Rainbow Cocksuckers

Its hard to believe that people who want to dishonor WWII vets in this manor, a lot of good Marines died on that Island, so from one Marine to all you rainbow asswipes
FUCK YOU

Its hard to believe that people who want to dishonor WWII vets in this manor, a lot of good Marines died on that Island, so from one Marine to all you rainbow asswipes
FUCK YOU Originally Posted by gary5912

+ 1, Semper Fi !

That image is in exceedingly bad taste.

I agree. I am as in favor of gay rights as it gets, but that image is a bridge too far. There is also one floating around the internet of a giant American flag held by children - I think on the White House lawn, that has been photoshopped to rainbow colors. That one is out of line too. There is just no excuse for ever desecrating the flag and what it stands for.

I've always said that the left cannot see the line of decent behavior.

LOL I guess it never crossed your mind the the photo may have been made by a gay marine. Cant say for sure but you do know they exist

http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/hln/www/r...marinekiss.jpg

Okay now that I have pissed off a bunch of you guys. I understand how that makes you feel. I personally would not have done something like that. To say that it is my right to do so is one thing but I give the same respect that I ask for. It is a good example of how flag can make someone feel so now you know how Blacks feel when they see a navy jack (rebel flag) being displayed.

That image is in exceedingly bad taste. Originally Posted by Old-T

Yes it is.

Old-T, you are a reasonable man.

Who do you think is responsible for that, the left wing modern liberals?

Or the hated right wing christian white man?

I agree. I am as in favor of gay rights as it gets, but that image is a bridge too far. There is also one floating around the internet of a giant American flag held by children - I think on the White House lawn, that has been photoshopped to rainbow colors. That one is out of line too. There is just no excuse for ever desecrating the flag and what it stands for. Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

I disagree with you completely. Desecrating the flag is protected free speech.

The gay rights people are openly celebrating their power and are dominating the nation right now.

I hope they keep rubbing everyone's nose in it until people get pissed off enough to do something about it. Obviously, I should have the right to burn the gay flag as my own protest.

I disagree with you completely. Desecrating the flag is protected free speech.

The gay rights people are openly celebrating their power and are dominating the nation right now.

I hope they keep rubbing everyone's nose in it until people get pissed off enough to do something about it. Obviously, I should have the right to burn the gay flag as my own protest. Originally Posted by DSK

Watch yourself, DSK, you can tear down, walk on and burn a Confederate or U.S. flag, but if you vandalize a rainbow flag, it's classified as a "hate crime".

NEW ORLEANS -- A gay activist in New Orleans says somebody tore a rainbow flag from his balcony and spray-painted a slur on the house he and his partner share.

Police say they and the FBI are investigating the vandalism early Saturday as a hate crime.

Poor taste from them to the greatest generation.

What's interesting is the story behind the photo. The famous photo was not the first flag raised on Mt Suribachi that day. The secretary of the Navy requested that flag and ordered a larger one erected or Rosenthal would never have had the chance to get the photo in the first place. Three of the marines in the famous photo were dead less than a month later.

As for this photo with the rainbow flag, it's within their right to do it, but probably not something I would say is in good taste.

That image is in exceedingly bad taste. Originally Posted by Old-T

Why?

Look, I'm conservative and I don't get the supposedly great offense.

First off, this isn't even flag desecration because the flag doesn't even appear in the image. It has been replaced by the rainbow flag.

Second, it is a common practice in political propaganda, protest, or satire to take a well known image and to modify it to make a political point - either for or against something.

Would it be "desecration" to modify or replace the American flag in this image with the rainbow flag? Or the Confederate flag? Or a Tea Party flag? Or the pinko "hammer and sickle" flag.



What about this image?



I don't see how gays celebrating their newly minted civil rights are desecrating the flag by adapting an historic image of an American victory.

It's one thing to say you disagree with gay marriage.

It is another thing to say that any signs of celebration by gay marriage proponents is de facto un-American and a desecration of all things American.

I try to be a social liberal, but as a Veteran, I find that characterization to be in extremely poor taste.

Why?

Look, I'm conservative and I don't get the supposedly great offense.

First off, this isn't even flag desecration because the flag doesn't even appear in the image. It has been replaced by the rainbow flag.

Second, it is a common practice in political propaganda, protest, or satire to take a well known image and to modify it to make a political point - either for or against something.

Would it be "desecration" to modify or replace the American flag in this image with the rainbow flag? Or the Confederate flag? Or a Tea Party flag? Or the pinko "hammer and sickle" flag.



What about this image?



I don't see how gays celebrating their newly minted civil rights are desecrating the flag by adapting an historic image of an American victory.

It's one thing to say you disagree with gay marriage.

It is another thing to say that any signs of celebration by gay marriage proponents is de facto un-American and a desecration of all things American. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Marriage is NOT a civil right. Since you have to get a license it is a privilege.






.

Marriage is NOT a civil right. Since you have to get a license it is a privilege. Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

That's horseshit.

The restrictions or burdens imposed by a license are minute. They are intended to ensure you don't marry a close relative and that you are not already married to someone else.

Voting rights come with restrictions, too. You are required to be 18, to live in the district in which you are voting, to be a citizen, to not be a convicted felon, and to not vote more than once.

Do those restrictions mean that voting is not a civil right, but a privilege?

The restrictions imposed on voting, like the restrictions on marriage, are designed to protect and strengthen the institution.

But if discriminatory restrictions are imposed for no valid reason, then you are denying someone equal rights.

Saying someone must live in Texas to vote for Texas governor is not a discriminatory restriction. Saying someone must be white to vote in Texas obviously IS.

Marriage has always has been a "right" for heterosexuals.

It was simply denied for no good reason to homosexuals. All the justifications for excluding homosexuals turned out to be bullshit.

Procreation is NOT a requirement for marriage. We let old people and sterile people get married, so long as they are opposite sex. Why not same sex also?

Marriage confers rights to both spouses that merely shacking up does not, like inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, health plan membership, tenants rights, and many others. Heterosexuals enjoy those protections by the mere fact of getting married - there is no requirement that they seek legal help to draw up special will provisions or make civil union contracts.

There is NO rational basis why same sex couples should be denied those protections that opposite sex couples enjoy without even thinking about it.

Denial of those equal protections of the law are based on nothing more than good old fashioned Old Testament bigotry.