I’m More Convinced Than Ever …

By Loudoun Insider

… that after the George Reker rent-boy scandal and now this that these uber-anti-gay moralists are fighting their own internal urges! 


Comments

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Seriously, how does one perform oral sex on someone while they’re asleep! This sounds more like fantasy than reality. Not mine of course – those who are peddling this bullshit!

  • Loudoun Lady says:

    Good googlymoo LI, enough with the sex crap. What happened to the good old days when it was all about interns? Speaking of which – why not do a post on Clinton taking a bullet for/being thrown under the bus for Obama and Rahm the tiny dancer? I just love me a good ole Bill Clinton story – ooooo weee!

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Hey, thought this was appropriate with the repeal of DADT passing the House.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Same guy bringing this to the immigration debate! He wants to deport gays!
    http://belowthebeltway.com/2010/05/27/family-research-council-deport-all-the-gays/

  • James Madison says:

    This is some crap ….really makes are party look ignorant….

  • pgreer says:

    “are” party look ignorant..
    *
    and bad spellers too.

  • James Madison says:

    pgreer thank you so much!!

  • pgreer says:

    Hehe! :P

  • NotJohnSMosby says:

    LI, you’re finally figuring that out? Most people really don’t care if you’re gay or straight, and they’re absolutely not afraid that they’ll “be turned gay” if a gay couple walks down the street in their neighborhood. The ones screaming the loudest against gays are most likely closeted gays themselves.

  • I don’t want to Google “gay rape” while I’m at work, but is that really a big problem in society at large? Seems like most rapists I hear about are heterosexual men. And LI, I had the same thought as you…..they must be some really, really sound sleepers because I’m pretty sure that would wake me up.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    I didn’t say I just figured it out, NJSM, I just said that things like that make more convinced that it’s true!

  • NotJohnSMosby says:

    That’s fine, I assume that you agree that the “I’m not gay even though I have gay sex” anti-gay Republican crowd is one of the higher circles of hypocrisy?

    Other equivalent levels of hypocrisy: 1) The Republican screaming “deport the Mexicans” while three Mexicans are mowing his lawn for cheap, two are cleaning his house for cheap, and he’s trying to decide which cut-rate-price contractor quote to accept for an upcoming house painting job he needs done. 2) The Republican screaming “lock up all the drug dealers and drug abusers” while still buzzing from the coke he snorted earlier that day or half high from the prescription medications his MD buddy was nice enough to give to him

  • Mr. Ed says:

    This retired colonel “Dick Black” who is quoted as an expert on this issue, is this none other than our local nutbag? I guess he’s the go-to expert on snorkeling, etc.!!!

  • Elder Berry says:

    Loudoun Lady, that dog won’t hunt.

  • NoVA Scout says:

    The linked document is most peculiar in its assumption that allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military (as opposed to quietly under DADT) will lead to homosexual rape of heterosexuals (“a terrifying rape-free zone where no heterosexual will be safe” is the phrase from the linked document). This is a kind of psychotic take on things. Alternatively, they no it to be patent balderdash and are saying it just to be inflammatory. Does it make sense that homosexuals would go around looking to prey on heterosexuals, whether in the military or elsewhere? Have we had a lot of problems with heterosexuals targetting and raping homosexuals? Where does this nonsense come from? And why is there no sense of embarrassment about making such claims publicly? Are people who write stuff like what is in the link here projecting their own tendency and pre-dispositions to violence against homosexuals onto homosexuals themselves?

    I’m willing to give close attention to anyone wearing the uniform about problems they perceive in maintaining unit cohesion, morale, or combat discipline in a setting where there are mixed sexes or open toleration of homosexuality in a military unit. I do not dismiss these concerns out of hand. But once we integrated the armed forces to permit males and females serving in the same combat units, once we transitioned to DADT, it’s difficult to sustain any rational argument that homosexuals should not be permitted to serve openly.

  • It most likely will result in exploded turrets on our ships, though.
    OOps!!! Too late.

Leave Comment