Rainbow Cocksuckers

Uh how do you know it smells like cheese? Originally Posted by dirty dog

He just ASSumes it, since all of the customers he gets at the Talleywackers glory hole are just as he described himself. woomby is real good about transference and projection to hide his deficiencies !

Uh how do you know it smells like cheese? Originally Posted by dirty dog

I'm guessing you never played a lot of sports.

[QUOTE=JD Barleycorn;1056910898]

Hey dipshit, what if one of the men in the real photo was gay?

I mean, we don't really know that much about any of them, do we? Most of them were probably only 18-20 years old and back in those days pretty much all gays had to live in the closet. So it is not like they would have publicly "out".

So, it is entirely possible that one of them was gay. So, would his act of heroism also be a theft of honor at the same time?

In fact, let's do the math. Let's assume that gays represent 4% of the population - 1 out of every 25 people.

So the odds that any random guy you meet is straight is 24/25 = 96%.

The odds that two random guys are straight is just the product of those probabilities 24/25 x 24/25 = 92.16%. Or the square of the probability

The odds that three random guys are straight is the probability cubed - (24/25)^3 = 88.47%. And so forth.

Now, 6 men raised that flag on Iwo Jima. So in order for none of them to be gay, straights must run the table.

So the odds that all 6 were straight is 24/25 multiplied by itself SIX times. That is about 78.3%.

But that means that the odds that at least one was gay is about 21.7 %. Better than one in five.

So, it is not a remote possibility.[/QUOT

A few numerical changes and a couple of points. I've read that incidence of gay people is less than 2%. So cut everything in half. Statistically speaking a certain number of gay men would never make it in something like the marines so further reduce the number. Not all gay men are equal. So your 21.7% will drop to 10.85%. To be generous let's say that third would not be able to exist in the service. So we go from 1 in 5 to 1 in 10 and then even further down. So it is much more likely that all six men were straight.

My question is why is it so important for one them to be gay? I see them as soldiers and you see them as what? Originally Posted by ExNYer

You see them as soldiers, holding your breath and praying that none of them are gay. The truth of the matter is there are gay men out there who could beat you to a bloody pulp and there are straight men who could cook you the best dinner you've ever eaten. You are hung up on stereotypes and it's what keeps you from making a logical argument. You're stuck in the past.

You can't hand your ass to someone, much less someone else's.

Are their age limits on getting married? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Their?

Your opening line is apropos.

A few numerical changes and a couple of points. I've read that incidence of gay people is less than 2%. So cut everything in half. Statistically speaking a certain number of gay men would never make it in something like the marines so further reduce the number. Not all gay men are equal. So your 21.7% will drop to 10.85%. To be generous let's say that third would not be able to exist in the service. So we go from 1 in 5 to 1 in 10 and then even further down. So it is much more likely that all six men were straight.

My question is why is it so important for one them to be gay? I see them as soldiers and you see them as what? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You've read 2%? Well I've read 4% (on the high end). So what if that number is right?

And how exactly do you cut out one third as not being able to exist in the service? What about straights? About a third of them may not be able to exist in the service, so that puts the numbers back to even doesn't it?

And it is not ME that thinks it is important that one of them be gay. I don't care.

Rather, it is YOU that thinks it is desecration for gays to appropriate the Iwo Jima image. So, obviously it is important to you that they be straight.

Because if one of them was gay, you would have to explain why it is OK for him to get killed in the Marine Corps fighting for his country, but not be allowed to get married in that same country to someone he loves because he is gay.

You've read 2%? Well I've read 4% (on the high end). So what if that number is right?

And how exactly do you cut out one third as not being able to exist in the service? What about straights? About a third of them may not be able to exist in the service, so that puts the numbers back to even doesn't it?

And it is not ME that thinks it is important that one of them be gay. I don't care.

Rather, it is YOU that thinks it is desecration for gays to appropriate the Iwo Jima image. So, obviously it is important to you that they be straight.

Because if one of them was gay, you would have to explain why it is OK for him to get killed in the Marine Corps fighting for his country, but not be allowed to get married in that same country to someone he loves because he is gay. Originally Posted by ExNYer

That's it in a nutshell and there's no rational argument why. At least no argument that doesn't start with, 'but it's icky'.

You should probably qualify some of these broad statements. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Really? Which one was broad? The one about inheritance rights? The one about health insurance? Which churches decide those rules? I thought the law did.

You are dodging the argument.

You are correct as opposed to "churches" ... but the fact of the matter is most of the criminal and civil laws in our country are based on the ethics and principles established by Christianity ... that's one of the "conflicts" existing in the debate about allowing ethics and principles of the Muslim faith to be influence our behavior in this country.... and/or protect Muslims from the constraints of the laws in this country. So it is "normal" for people who have strong Christian influences to be disturbed to angry about a disregard for those ethics and principles upon which their lives have been based all of these years to appease a small number of people in this country. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I've got news for you. Non-Christian countries follow the same ethics and principles. Long before Judaism or Christianity came about, murder was illegal. So was theft, rape, assault, lying.

But all of those things involve harm to others. Gay marriage is consensual activity that does NO HARM to anyone else.

So, once again, please tell me a real, legitimate governmental or societal interest that is advanced by NOT allowing gays to get married.

You can't, can you?

And saying "religious people think it is icky" is NOT a legitimate governmental interest.

Homosexual behavior isn't normal so cut your bullshit.


Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

But they are "normal" enough to fight and get killed for this great nation?

http://outwordmagazine.com/inside-ou...ction-in-iraq-

Because if one of them was gay, you would have to explain why it is OK for him to get killed in the Marine Corps fighting for his country, but not be allowed to get married in that same country to someone he loves because he is gay. Originally Posted by ExNYer

It's been long overdue....

http://glbthistory.org/OutranksWeb/W...20War%20II.htm

It's been long overdue....

http://glbthistory.org/OutranksWeb/W...20War%20II.htm Originally Posted by andymarksman

AMEN!

You are dodging the argument. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Yes, it was the same LLIdiot who recently spent several weeks duckin' & dodgin' the following question:

"If you knew during the Spring of 2003 what we know now, would you have (strike the word "still") supported the invasion of Iraq?"

It scares the livin' shit out of LLIdiot to admit that he was wrong!

But they are "normal" enough to fight and get killed for this great nation?

http://outwordmagazine.com/inside-ou...ction-in-iraq- Originally Posted by andymarksman

Is it because they are normal or expendable?


Jim

Is it because they are normal or expendable?


Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

You're a terrible human being. Apart from being a troll.

You're a terrible human being. Apart from being a troll. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Don't pass value judgments on me you stupid piece of shit.

Jim

No, you're the frightened little boy who hates everything he can't understand.

That would make you the stupid piece of shit, Jimbola.