Athlete of The Day

[ninjaface]

Chris Kluwe

Why?


Maryland politician's letter denouncing Brendon Ayanbadejo's support of gay marriage - Yahoo! Sports


"They Won't Magically Turn You Into A Lustful Cockmonster": Chris Kluwe Explains Gay Marriage To The Politician Who Is Offended By An NFL Player Supporting It

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

Choosing a daddy

This usually has to be done pretty quickly or events will overwhelm you and you may get gang-raped or forced to hook up before you can make a choice. But if you want to have a choice, as soon as you decide to hook up you should tell the other prisoners; the word will get around fast and guys will then start to talk with you about it. It can get pretty hectic.
The relationship begins when a jocker puts a claim on you, and you accept or recognize the claim, either voluntarily or under duress. If more than one guy wants to claim you, you'll usually get to choose, but sometimes the jockers will settle the matter among themselves and you'll just be stuck with the winner. If you have some time before you have to make a commitment and you can keep your head straight about it, you can often get more than one guy to become interested in you; this allows you more choice and greatly improves your bargaining position. Often there is such a strong demand for punks that jockers start competing for you right away in any case. Since the character of your partner will be the most important factor in shaping your further experience behind bars, and jockers range from assholes who only abuse and exploit their punks to lonely fellows looking for someone to really care about, it is important for you to try to get a choice.

If you have any negotiating room at all before committing yourself to someone, discuss what he expects from you in detail and try to work out the most favorable arrangement. Even put it in writing! Probably the single most important thing has to do with avoiding AIDS: get him to agree not to fuck your ass without a condom or let anyone else do so. If he insists on fucking your ass, try to get him to not let anyone else do it, to "keep your pussy for himself alone." A lot of jockers like the idea of keeping "pussy" to themselves even if they'll make you give head to their friends or for pay.

Spend as much time as you can with the jockers who want to hook up with you; ask them lots of questions and judge for yourself how sincere they are. Ask other prisoners (especially punks and queens) about their reps. The more information you can get, the better your choice will be. Once you make it, you are pretty much stuck with it.

You'll want to know if the jocker wants to "put you on the block" (which unfortunately is pretty common), whether he has ever shot up drugs (and therefore might carry the AIDS virus), whether he'll settle for head or insists you give up your ass as well, whether he'll allow anyone else to fuck your ass or keep it for himself, whether he'll loan you out to his buddies, whether he wants to cell with you, and what the relationship means to him.

Check out how serious the guy is. Protective pairing is a very serious matter for him as well, since it obligates him to put his life on the line if necessary to keep you from harm, and if you are foolish or stupid and fuck up, he may have to suffer for your mistake. Ask him about any previous catchers he's had and how they managed together and why they split. If any of them are still around, talk with them. Ask him what he feels his responsibilities would be and what yours would be. Also ask about canteen arrangements.

Jockers may well insist on having sex with you before putting a claim on you. It's not an unreasonable demand, since sex is such an important part of the deal, and if he's willing to limit himself to head it makes sense for him to find out if you can satisfy him that way. But make sure you're both serious first, or anybody could use it as an excuse to go up in you. You can tell a lot about a jock by how he behaves with you sexually. If he breaks contact with you right after he comes, it may be a sign of discomfort and guilt on his part or that he sees you as just a piece of meat. On the other hand, if a jock stays with you for a while after he comes, even stays inside you, it may be a sign that he likes your company and is attracted to you as a person and not just a sex object. Also, if a jock shows affection with you, such as stroking your body or hair, it is a good indication that he wants to treat you as a human being.

Ask jockers how they treat their women, because most jockers treat their punks the same way. If they form real partnerships with their women, they are more likely to do the same with you.

[DJ FC]

I kinda like this guy:

Ah, yes, all opponents of same-sex "marriage" are just "hateful bigots who hate freedom". And supporters of that absurdity on 3 legs you call same-sex "marriage" go on to accuse opponents of that absurdity as being "closed minded" and "bigoted"? Hopefully I'm not the only one seeing the giant "hypocrite" sign hanging on the necks of supporters of same-sex "marriage". Really, this type of empty rhetoric does nothing but portray supporters of same-sex "marriage" as even more fanatically dogmatic than any God-forsaken caricature of conservatives. The thought process of same-sex "marriage" supporters goes something like this: "Oh, look at this guy; he is opposed to same-sex 'marriage' so he just must be wrong and hateful and bigoted and must hate freedom." Never once is it ever even considered that an opponent of same-sex "marriage" might have, well, you know, good reasons to be opposed to such an absurdity. I will now proceed to present various reasoned arguments against this absurdity of same-sex "marriage": Where procreation is, in principle, impossible, marriage is meaningless and logically impossible. ("In principle" means "relating to the definition of" as in "not relating to particular circumstances." So if an orange happens to have a bug residing in its insides, the bug is not part of the definition of an orange; it doesn't change what the orange is in principle.) Human beings reason and make laws by means of concepts and definitions. And if one doesn't know how to operate with respect to those concepts and definitions, that individual cannot make laws. Examples of individuals who are impotent or who are infertile or past the childbearing age do not change the definition of marriage in principle because between a man and a woman, in principle, procreation is always possible. It is this very possibility which gave rise to the institution of marriage in the first place as a matter of law and government. But as when procreation is impossible, as with two males or two females, it isn't that this is incidentally impossible; it is impossible in principle! Yet if you say that this is a "marriage," you are saying that marriage could be understood in principle apart from procreation. You have, in fact, changed its definition in such a way to destroy the necessity of the institution since the only reason it has existed in human society and civilizations is to regulate, from a social viewpoint, the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation. So by supporting "same-sex marriage," you're acting as if the institution has no basis apart from your own arbitrary whim.

Defenders of "same-sex marriage" claim that what really matters in a marriage is just that the partners are lovingly committed to one another. They also claim that marriage is conventional and not grounded in the natural order of things, so that it is up to us to decide what marriage is about in light of changing standards. But given the first premise, there is no way they can consistently rule out the legitimacy of polygamous marriages or incestuous marriages; and given their second premise, there is also no way they can insist in principle on their "loving commitment" criterion for marriage in a way that would rule out "marriages" between people and animals, living people and corpses, or indeed anything whatsoever that someone might want to call "marriage." For someone could always argue that even the "loving commitment" criterion is as arbitrary and open to challenge as the heterosexual criterion is. Yet defenders of "same-sex marriage" also claim that they are opposed to these other purported forms of "marriage." Therefore, their position is incoherent.

[Saint DH]

Sounds awfully familiar to something another brilliant man once said:

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry

The problem is not about religion, but rather the alteration of a defined process. For a process to be valid, it must be applied identically to all participants.

While I realize that being sworn-in to office is largely ceremonial, and that you could take your oath on a stack of Hustler magazines and have the same effect, are there any consequences to this type of behavior? Does this Congressman's oath still mean anything in the lands and laws of the United States? Where does the change stop? Shouldn't a Jewish congressman be allowed to swear on the Torah? How about an atheist swearing on a picture of Carl Sagan? As this change becomes more pervasive, the process becomes invalidated and the very concept of an oath becomes unclear.

I don't care if swearing on the Koran will make the oath more sincere because this has nothing to do with religion. I don't care that it's a Koran. I care that it's not a Bible. I care that a well-established process is being invalidated by it's alteration to suit the desires of specific individuals or groups.

Simply replace the shit about being sworn in, Koran, Bible, with gay marriage and shit.

[Mr. Blonde]

Athlete of the gay.

[Beebs]

The retort / DH is attacking the specific logic in two arguments.

Regardless of if the minutia of the logic; gays should be allowed to have the benefits of legal marriage.

[Saint DH]

As long as it's not called marriage and they are not considered married, I could give a fuck less.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry

As long as it's not called marriage and they are not considered married, I could give a fuck less.

Well, sorry, that's half of the whole debate. I'm not entirely surprised you hold this view, although I sincerely doubt you have an educated opinion on it. As soon as civil unions give the exact same fucking benefits as marriages (which they don't), then this debate will never go away until same sex marriage is standard.

[Saint DH]

If they do that, then explain to me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry my sister?

[Mr. Blonde]

Surely you are trolling.

If blacks and whites start mixin', it's gonna be the end of civilized society as we know it!

- DH in 1950

[Saint DH]

You're comparing apples to oranges.

The bottom line is that gay people don't want equal rights, because they already have them. They want special rights.

[Mr. Blonde]

No..they want equal rights to married heterosexual people. That doesn't mean "special". It means equal.

Seriously, how does this affect you at all? Even if I entertain your ridiculous regurgitation of the "HERP DERP DEN WUT IF I WANT TO MARRY MY DOG DERP" argument, how does THAT affect you? So what if a dude wants to marry his sister, or his dog, etc. etc.

Let the fucking courts sort it out. It doesn't affect you in the slightest. Like it or not, gay marriage is going to succeed in democratic nations no matter how many people like you oppose it.

[Saint DH]

They can get married to a member of the opposite sex just like everybody else. They cannot marry a member of the same sex just like everybody else. How do they not have equal rights? How is letting a select group of individuals do something that no one else can do not special rights?

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry

As long as it's not called marriage and they are not considered married, I could give a fuck less.

So it boils down to a word.

Call it "homo-lock" as long as they file joint tax returns, etc

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry

They can get married to a member of the opposite sex just like everybody else. They cannot marry a member of the same sex just like everybody else. How do they not have equal rights? How is letting a select group of individuals do something that no one else can do not special rights?

Seriously, what in the fuck are you even talking about?

Are you bitching right now because you're not gay? Because that's exactly what it sounds like.

[Saint DH]

I don't know. I still think it's dangerous. Why couldn't I have a kitty-lock with my cat? We both love each other.

[Beebs]

Plus it would become a universal right; any person could get homo-locked, it's not like they make you suck a dick before hand to prove you're gay.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry

I don't know. I still think it's dangerous. Why couldn't I have a kitty-lock with my cat? We both love each other.

Why can't you do that now, if she's an all American dick loving female?

[Ugly Bastard]

I nominate DH for Poster of the Year™.

[thekremlin]

He is seriously undergoing the deepest troll ever.

[DDTempest]

Originally Posted by thekremlin

He is seriously undergoing the deepest troll ever.

I'm not sure he is.

[thekremlin]

I'm pretty convinced.

[Mr. Blonde]

Nope, not letting this one get by. Sorry DH, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

[DJ FC]

Not the case with Misty or UB. When they troll they troll hard.

[Beebs]

Nothing will top the April Fools day Password troll by Gaz.

It was magical.