another, that is definetely the case.
06/07/06 @ 13:28
Comment from: Johnny N. [Visitor]
MikeW,
On the issue abortion.
You have said that most women don't take it lightly.
Does that actually mean that you believe it is a big decision. Maybe you are making some progress.
So if you realise it is a big decision, then obviously you realise that it involved terminating the life of the child.
So then, why exactly do you support it.
On the issue abortion.
You have said that most women don't take it lightly.
Does that actually mean that you believe it is a big decision. Maybe you are making some progress.
So if you realise it is a big decision, then obviously you realise that it involved terminating the life of the child.
So then, why exactly do you support it.
06/07/06 @ 13:31
Comment from: BV [Visitor]
Gee, Wolfie...while we're at it, let's start GASSING folks who don't agree with our positions!!! Isn't that the point you're trying (feebly) to make about the Bush Administration - that they are Nazi's in (a thin) disguise??? I have to agree with the poster above - you'll latch onto ANY excuse to take a swipe at GW, won't ya???
Poor you...and the rest of your left-wing liberal glop-writing pals...since it looks like there'll be another Republican in the White House after Dubya is gone!
Poor you...and the rest of your left-wing liberal glop-writing pals...since it looks like there'll be another Republican in the White House after Dubya is gone!
06/07/06 @ 14:40
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Thanks for the back-up, Johnny. As you may have noticed, though, and this is common among libs, the person who criticized me didn't address the substance of my comments. He simply dismissed my remarks by asking me if I was for real.
Of course, this is what one does if he doesn't want to think. Just cavalierly blow someone off with a flippant remark and convince yourself that he must be crazy to refuse to bow down at the altar of pcness, and you can render analytical thought unnecessary. Then you can run to Starbucks and talk about how bad Bush is with your communist friends over a caffe latte.
Of course, this is what one does if he doesn't want to think. Just cavalierly blow someone off with a flippant remark and convince yourself that he must be crazy to refuse to bow down at the altar of pcness, and you can render analytical thought unnecessary. Then you can run to Starbucks and talk about how bad Bush is with your communist friends over a caffe latte.
06/07/06 @ 17:53
Comment feed for this postComments are closed for this post.
Recent comments