Latest Breaking News

47of74

(18,470 posts)

25. And a lot of times they just replaced communist/black/etc...

Reply to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #24)

Thu May 17, 2012, 06:38 PM

May 2012

...with the word homosexual in their rants. Word for word their rants are pretty much the same ones they used to rail against civil rights or communism (which in many cases was their blanket term for treating anyone on the same level as white males).

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

69 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Marshall says 'sodomy is not a civil right' [View all] swimboy May 2012 OP

see how these repukes are? Skittles May 2012 #1

+1 Solly Mack May 2012 #7

And this guy can discriminate any time he wishes. asjr May 2012 #29

he cannot see gay people beyond their sex lives, AlbertCat May 2012 #37

They are denying intelligence and talent in favor of their own cult of stupidity. What a waste. freshwest May 2012 #66

Huh? What? liberal N proud May 2012 #2

The conservatives in the 60s were totally sure equality for blacks wasn't a civil right either. phantom power May 2012 #3

This clown needs a fist in his face... Blue_Tires May 2012 #4

So does anyone who votes for him. FiveGoodMen May 2012 #11

Or he wants one...er...someplace else... Ken Burch May 2012 #40

Let's see, who is the real activist here? Dont call me Shirley May 2012 #5

Right to privacy, pursuit of happiness... truthisfreedom May 2012 #6

I had no idea gratuitous May 2012 #8

$5 says that guy was wearing diapers, a butt plug, and/or a studded leather cock harness XemaSab May 2012 #9

Probably, but I really do not want to find out. 47of74 May 2012 #15

Oh, I do XemaSab May 2012 #16

The point being, that the gov't shouldn't find out if WE have plugs... Bucky May 2012 #19

Isn't it a right to have the government out of your bedroom? lunatica May 2012 #10

It is not in the realm of government to oversee what is done sexually in private between consenting The Wielding Truth May 2012 #23

In that sex is a form of expression between two folks, wouldn't it come under "freedom of speech"? marble falls May 2012 #12

Yes, it's the freedom to ASSociate. montanto May 2012 #13

It likely was discussed in the court's "Oral Argument", but not all sodomy is Anal. 24601 May 2012 #21

Welll what was that study awhile back cindyperry2010 May 2012 #14

Or not. I think that's generalization that can't be made. HERVEPA May 2012 #58

Thank you very much. swimboy May 2012 #59

Virginia Conservatives are in an unholy alliance with this woman: swimboy May 2012 #17

There is USSC precedent that is on point. "Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) 24601 May 2012 #18

I was going to say that too SoutherDem May 2012 #20

Correct. chollybocker May 2012 #31

In GOP land, there is no "right" to anything legal if it makes some beac May 2012 #53

The same is soon to happen with gay marriage, as well. joshcryer May 2012 #61

He thinks gay guys will 'eye' him in the foxhole. What a doofus. CurtEastPoint May 2012 #22

I like how even in hatred, their ego is big enough to think they are irresistable to gay men Blue_Tires May 2012 #35

Or, perhaps, they're afraid that they AREN'T. Ken Burch May 2012 #41

Or anybody else for that matter. smirkymonkey May 2012 #69

I'm on the battlefield and have to concentrate on the enemy 600 yards away AlbertCat May 2012 #42

lol. i love how the same states and the same people pretend that the were pro-civil rights La Lioness Priyanka May 2012 #24

And a lot of times they just replaced communist/black/etc... 47of74 May 2012 #25

IMO these people are also trying to wedge african americans vs gays but they La Lioness Priyanka May 2012 #27

Maybe not PUBLIC sodomy slackmaster May 2012 #26

Stupidity is not a civil right, either. Faygo Kid May 2012 #28

What a gutless fucker. tabasco May 2012 #30

He can't have oral sex anymore? Fearless May 2012 #32

something I'm sure Mrs Marshall can attest to azurnoir May 2012 #33

wanna bet he sodomizes Mrs. Marshall? provis99 May 2012 #43

well I'm sure that azurnoir May 2012 #47

But it's okay as long as they aren't gay for each other cindyperry2010 May 2012 #55

Video: Laughing Mirror May 2012 #34

Actually, it is bluestateguy May 2012 #36

Time to start the pool on how long it'll be 'til this guy gets caught with a rent boy at Motel 6 Ken Burch May 2012 #38

Look, I think Marshall is a tool, but I see a repetitive pattern in your posts that is off the mark. swimboy May 2012 #52

OK. Ken Burch May 2012 #54

Sodomy is not just a male-on-male thing. Does this freak think he can legislate kestrel91316 May 2012 #39

I know. This stupid jerkoff doesn't know he's talking about oral sex RainDog May 2012 #65

a clumsy straight guy could easily commit a felony and not know it. yurbud May 2012 #68

A lot of married men (straight) HockeyMom May 2012 #44

But he LOVES girl-on-girl porn 1Greensix May 2012 #45

To them, girl-on-girl sex is not homosexual. mikeytherat May 2012 #57

It seems pretty self evident to me... Salviati May 2012 #46

So, should we ban from the bench anyone who has ever given or received a blow-job? Ian David May 2012 #48

Fascism, bigotry, and oppression are not, but that doesn't stop you, Marshall. n/t jtuck004 May 2012 #49

I know that old saw, but sex is sex... Flubadubya May 2012 #50

So judges are in the business of judging sexual acts of other judges. undeterred May 2012 #51

these people must lie awake at night thinking about that awful AWFUL gay sex.. frylock May 2012 #56

Neither is playing World of Warcraft naked. sofa king May 2012 #60

Sounds like the pursuit of happiness to me... PurityOfEssence May 2012 #62

This is why we can't listen to those voices that tell us Dems = Repukes. It's already started here. Tarheel_Dem May 2012 #63

It's a constitutional right RainDog May 2012 #64

The way I do it, it should be. nt Poll_Blind May 2012 #67