Male escort and Baptist minister

100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline

Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
I would not mind turn down

I would not turn down the chance to explore traditional family values with the blond reporter in that segment.  Well, for a week or so anyway.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Christian Fundamentalism....

Christian Fundamentalism.... a socially acceptable way to self loathe...

These Evangelicals are as automatic as Lebron James with the game on the line...


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15725
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I hate the way these stories

I hate the way these stories are reported.

"I am not gay"

Misses the point that the crime wasn't being gay, the crime was paying an unregulated unlicensed person for sex. Prostitution at the Bunny Ranch is legal, escorts of any sex outside of Nevada is illegal and unregulated and has the potential to be dangerous for both the john and prostitute.

It is just as wrong for a married man to hire a female escort. The crime is not being heterosexual, but breaking the law.

No one should give a shit if you are gay or not. The issue is breaking the law, not your sexuality.

If this guy had any balls or morals, he would admit being gay, stop paying prostitutes and find a partner he doesn't have to pay to have sex with.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:It is just as

Brian37 wrote:

It is just as wrong for a married man to hire a female escort.

Breaking the law != wrong. I don't think it is amoral that he is gay or that he likes hiring escorts. The hypocrisy is the only wrong thing here. Let's legalize consensual adult activities. And let's enjoy yet another hard-core anti-gay leader being caught in his lies.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1477
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Brian37

Jormungander wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

It is just as wrong for a married man to hire a female escort.

Breaking the law != wrong. I don't think it is amoral that he is gay or that he likes hiring escorts. The hypocrisy is the only wrong thing here. Let's legalize consensual adult activities. And let's enjoy yet another hard-core anti-gay leader being caught in his lies.

yeah lets legalise you killing me with a shovel because I asked you to. Its consensual afterall. na im actually in agreement with you. The law is in the wrong place here. It always does amuse me when they get caught out.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote: yeah lets

Tapey wrote:

 

yeah lets legalise you killing me with a shovel because I asked you to. Its consensual afterall.

yeah, why not?  i mean, impose strict regulations, e.g., both must be consenting adults, there should be some kind of notarized affidavit to the effect that these are indeed the person's wishes, etc., but as long as these are fulfilled, go for it.  if it's between consenting adults, i say the government should fuck off.  period.  inject heroin into each other's hearts with virgin mary-shaped syringes, cannibalize each other, perform amature taxidermy with each other's limbs, whatever--these are all scenarios i personally would never be comfortable participating in or watching or hearing about or even thinking about too much, but if two or more consenting adults feel differently, let 'em have at it.  it's fucking liberty. 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
 speaking of liberty,

 

speaking of liberty, here's one of the best onion articles in years and it sums up my personal philosophy nicely:

 

http://www.theonion.com/articles/supreme-court-upholds-freedom-of-speech-in-obsceni,17372/

 

WASHINGTON—In a decisive and vulgar 7-2 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court once again upheld the constitution's First Amendment this week, calling the freedom of expression among the most "inalienable and important rights that a motherfucker can have."

"It is the opinion of this court that the right to speak without censorship or fear of intimidation is fundamental to a healthy democracy," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority. "Furthermore, the court finds that the right to say whatever the hell you want, whenever the hell you want, is not only a founding tenet, but remains essential to the continued success of this nation."

Added Ginsburg, "In short, freedom of speech means the freedom of fucking speech, you ignorant cocksuckers."

Enlarge Image

The decision came Monday in response to the case of a Charleston, WV theater troupe that had been sued by city officials for staging a sexually explicit play with public funds. Reversing the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the theater, an outcome free-speech advocates are calling a victory and Justice Ginsburg called "a bitch-slap in the face of all those uptight limp-dicks."

The ruling in City of Charleston v. The Kanawha Players marks the first time in 220 years that the nation's highest court has taken such a fiercely profane stance.

During oral arguments, Charleston's chief counsel Dan Roy said his clients could restrict any public speech they deemed offensive, an argument quickly dismissed by Justice John Paul Stevens, 90, who turned to his colleagues and made a repeated up-and-down hand motion intended to simulate masturbation.

"I'm beginning to wonder if you really understand what 'abridging the freedom of speech' means at all," said Stevens, a 34-year veteran of the court known for his often-nuanced interpretations of the First Amendment. "I'm also wondering whether you and your fat-faced plaintiffs over there need to have some respect for constitutionally protected expression fucked into your empty hick skulls."

Justice Clarence Thomas, who voted with the majority, wrote a concurring opinion in which he made little mention of established court precedents but emphasized that he himself had viewed materials "way, way nastier than this stupid play."

"I don't know what kind of bullshit passes for jurisprudence down in the 4th Circuit these days," Thomas wrote. "But those pricks can take their arguments about speech that 'appeals only to prurient interests' and go suck a dog's asshole."

Added Thomas, "Just suck it. Get in there and seriously suck it."

Writing in dissent, however, Justice Antonin Scalia contemplated the limits of the constitutional guarantee of free speech.

"The court has an interest in protecting meaningful human communication, which is jeopardized when every other word out of someone's mouth is 'F this' or 'F that,'" Scalia wrote. "In practice, such an expansion of free expression becomes far too unwieldy and large to accommodate."

To which Justice Ginsberg immediately replied, "Yeah, that's what his mom said."

Conservative constitutional scholars have criticized the Supreme Court's decision, calling it not only a license to provoke, but also an act of provocation in itself, one that saw several justices repeatedly refer to the plaintiffs as "fuckwits," "asshats," and "cumsacks" before informing them that with their appeals exhausted, their only remaining legal recourse would be to "piss up a rope or take two fists in the mommy slot."

More than 18 months after the suit was first brought against the theater group, defense lawyers said the road to the Supreme Court was "hard as shit," but well worth it.

"This is a historic victory for free speech, and I wouldn't be surprised if, a hundred years from now, the hallowed walls of this court bear an inscription taken from the eloquent decision handed down today," lead defense attorney Carl Huddleston said. "Particularly the phrase 'That which erodes human rights serves to erode humanity, fuckface.'"

 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1477
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Tapey

iwbiek wrote:

Tapey wrote:

 

yeah lets legalise you killing me with a shovel because I asked you to. Its consensual afterall.

yeah, why not?  i mean, impose strict regulations, e.g., both must be consenting adults, there should be some kind of notarized affidavit to the effect that these are indeed the person's wishes, etc., but as long as these are fulfilled, go for it.  if it's between consenting adults, i say the government should fuck off.  period.  inject heroin into each other's hearts with virgin mary-shaped syringes, cannibalize each other, perform amature taxidermy with each other's limbs, whatever--these are all scenarios i personally would never be comfortable participating in or watching or hearing about or even thinking about too much, but if two or more consenting adults feel differently, let 'em have at it.  it's fucking liberty. 

Look if it can be done in private then yes I agree. You should have total liberty in private and others should not be allowed to legally or socialy persicute you for it. But as soon as it is no longer a private thing then no. As soon as it is a public thing then you liberty can be restricted. At least that is my person feelings on the matter.

 

The way you have discribed it, it has become a public matter as the government has been involved... "should be some kind of notarized affidavit to the effect that these are indeed the person's wishes" Im assuming this would have to be to the police before the time and in person or what the hell you are just asking for people to kill people.  Even if you ment after the fact, the police still need to check it out. Still making it a public matter. And because it is a public matter It can be restricted. Also it would need to be monitered in order to make sure it is going according to his wishes.

 

Now to why it should be restricted.

It costs money.. tax payer money. unless they want to fund whatever research and clean up that needs to be done themselves.

It sets a bad example, killing is ok.

There is the posibility that the person may not want it, has somehow been coerced into agreeing.

The person cannot change there mind after they are dead or indeed during the act in certain circumstances.

The person that would have to moniter this may be forced into the job (Lack of other opitunities) rather than taking it because they want to see people die.

 

thats the best I can do for why it shouldnt be allowed. not perfect but meh..

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
Speaking of

Speaking of this "rent boy" fiasco, let me just say, fuck all those who would deny others the right to live their lives as they wish. Straight up, FUCK YOU!

Anyway, living in the Seattle area, I read The Stranger quite often, and this week was no disappointment! In the editor's sex column, Savage Love, Dan Savage had an idea for dealing with the hypocritical piece of shit George Rekers in his answer to a man's problem.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=4041234&hpr

"I need support under my scrotum in order to ejaculate. I am 52 years old, and this condition has gotten worse as I have gotten older. When I am having intercourse, I need a position that supports or raises my scrotum, and when I masturbate, I need to put something under it. Is this okay? Is there a solution to make coming during intercourse easier?

This Old Scrote

Before I touch on your sack, TOS, I'd like to briefly—very briefly—touch on George Rekers's. Rekers is a towering figure in the religious right. He's the cofounder of the Family Research Council; a member of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, a group that claims it can cure homosexuality; and the go-to guy for "expert" testimony about how gay people threaten and endanger children. And last week, Rekers got busted coming back from a 10-day European vacation with a 20-year-old male escort he found on Rentboy.com. Rekers told two reporters from the Miami New Times that he "can't lift luggage," so what other choice did he have but to hire a 20-year-old with an eight-inch cock?

To mark the downfall of yet another crazy and hypocritical closet case, I propose that "whatever floats your boat" be immediately and permanently retired in favor of "whatever lifts your luggage." This will be George "Rentboy" Rekers's legacy, his lexi-colonic gift to the English language. Help spread the meme.

Back to you, TOS: First, talk about this with a doc—get your sack examined and your prostate checked. If there's nothing medically wrong, rest assured there's nothing wrong. Some guys have large, loose sacks and sensitive balls, and the slap, slap, slap of intercourse or masturbation can be uncomfortable, and lifting your luggage spares you the slap, slap, slap. Alternately, TOS, let's not forget that your dick, balls, sack, and taint compose one big erogenous zone. Lifting your luggage may provide you with a little bit of extra ball/sack/taint stimulation, added stimulation that helps put you over the top, and naturally you rely on that zap more at 52 than you did at 32. So instead of viewing your need for a ball lift as a problem that needs solving, why not view ball support as the solution to a problem. Or to put it another way...

Whatever lifts your luggage, TOS, whatever lifts your luggage."

Brilliant! We need to do to "Whatever lifts your luggage" what we already did to Rick Santorum's name!  XD

Let's work to make this pipe dream of a meme a reality!

 

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist

 

I guess it isn't gay to get an oily rubdown from a male hooker.  Who knew?

 

I can't imagine living a life so full of self loathing.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I did not have sexual

"I did not have sexual relations with that altar boy!"


shailenago
Posts: 1
Joined: 2010-05-22
User is offlineOffline
This is a wonderful article.

This is spam.  It is the first post from this person and the past pattern indicates that there will be more in the next two hours.  I am leaving this in place for the moment but it will be gone later.