Should Final Four be relocated from Indiana to protest recent anti-gay legislation?

[Yoshun]

Nah, really is was just a bunch of cry babies and squeaky wheels that got it done. Gay love is OK. Gay man intercourse is not.

Dude, who cares where someone sticks it?

Why not stick it in a Cow or Dog then?

You do realize how stupid statements like this sound right?

Sorry if you were joking and I missed it some how.

[DuckIII]

The Colon is not designed for sex. Point Blank Period. The Colon is not a sex organ. Point Blank Period.

^^^^^^ Never got blown. Never had a hand job.

[I_Never Lied]

The Colon is not designed for sex. Point Blank Period. The Colon is not a sex organ. Point Blank Period.

^^^^^^ Never got blown. Never had a hand job.

Hand Job = Complete waste of time.

Blow Job = I'm OK with two men doing this but I am also 100% certain that after this, they will move on to Colon debauchery.

[I_Never Lied]

Dude, who cares where someone sticks it?

Why not stick it in a Cow or Dog then?

You do realize how stupid statements like this sound right?

Sorry if you were joking and I missed it some how.

An unholy orifice, whether it is attached to Sheep or a Human is smothered in perversion when used for sex.

[Keller61]

Nah, really is was just a bunch of cry babies and squeaky wheels that got it done. Gay love is OK. Gay man intercourse is not.

Dude, who cares where someone sticks it?

Why not stick it in a Cow or Dog then?

Cows and dogs don't give consent.

[DuckIII]

I Never Lied got me too. But he's trolling for fun. "Unholy orifice"? Well played.

[Neutral 123]

Nah, really is was just a bunch of cry babies and squeaky wheels that got it done. Gay love is OK. Gay man intercourse is not.

Care to explain your reasoning for the bolded part? Is it scientifically based? Is it based on sociological and economic implications? Is it just your opinion? Is it based on your religion?

Also, could you clarify what you mean by "Gay love is OK"?

The Colon is not designed for sex. Point Blank Period. The Colon is not a sex organ. Point Blank Period.


If two men want to hug and have feelings for each other, that is most certainly OK. I love my Dad.

This is just bizarre. Whether the colon is designed for sex or not, what business is it of yours what other people are doing? Why is it so hard for some people to just mind their own business? So two sucking each other off is fine, but if they engage in anal sex, it's an issue for you? There are no words. This is just weird thinking. Is the anus sacred to you?

Edit: oh ok, this is supposed to be a joke. Hard to tell when there are a lot of people who actually think like this.

[abark]

Why not stick it in a Cow or Dog then?

You do realize how stupid statements like this sound right?

Sorry if you were joking and I missed it some how.

An unholy orifice, whether it is attached to Sheep or a Human is smothered in perversion when used for sex.

Its a freakin butthole, not a gateway to hell. No amount of bible talk can change the fact that you get this up on arms about random dude's buttholes.

With all the teachings in the bible, Its weird that you choose to focus so much on this. Ill believe this isnt connected to your own personal issues, the day I see a christian have this strong an opinion over mixing fabrics.

You dont see any difference between butt sex with a man or a cow, and nonbelievers are the ones with morality issues?

[Rip It]

You know society is in the toilet when someone electing not to participate in an event they disagree with is considered an atrocity, yet the mass slaughtering of human beings in the womb is considered acceptable, even encouraged by some.

[MistyMountain20]

Is this a joke? What do black rights have to do with basketball? There are far more important issues in the world than black rights, should we cancel every event because some people get offended? Black people should have the same right as everyone else, not more. Its getting out of control the way the black life style is being advertised and you're demonized if you don't agree with it. I personally don't care either way, but this is getting ridiculous.

[MistyMountain20]

states rights used to be a good thing about America. not so much anymore. people complain about the government coercing and extorting citizens and think its "wrong" but dont see the same thing happening to states (have done the same thing with drinking laws, are doing it right now with obamacare and other things)

Yes, state rights certainly did use to mean something. Particularly when good, regular white southerners just wanted their state rights to allow for slavery, Jim Crow, "literacy exams" for voting rights, no interracial marriage.

[abark]

You know society is in the toilet when someone electing not to participate in an event they disagree with is considered an atrocity, yet the mass slaughtering of human beings in the womb is considered acceptable, even encouraged by some.

You know what would really help limit abortions? Embracing birth control.

Everyone wants there to be less abortions, but Christians' sexually repressive beliefs cause so many unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

[Neutral 123]

You know society is in the toilet when someone electing not to participate in an event they disagree with is considered an atrocity, yet the mass slaughtering of human beings in the womb is considered acceptable, even encouraged by some.

SMH, anything to deflect from the topic at hand.

[HoraryAstrology]

Is this a joke? What do gay rights have to do with basketball? There are far more important issues in the world than gay rights, should we cancel every event because some people get offended? Gay people should have the same right as everyone else, not more. Its getting out of control the way the homosexual life style is being advertised and you're demonized if you don't agree with it. I personally don't care either way, but this is getting ridiculous.

Exactly. Is that what "Freedom" is to people in 2015? lol. Go with the propaganda that's being pushed or lose your RIGHTS?

[soxfan2003]

did you catch the new episode of south park, soxfan?! can you loan me some bitcoins? where do you stand on gamergate, goonsir? do you think the white race might be in peril?



Lmao someone save this dude's posts somewhere for the sake of posterity, there's so much to study and analyze. once I saw a thread in realgm with this title I immediately went to the last page hoping to find "that guy" and I am not disappointed.


and p.s. bro, you not only clearly have your own ideological box you're comfy in (to each their own), but plz cut that "Democrats and Republicans" faux-"middle common sense" false equivalency bull like you're not just peddling your own distinct political brand because last I checked Barry Goldwater had a firm ideological foxhole and it sure as **** ain't moderate. The fact that Richard Nixon would get chased out of the current GOP these days for being "too liberal" doesn't change the fact that your ilk have always had a clear and identifiable place on the political spectrum and it's definitely not one that provides you with a middleground position lmao
Plz take the Republican party back from the Christofascists that stole it from your wing of the party so we can just go back to calling a spade a spade, because an America where someone with your distinct political ideologies and lines (lines ive seen parroted a thousand times before) can play the "awww shucks, both these parties are craaaazy" card is a violently **** up America.
for christ sakes, Obama isn't even close to left wing or progressive. Dude wouldn't be too politically different from George H.W. Bush, just with Romneycare. **** is soooooo skewed these days. Wake up and remember who you are, soxfan!!!1111

Actually Obama is Far Left. He's a student of Saul Alinsky. Stop pretending that Obama isn't Far Left because he has strong ties to big business.

And Sox doesn't even appear to be a Republican to me. He sounds like a libertarian.

You are right but I am not exclusively libertarian. Last I checked online, I was a little over 40% libertarian and then just a mixture of other political parties/views which coincides to what I had thought my views were. On the spectrum with 1 being far left and 100 being far right, I am about a 52 but I am not someone afraid to take positions that appear far right or far left and that are not libertarian. I am more in favor of what works best than sticking with an ideology 100% of the time.

You are also right Obama is far left in most areas except in a couple of areas that I actually wish he was further to the left like the legalization of drugs. It is not that I think illegal drugs are good....I have never taken an illegal drug or even smoked a cigarette and some people drink more in a day than I do in many years. And I tend to avoid legal drugs as much as I can but I just think the war on drugs is not worthwhile/futile and a waste of resources.

Obama is far left but just hides it from his personality that doesn't come across as strident even though he sort of is strident with some of his actions. And I love how progressives/liberals often say Nixon would be chased out of the Republican party. Perhaps, there is some truth to it but not as much truth as JFK and FDR probably being chased out of the Democratic party. Presidents have to compromise and Nixon did that and Clinton and both Bushes did that as well but Obama has tried his best not to compromise.

My most far right position that most libertarians would not like... Ever since this episode(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World ... er_bombing) in 1993, I have supported banning Muslim immigration from countries that may be problematic in terms of either bringing terrorists to the US or people that would not assimilate. I just thought the benefits weren't worth the risks and the US should extricate themselves from the Muslim/Arab world as much as possible. But this radical position was actually informed by extensively talking with the most progressive person I have ever known well who wanted Muslim immigration from Africa banned in her Scandinavian country since while working for the UN for about 2-3 years in Africa she had seen how horribly woman were treated and said Muslims wouldn't assimilate since the cultures were too different. Unlike America, most Scandinavian countries want people to assimilate to preserve their culture. I know since I have lived in one of them. It isn't that I think all Muslims are bad and out to get the US but if 100 Muslims migrate from Saudi Arabia to the US, you tell me which ones may be terrorists. Understandably, the US government doesn't have a clue if they don't spend billions trying to find out and I find that is a huge waste of resources. The "liberal" in me and the "compassionate conservative" would rather spend the Department of Homeland security money on helping the poor, truly disabled like the blind and people in wheel chairs, et cetera.

I never predicted 911 of planes flying into the World Trade Center but I did actually predict that there was a huge chance that at least one World Trade Center building in NY would be knocked down by a Muslim terrorist leading the US to a costly war. Truthfully, I thought it would happen before 2001. I predicted this in 1993 since it almost happened then. Right then, the US should have woken up that some people just see the world entirely different than the average US citizen.

[LLcoleJ]

You know society is in the toilet when someone electing not to participate in an event they disagree with is considered an atrocity, yet the mass slaughtering of human beings in the womb is considered acceptable, even encouraged by some.

As a person who is Pro Choice. I would have to agree, at our weekly meetings we do in fact encourage abortions to a point where we sticky their unborn names on a dart board and randomly throw darts to find out who is next. It's really great fun.

[stjf]

did you catch the new episode of south park, soxfan?! can you loan me some bitcoins? where do you stand on gamergate, goonsir? do you think the white race might be in peril?



Lmao someone save this dude's posts somewhere for the sake of posterity, there's so much to study and analyze. once I saw a thread in realgm with this title I immediately went to the last page hoping to find "that guy" and I am not disappointed.


and p.s. bro, you not only clearly have your own ideological box you're comfy in (to each their own), but plz cut that "Democrats and Republicans" faux-"middle common sense" false equivalency bull like you're not just peddling your own distinct political brand because last I checked Barry Goldwater had a firm ideological foxhole and it sure as **** ain't moderate. The fact that Richard Nixon would get chased out of the current GOP these days for being "too liberal" doesn't change the fact that your ilk have always had a clear and identifiable place on the political spectrum and it's definitely not one that provides you with a middleground position lmao
Plz take the Republican party back from the Christofascists that stole it from your wing of the party so we can just go back to calling a spade a spade, because an America where someone with your distinct political ideologies and lines (lines ive seen parroted a thousand times before) can play the "awww shucks, both these parties are craaaazy" card is a violently **** up America.
for christ sakes, Obama isn't even close to left wing or progressive. Dude wouldn't be too politically different from George H.W. Bush, just with Romneycare. **** is soooooo skewed these days. Wake up and remember who you are, soxfan!!!1111

Actually Obama is Far Left. He's a student of Saul Alinsky. Stop pretending that Obama isn't Far Left because he has strong ties to big business.

And Sox doesn't even appear to be a Republican to me. He sounds like a libertarian.

He's was a student of Saul Alinksy? Please enlighten me how that is possible, as Alinsky died in California 1972; at the time the President was 10 years old and living with his grandparents in Hawaii. I don't recall Alinsky's biographical background including a stint as grammar school teacher.

If you're attempting to argue someone is a "student" by the mere fact of reading a book, then every political science major of the last 100 years is a "student" of Karl Marx, who was a "student" of Adam Smith. Give me a break.

If Barack Obama is your definition of the "far left", I can't even imagine what you consider center-left or the mythical middle.

The health care reform created a mandate to buy private-issued insurance, something which has been a platform position of the Republican party, and is the complete opposite of the Left-wing which is calling for eliminating private insurance companies and opening access to Medicare for those currently ineligible (basically everyone aged 18-64), with minimal/no costs for use.

The Left-wing tends to be made up of people who dislike wars. Obama has yet to close Guantanamo, is still using money to fight in Iraq, and just recently announced that a planned troop reduction in Afghanistan will be delayed (likely through the end of his term). Again i'm not seeing leftist. If you want an example of far-left, look at Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who voted against the war in Afghanistan. The Congresswoman has also been in favor of another far-left idea, a new cabinet position with a "Department of Peace" (the idea goes back to the 1960s).

At the federal level, especially in his time as President, Barack Obama has been firmly center-right on most issues. And before you bring up the word "amnesty", the last time the United States gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants was in a bill authored by a Republican, which President Reagan chose to sign rather than veto. The Republican party has been moved so far to the right over the last 15-20 years by the radicals that have hijacked AM-radio and cable TV, that you actually believe their spin that he's a "far-left student of Alinksy" for acting like a pre-1994 Republican? For your sanity and the rest of us, dump the kool-aid and change the dial.

[Neutral 123]

You have inserted straw man arguments that are ridiculous. The state or federal government disallowing blacks and whites to marry is a heck of a lot different than a florist deciding to not support a gay marriage for religious reasons or a piano player doing the same. A gay couple can go to another florist or buy there cake elsewhere or even grow their own flowers and bake their own cake. From my work experience in high school and in college breaks -- 7 years total -- , I learned a lot about weddings since I had to set them up. Easily setup 300+ of them over the years and I sometimes interacted with people who brought in the cakes and florists. It's a radical gay agenda for gays to be complaining about florists and people who bake cakes when you recognize how many different people do those activities. We are not talking monopolies here like the cable companies denying gays cable TV in the 1980's.

Name 10 businesses in the entire US prepared to discriminate against blacks or gays shopping for groceries, gasoline or lodging? Most lodging and big grocery stores that people go to have way more than 10 employees. As mentioned previously, I have worked at a hotel for many years and known 3 different people who own motels. Most gasoline places just take charge cards and they don't ask for your race!

I am opposed to the Federal Government treating gays separately from heterosexuals and have been for over 25 years. I don't think the term "marriage" should be recognized by the federal government. I said civil unions for ALL that the federal government recognizes and that means gays and straights and bisexuals. Gays just like straights then can go to any private institution and have their non legally binding ceremony called "marriage" or anything else. If Church X doesn't recognize same sex marriage, gays can go to church Y or make up their own private institution that does. It doesn't have to be a church. They can setup private institutions that discriminate against straights. I have no problem with that. And if you do, you are kind of being ridiculous. Why? Should we have it illegal to have a "LGBT hiking groups" on meetup.com or different meetup groups in which you have to be of a certain age or sex? If I tried to join one of those groups and admitted that I was straight in the application or not the target age or gender, I certainly don't blame them for not allowing me to join.

For my particular state, I am completely in favor of the religious freedom bill President Clinton signed into office applied at that state level as well. If I was gay, I certainly wouldn't want anyone opposed to my sexual orientation or lifestyle decision forced to bake a cake for me or photograph my wedding or play the piano. I say lifestyle decision since while I believe most people are "born gay" probably from some sort of biological process and others -- think mostly bisexuals -- can be attracted to both sexes so it is an actual decision on their part. A couple famous bisexual woman have admitted this applies to their own personal circumstances. If supporting the law that Clinton signed for my state makes me against Federal Civil Rights bill, it makes Clinton previously against the Federal Civil Rights bill as well. Truth is I don't know enough about the Federal Civil rights bill to say definitively whether I would have voted for it or not. I don't like discrimination that doesn't have a constitutional basis such as religious freedom but I sure like the constitution and states rights.

I take the Federal Bill of Rights seriously and the constitution seriously. If the constitution is wrong and it has been in the past, there is an amendment process to fix it.

I am 100% against federal government discrimination in any form against any citizen including gays but I am in favor of the constitution as well. Not all US citizens have the option to permanently move elsewhere since other countries may not accept them. Discrimination against woman, African Americans and other groups should never have been written into the Constitution.

As for states, I actually do think they should be allowed to discriminate --- as long as they aren't in violation of the US Constitution/Federal laws -- and they should be allowed to do other crazy things like set taxes at 85% or barely tax at all as long as people have the power to move with their feet and are not enslaved/prevented from moving. If the state of Alabama wants to discriminate against gays or blacks or short people in a manner in which the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction, citizens can move. If CA wants to discriminate against whites in the future, the state can as long as they aren't in violation of the constitution. Whites can move out of that state. After saving up for a year, I myself moved across country after college with only $5000 to my name and no job.

People often talk about how good the federal government has been but with a weaker federal government not interfering as much with states business, perhaps the US would have avoided a couple of very costly wars and ended the war on drugs that has imprisoned lots of non violent black men much sooner.

This is nonsense. It is easy to say that when you have little fear that this will actually happen to you. The U.S has a history of not only discrimination, but state sanctioned slaughter of certain minority groups. If this is libertarianism, then it's pretty ridiculous.

States slaughtered whites as well.

From Wikipedia....

"The Tuskegee Institute has recorded 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites being lynched between 1882 and 1968, with the annual peak occurring in the 1890s, at a time of economic stress in the South and political suppression.[3] A five-year study published by the Equal Justice Initiative in 2015 found that nearly 4,000 black men, women and children were lynched in the Southern states alone between 1877 and 1950.[4]"

I realize the per capita numbers are not as high but on a yearly basis -- not 73 years like one of the above examples --, I suspect blacks nowadays kill murder more than 4000 blacks.

Not saying that millions of black people weren't killed from the cross atlantic slave trade to various countries in which they were transported in horrible conditions that led to lots of death from disease et cetera but the US and state government sanctioned killings of blacks in the United States was never that high. Were blacks treated horribly by the federal and state governments? Sure since slavery was an incredibly evil. The number killed was obviously high if your family was impacted. And slavery itself abhorrent but the purpose of slavery was economic and it made little economic sense to kill a productive slave. Sell him instead.

Other than blacks, I fail to see the minority that was systematically killed by US governments in the US. Japanese were interned which is a practice that was awful BUT it is also true that SOME Japanese Americans in Hawaii were truly for Japan in that War. It was a policy of the Japanese government to try to get sympathizers.

Lots of people have been killed by governments for no legit reason throughout the entire world and that is a reason a less powerful government is a good thing. Think of all of the people slaughtered by governments by forcing them to go to a war(Vietnam) that didn't make sense. People were once slaughtered for religious reasons in the US. Salem witch trials et cetera. How many minorities have been slaughtered by states for no reason? A heck of a lot of people were killed by the slave trade that went well beyond just the US but not that many American slaves were actually killed when they were on US land. Why? Slaves were viewed as "property" and as sick as that may be but who blows up their own house, TV or other form of property? After slavery ended, lots of lynchings et cetera happened but the sheer amount wasn't as high as some people might expect.

Also whites will be a minority in CA sooner or later. Even as a majority, they were arguably discriminated against. Some white and many more Asian students who have applied to UC Berkeley and other UC colleges were discriminated against because of their race.

Whites -- especially Jews -- and people from Asia been discriminated against by the state of California. 2 years ago, I sold something to a fellow from India on Craigslist that was applying to schools like Stanford, UC Berkeley and a few Ivy League schools in the Northeast. People from India tend to vote Democrat and I didn't ask him about his party affiliation -- I am an independent. We started talking and he flat out said that he was doing everything possible to "hide his race" from the State of CA and some liberal Ivy League North East colleges since he said certain groups were being discriminated against. It wasn't a "theory" to him but reality that his friends told him about. He goes it isn't PC but its reality.

Young Asian students recognize this. And in a certain point in the future, whites will be a minority in CA so who knows how the laws will go in different direction.

For the record, I am 100% in favor of blacks and everyone else from families that aren't rich getting big stipends to send their students to the best k-12 schools that they can. I recognize the K-12 schools that protect teachers unions are failing black students and many other students.

I'm not going to get into an extensive back and forth over this, but certain groups have a history of being targeted because of the group they belong to. White males have not been systemically targeted, oppressed. And certainly nowhere near to the same extent as blacks or gays. You propose a system of anarchy. For a system, a country to thrive, there does need to be cooperation. Why divide by state? Why not city? Town? What about a single guy deciding he's going to live by his own rules? It seems a lot of this libertarian stuff comes from wanting to create their own perceived utopia in their own corner of the country. It has little to do with actual liberty or freedom.

[DuckIII]

Anyone have a link I can read proving that one is born gay? Because my Bio class couldn't even do it. I'm neutral on the issue but have a lot of liberal and conservative friends and listening to their arguments are hilariously rhetorical.

My dad, who is gay, summarized in the most perfect way for me.

Why would he have chosen to be gay? Why would he have chosen to grow up hiding his sexuality, be incredibly depressed to the point of suicide. Why would he have chosen a path that's harder, that involves persecution and discrimination?

If you are a man, and you think you are just a choice away from enjoying sex with another man, then guess what? You're gay.

[gustofwind]

The Colon is not designed for sex. Point Blank Period. The Colon is not a sex organ. Point Blank Period.

Believe it or not, people have different perspectives on that topic. Not only that, but also some homosexual couples (not to mention lesbians) do not engage in this practice, while some heterosexual couples do.

I'm not sure this is the best place for me to discuss this with you, but you could read a summary on why it is practiced on Wikipedia. You may find even a cursory introduction enlightening.

edit: I had a URL, but decided to remove it because I think you can search Wikipedia yourself and I'm not sure if me posting a link to even an educational page relating to sex on Wikipedia is a violation of some rule on this board.