serious gay marriage question

“I would assume them, since there's no harm in consenting adult incest you're okay with that too, as well as virtual pedophilia images where there is no "real" victim.
Buck
5:27:20 PM
12/20/05

Buck, you keep mentioning "virtual pedophile" Would you like to confess something?

BTW - I thought the virtual world is a legal free for all?

You are talking about a "fictional world", no?”

“Isn't this where someone mentions goats??”

“Seems like all the cool people are hanging out here.”

“Hip waders and velcro gloves for everyone!”

“Nobody is willing to offer their own definition of marriage, but are quick to criticize when the Christians define it.

Don't you think you should have an alternate defintion since you don't like the one we've been using?”

“Sarge cannot see this, but the argument is that the Christian definition of marriage is by law not the base of the state definition. The christians can marry whom every they like, but they do not have the power to bar the state from allowing gay marriage.

We are not arguing personal definitions of marriage. We are arguing whether gays should be allowed to have a civil marriage (union) or whatever you want to call it. The point being that gays couples should be granted the same legal rights as striaght.”

“now they are, WK! :-D”

“Lyra, please don't post on the gay thread because now I can't get Elaine Bennis out of my head.”

“are you telling me to...GET OUT!”

“no.... please stay awhile lyra....”

“hey sacco, how YOU doin'. taken any goats on dates lately?”

“Well that's a boner killer...”

“nah. not since the farmer down the road got that restrainin' order.

it's totally discrimination

I mean, wtf ya know?”

“LOL! well them's the breaks, Bubba.”

“elaine bennis
lyra
lyra calling me "Bubba"
goats


3 of these things are mmm mmm good together.”

“Seems like all the cool people are hanging out here.”
Wounded Knee
10:58:34 AM
12/21/05

Now if we could figure out a way to keep Private Prick out?

Why wasn't he banned?”

“Stop being abrasive BM!

”

“Well how the hell did that happen? I meant to post a picture of a sander but got lyra's vibrator instead. WTH?”

“LOL

that's a hell of a buttonrubber!”

“LMFAO! Gotta keep warm somehow in VT!”

“That thing have a safety switch on it?”

“Attachment options?”

“NIGAL!! hahaha, you are SO getting a spanking for that one! oh that was good.

that "mmm mmm good" phrase makes me envision a bowl of soup with me, Elaine, and a goat floating in it, Sacco! yum!”

“please, call me bubba.”

“Haha! Lyra is the best natured chick on TT by far.”

“awwww thanks homeslice!! that is sweet. talk to you people tomorrow!”

“I want a spankin after Nigal!”

“

Men overcompensate when their masculinity is threatened, Cornell study shows

By Daniel Aloi
ITHACA, N.Y. -- Threaten a man's masculinity and he will assume more macho attitudes, according to a study by a Cornell University researcher.

"I found that if you made men more insecure about their masculinity, they displayed more homophobic attitudes, tended to support the Iraq War more and would be more willing to purchase an SUV over another type of vehicle," said Robb Willer, a sociology doctoral candidate at Cornell. Willer is presenting his findings Aug. 15 at the American Sociological Association's 100th annual meeting in Philadelphia.

"Masculine overcompensation is the idea that men who are insecure about their masculinity will behave in an extremely masculine way as compensation. I wanted to test this idea and also explore whether overcompensation could help explain some attitudes like support for war and animosity to homosexuals," Willer said.

Willer administered a gender identity survey to a sample of male and female Cornell undergraduates in the fall of 2004. Participants were randomly assigned to receive feedback that their responses indicated either a masculine or a feminine identity. While women's responses were unchanged regardless of the feedback they received, men's reactions "were strongly affected by this feedback," Willer said.

"Masculinity-threatened men also reported feeling more ashamed, guilty, upset and hostile than did masculinity-confirmed men," states Willer's report, "Overdoing Gender: Testing the Masculine Overcompensation Thesis."

"The masculine overcompensation thesis has its roots in Freudian psychology, but it has become a popularly accepted idea that I felt should be empirically tested and evaluated," Willer said.

He questioned subjects about their political attitudes, including how they felt about a same-sex marriage ban and their support for President Bush's handling of the Iraq War.

"I created composites from subjects' answers to these and other questions," he said. "I also gave subjects a car-buying vignette, presented as part of a study of purchasing a new car."

Masculinity-threatened participants also showed more interest in buying an SUV. "There were no increases for other types of cars," Willer said.

The study produced "the predicted results," he said. "The intention of the study was to explore whether masculine overcompensation exists and where. But the point isn't to suggest these are the only factors that can explain these behaviors. Likewise, there may be a wide variety of other behaviors that could increase when men are concerned about their levels of masculinity."

In a separate study, Willer verified that support for the Iraq War, homophobia and interest in purchasing an SUV were all considered masculine by study participants.

Willer said he and a colleague are planning additional research on subjects' attitudes regarding violence toward women, using the same method for manipulating masculine insecurity.

"I'm planning another follow-up to the study that involves taking testosterone samples from participants to see if testosterone levels are a mediating factor in this process," he added.

The research involved 111 Cornell undergraduates and was funded by the Department of Sociology at Cornell.”

“Does this mean gays overcompensate when their feminity is threatened and act more girly? And liberals, when feel threatened, overcompensate by becoming more commie? Ah, I see the correlation.”

“"In a separate study, Willer verified that support for the Iraq War, homophobia and interest in purchasing an SUV were all considered masculine by study participants."

Like duh! Men have always been more accepting of war, most hetero guys have always viewed guy on guy action as nasty and guys have always been more predisposed to trucks (I mean, look at the ads. They ain't selling to the girls.). But compensating? Come on.”

“In a separate study, it was found that Willer wears a purse.”

“It's European!”

“OK, so just who the hell does Bush think he’s kidding? It’s an election year and suddenly traditional marriage is threatened again? Just before the 2006 election it was brought up and something just HAD to be done. Then for two full years nothing was said. Apparently gay marriage is only a threat every two years like the cicadas hatches. And the democrats are all too happy to have it brought up again because it serves their purposes just as much as it does the republican side. It gives them the same chance to roll out their views and agendas to solidify their base. The only difference is they are the retarded ones who want to debate it in a time when so much else is important.

And we have all these upstanding republicans espousing the virtues of marriage and it’s benefits like stability, increased monogamy, lowered cases of abuse and addiction. So why exactly wouldn’t we want this for the GAYS TOO?

Both sides are insulting to the American people because they think we’re dumb enough to not see how they are trying to manipulate us.”

“We are manipulated by our politicians (no matter what their affiliation) all the time. We have been for years because WE LET IT HAPPEN.

The only way to fix it is for us to continue to force the bums out. All of them.”

“

"Lester Claymore in '08 motherf@#kers!!"”

“ANARCHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah Baby!!!!!!”

“I'd rather them bring up issues every 2 years than ignore them completely. They're in there to work on the issues. If it weren't for elections, they'd be more focused on working on stuffing their pockets. It's not a perfect system, but it's a good system. It's not a perfect system because people are not perfect. Never have been ... never will be. A lot of the design of our system is because of that fact.”

“But this does not mean the system has to be as abd as it is. It can be better. Let's face it, for most people the issue of gay marraige ranks right in between what to have for dinner and changing the lightbulb in the fridge.”

“Yeah, it may be blatant pandering for votes, but it's also addressing an "issue". That's pretty much how govt works.

Of course, gay marriage shouldn't be an issue at all but for an arbitrary clause in a work of fiction which many fools take to heart uncritically.”

“Stop Voting for "The Lesser of Two Evils".

It's like voting fot the better hamburger; McDonalds or Burger King. Who cares? They're both crap and they never improve. Find a better burger.
last edited: 6/07/06 8:17:39 AM”

“I like the system too, however we (collectively) don't demand more from those we elect and we rarely hold them accountable. Instead we allow ourselves to be bombarded with partisan finger pointing day and night.


Sorry, makes me sick. I've had a bug up my arse about it lately, lol. Personally I'd prefer to see them do nothing EVER. That would mean less of my tax "contributions" are needed and subsequently wasted.”

“so you choose wendy's. Its crap too”

“LOL! If everyone ate at Wendy's then BK & McD's would change there ways.”

“The point is if anything is broke here, it's the imperfect system (which is a relatively good system). The problem isn't the gay marriage issue.

If you have a solution for a better system, offer it. Otherwise, we need partisan debate. We need politicians to be working for our votes come election time, even if their motivation is to get reelected. I will reelect somebody who gets done what I want done.

As for as Bush and the gay marriage thing - it's a platform he ran on. If he didn't fight for it - he'd be criticized for that too.
last edited: 6/07/06 8:22:56 AM”

“The problem is that you are blaming McDonalds and Burger King for providing what people want. People don't want to know how there burger is made (please god, don't ever force restaurants to provide monitors all over the dining room showing whats going on in the kitchen). They just want it fast, cheap and messy.”

““If you have a solution for a better system, offer it.”

It’s not a new system that is needed. How about simply prioritizing the issues in the manner of importance. Admit it, there are a lot bigger fish to fry than gay marriage.”

“Admit it, there are a lot bigger fish to fry than gay marriage.

I'm sure there's a joke in there somewhere, I just haven't found it yet.”

“But another Republican -- Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter (Pa.) -- spoke against the amendment, calling it "a solution in search of a problem." Like Reid and some other senators, Specter said he opposes same-sex marriage but feels states can handle the issue.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/05/AR2006060500085.html”

“It’s not a new system that is needed. How about simply prioritizing the issues in the manner of importance. Admit it, there are a lot bigger fish to fry than gay marriage.

A pet peeve of mine is when people say that. The reason is that they can work on more than one issue at once. There will always be 'something' more important. Using that logic, we should only work on one thing. What will that one thing be? That's another debate in itself. Congress can work on more than one topic simultaneously. It's magic!!

(btw, for my opinion on the gay marriage matter, which differs from Bush's and anybody else's for that matter: http://www.thebackpacker.com/trailtalk/thread/43222,-1.php)”