West Point men become first to marry at academy

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Actually I think it's up to the other jacknaps to explain the state's compelling interest in denying privileges to some that they grant to others.

That's where we differ. I see no reason the state even has a right to be the authority over marriage in the first place but since it is it should not so greatly alter the foundation of that authority IMHO unless a majority votes it to be so. Even then if it is voted to be so that's no indication I have to agree or embrace such crap. And you can bet your life savings that I never will. And I still want a gay supporter that's not gay to explain why they think those vile sex acts are ok. There is a reason none ever attempt it when I ask. At least so far none have tried in over a dozen years of my asking. I believe that indicts them.. -Tyr

[Arbo]

WHY DONT THE JACKNAPS THAT SUPPORT IT EVER EXPLAIN HOW THE SEX ACTS ENGAGED IN BY GAYS ARE NORMAL, ARE SAFE AND/OR ARE SANITARY!?? OR DO THOSE (GUYS) THAT SUPPORT GAYS SO DAMN MUCH VIEW THEM AS GOOD AND MAYBE LIKE TO FANTASIZE ABOUT BEING A WILLING RECEPTICLE FOR THE GAY ACTIVITIES? One has to wonder why so many supposedly straight men are so ardent and committed in their feverish support .. I bet some of those supporters are just fantasizing ....... the poor weak minded fools. Even if some of them had a job that fostered that crap it's still no excuse IMHO.. --Tyr

All this from the guy that appears to be prone to violence, yet again much like the Muslims he hates.

[Hanging Judge]

This is a travesty.

[fj1200]

That's where we differ. I see no reason the state even has a right to be the authority over marriage in the first place but since it is it should not so greatly alter the foundation of that authority IMHO unless a majority votes it to be so. Even then if it is voted to be so that's no indication I have to agree or embrace such crap. And you can bet your life savings that I never will. And I still want a gay supporter that's not gay to explain why they think those vile sex acts are ok. There is a reason none ever attempt it when I ask. At least so far none have tried in over a dozen years of my asking. I believe that indicts them.. -Tyr

Well I see we agree that the state shouldn't have a role in marriage but since it does then you open the door for an equal protection case which was the basis for striking DOMA iirc especially as some states have accepted it by a majority vote. Your personal acceptance is a whole 'nother matter which still leave the compelling state interest.

And by "vile sex acts" do you mean the same ones that some straights engage in?

[logroller]

That's where we differ. I see no reason the state even has a right to be the authority over marriage in the first place but since it is it should not so greatly alter the foundation of that authority IMHO unless a majority votes it to be so. Even then if it is voted to be so that's no indication I have to agree or embrace such crap. And you can bet your life savings that I never will. And I still want a gay supporter that's not gay to explain why they think those vile sex acts are ok. There is a reason none ever attempt it when I ask. At least so far none have tried in over a dozen years of my asking. I believe that indicts them.. -Tyr

I'm not gay so I can't be a gay anything, but I support leaving others to their own decisions on their sex life, vile though it may be -- if it doesn't involve me and those doing so think its ok, then ok.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm not gay so I can't be a gay anything, but I support leaving others to their own decisions on their sex life, vile though it may be -- if it doesn't involve me and those doing so think its ok, then ok.

ok is ok but government sanctioned and promoted is not. At least it is not in my book. And my life and my book are the basis for me being. Its called living with and standing own principles. I have no great objection to what YOU just presented as your principle judgment on this subject but ten again you are not the STATE. FJ JUST PRESENTED A QUESTION I WILL REPLY TO LATER DEALING WITH THAT BUT NOW I SIMPLY HAVE BUSINESS TO ATTEND TOO. In fact I am running later by my just replying to you now. -Tyr

[jimnyc]

I'm still waiting for the remotest of proof that I, or others, are scared or have an irrational fear of homosexuality. Inventing names only serves to avoid the debate and for one to take cheap shots at another due to their opinion.

[jafar00]

What great camouflage.

This is the new image the enemy has of your army.

[Abbey Marie]

We have an NFL tackle running out of the locker room because he's scared/offended, and now this. At least they aren't currently in the army. If this is the state of our men, we women may have to take over.

[aboutime]

We have an NFL tackle running out of the locker room because he's scared/offended, and now this. At least they aren't currently in the army. If this is the state of our men, we women may have to take over.

Abbey. Sad to agree....villagepeeps.jpg. Instead of National Anthem. We hear Y.M.C.A, and

[jimnyc]

And by "vile sex acts" do you mean the same ones that some straights engage in?

IMO, the act is vile because it's 2 men engaging in it. I agree that it's the same act that hetero couples engage in. I'd guess that many women in relationships have performed a sex act on their man (trying to keep this somewhat clean). While this may still be considered vile in some fashion to some out there, it's almost an accepted act and almost widely accepted that it happens in the majority of hetero relationships. I also think this act between 2 men is vile. But all that really becomes is one mans opinion of what they find "vile". But that stuff is their business, so long as it's behind closed doors (I hope). I'm sure there are some gay people out there who find regular 'ol hetero missionary sex to be vile too.

[aboutime]

IMO, the act is vile because it's 2 men engaging in it. I agree that it's the same act that hetero couples engage in. I'd guess that many women in relationships have performed a sex act on their man (trying to keep this somewhat clean). While this may still be considered vile in some fashion to some out there, it's almost an accepted act and almost widely accepted that it happens in the majority of hetero relationships. I also think this act between 2 men is vile. But all that really becomes is one mans opinion of what they find "vile". But that stuff is their business, so long as it's behind closed doors (I hope). I'm sure there are some gay people out there who find regular 'ol hetero missionary sex to be vile too.

jimnyc. I get a sense that 'fj' is merely speaking for himself.

[jimnyc]

jimnyc. I get a sense that 'fj' is merely speaking for himself.

I can see where he's coming from. On paper, one IS hypocritical if they find it OK for one to engage in the act, but not the other. But I honestly do see a big difference between acts being performed by man and woman, as opposed to 2 men doing so. But I don't think anyone's stance on this necessarily makes the other person wrong.

[Abbey Marie]

IMO, the act is vile because it's 2 men engaging in it. I agree that it's the same act that hetero couples engage in. I'd guess that many women in relationships have performed a sex act on their man (trying to keep this somewhat clean). While this may still be considered vile in some fashion to some out there, it's almost an accepted act and almost widely accepted that it happens in the majority of hetero relationships. I also think this act between 2 men is vile. But all that really becomes is one mans opinion of what they find "vile". But that stuff is their business, so long as it's behind closed doors (I hope). I'm sure there are some gay people out there who find regular 'ol hetero missionary sex to be vile too.

I'm not sure which act you are referring to that heteros do too. But I will say this: Mouths are engineered to be two-way. Not so anal cavities.

[aboutime]

I can see where he's coming from. On paper, one IS hypocritical if they find it OK for one to engage in the act, but not the other. But I honestly do see a big difference between acts being performed by man and woman, as opposed to 2 men doing so. But I don't think anyone's stance on this necessarily makes the other person wrong.

And, that is not what I said.