# Conservatives: Do You Give



## The Rabbi (Oct 25, 2010)

Do you give a flying fuck about homosexuals and how they live their lives?

This is a spin off of Dr House's comment to Jerkbert in the thread on conservative homosexuals.


----------



## del (Oct 25, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Do you give a flying fuck about homosexuals and how they live their lives?
> 
> This is a spin off of Dr House's comment to Jerkbert in the thread on conservative homosexuals.



nope


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 25, 2010)

I meant to post a poll with this and hit the wrong button.

My answer: No.  Nor would it matter if I did.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 25, 2010)

I want people to live in dignity and peace.

Ergo, I care.


----------



## AquaAthena (Oct 25, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Do you give a flying fuck about homosexuals and how they live their lives?
> 
> This is a spin off of Dr House's comment to Jerkbert in the thread on conservative homosexuals.



Their lives are none of my business...


----------



## Trajan (Oct 25, 2010)

why, some of  my best friends are gay!!! I swear!!!........

frankly, I find that the more pressure their lobby applies, the more I feel bothered.
Conversely, the less pressure etc. , the less I care, marriage, dadt etc....it is I think, counter productive at this point.


----------



## WillowTree (Oct 25, 2010)

The only thing I have against the gay movement are those obscene parades they have in San Francisco. Other than that. No. It's their life. They should live it.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Oct 25, 2010)

Yes. yes i do care. I want them to live the best life they can, just like everyone else. I want them to not make choices that will hinder themselves.

I want to love my neighbors. What can I say? I care. But that doesn't mean i want government involved in every aspect of our lives.


----------



## snjmom (Oct 25, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Do you give a flying fuck about homosexuals and how they live their lives?
> 
> This is a spin off of Dr House's comment to Jerkbert in the thread on conservative homosexuals.



Do you support full legal equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals in all spheres of the law?


----------



## Ragnar (Oct 25, 2010)

I'm (mostly) an Objectivist so I don't really care about homosexuals qua homosexuals. I believe every individual deserves the same rights and liberty as every other individual.

That puts me far to the "right" and many issues (mostly economic) and far to the "left" on many others (mostly social).


----------



## René Anafoutra (Oct 26, 2010)

I don't believe that we should have "gay marriage", because marriage is between a man and a woman, and I believe that this commitment is sacred.  However, I don't care what gays do with each other, as long as I don't have to pay the bill for their AIDS.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

René Anafoutra;2890625 said:
			
		

> I don't believe that we should have "gay marriage", because marriage is between a man and a woman, and I believe that this commitment is sacred.  However, I don't care what gays do with each other, as long as I don't have to pay the bill for their AIDS.



You are an ignorant POS.   I pity your loved ones.


----------



## René Anafoutra (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> René Anafoutra;2890625 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OK..."POS", I will just take as an insult.  That's a dead end.  "Ignorant" implies that there is something that I don't know.  Would you care to enlighten me?

Loved ones?  None of my "loved ones" have AIDS.  What is your point?


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

René Anafoutra;2890668 said:
			
		

> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > René Anafoutra;2890625 said:
> ...



Unless you only know nine people on all of Planet Earth, odds are you know and perhaps even love someone who is GLBT, but you are unaware of their orientation.  Doubtless, this is because due to your ignorance and hate, they fear telling you.  Hating on the GLBT community is a bit like hating on all left-handed people; sooner or later, that shit will come back on you.

What no one ever discusses is that the lowest transmission rates for HIV are among lesbian women -- unless they are IV drug users, their risk of contracting HIV is very, very low.  Gay men are next and the highest rate of transmission (new infections) is among heterosexuals.  HIV is an any-bodily-fluid to blood virus; any tearing, no matter how minute, is sufficient for infection to take place.

This myth that "only gays get AIDS" is busy infecting an astounding number of heterosexuals, especially older adults.  With less willingness to practice safe sex, less reliable information about STIs, longer sexual histories and more compromised general health, heterosexual Baby Boomers are at high, possibly the highest, risk.

And not for nothing, but there are now several deadly STIs and have been for some time in the US.  A few more, like chlamdia, merely have the capacity to stunt lives.  Believing that heterosexuality is some sort of magic bullet against infection is helping kill many Americans.....I suspect if we lost you, as disreputable as you seem to be, at least someone would be devastated.

So enough with the "nobody needs sexual health care but gays" already.


----------



## René Anafoutra (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Unless you only know nine people on all of Planet Earth, odds are you know and perhaps even love someone who is GLBT, but you are unaware of their orientation.  Doubtless, this is because due to your ignorance and hate, they fear telling you.  Hating on the GLBT community is a bit like hating on all left-handed people; sooner or later, that shit will come back on you.




If most gay people are hiding it, then how do you get the 10% figure that you are implying?  Are you capable of reading hidden homosexual tendencies...an ability which you accuse me of not having?



> What no one ever discusses is that the lowest transmission rates for HIV are among lesbian women -- unless they are IV drug users, their risk of contracting HIV is very, very low.



That certainly makes sense.



> Gay men are next and the highest rate of transmission (new infections) is among heterosexuals.  HIV is an any-bodily-fluid to blood virus; any tearing, no matter how minute, is sufficient for infection to take place.



Highest rate of transmission, or highest rate of new infections?  I sense an abuse of statistics here.



> This myth that "only gays get AIDS" is busy infecting an astounding number of heterosexuals, especially older adults.



How is abstinence, outside of marriage, working these days, or is that too radical a concept?



> I suspect if we lost you, as disreputable as you seem to be, at least someone would be devastated.



I suspect that you are wrong.  I will not die of a venereal disease, because I do not engage in behaviours that cause such disease, but, no one will miss me, regardless of the cause of my death, and I wouldn't have it any other way.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

René Anafoutra;2890702 said:
			
		

> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Unless you only know nine people on all of Planet Earth, odds are you know and perhaps even love someone who is GLBT, but you are unaware of their orientation.  Doubtless, this is because due to your ignorance and hate, they fear telling you.  Hating on the GLBT community is a bit like hating on all left-handed people; sooner or later, that shit will come back on you.
> ...




Most GLBT people are neither in nor out.  They disclose to those they trust.  Statistically, over time and over Planet Earth, every tenth person is GLBT.  It is normal, like being left handed.



> > What no one ever discusses is that the lowest transmission rates for HIV are among lesbian women -- unless they are IV drug users, their risk of contracting HIV is very, very low.
> 
> 
> 
> That certainly makes sense.



Glad to see you can absorb new information.



> Highest rate of transmission, or highest rate of new infections?  I sense an abuse of statistics here.



Transmission = infection, genius.



> > This myth that "only gays get AIDS" is busy infecting an astounding number of heterosexuals, especially older adults.
> 
> 
> 
> How is abstinence, outside of marriage, working these days, or is that too radical a concept?



Few older adults have any desire to marry.  We still like to fuck, though.



> > I suspect if we lost you, as disreputable as you seem to be, at least someone would be devastated.
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that you are wrong.  I will not die of a venereal disease, because I do not engage in behaviours that cause such disease, but, no one will miss me, regardless of the cause of my death, and I wouldn't have it any other way.



If you are living like a monk, that helps explain your assholeness.  

My sympathies.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> René Anafoutra;2890702 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Bullshit.
The 10% figure is based on Kinsey's research.  And their methodology has since been shown to be wrong.


----------



## Newby (Oct 26, 2010)

snjmom said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Do you give a flying fuck about homosexuals and how they live their lives?
> ...



I have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex along with every other person living in the U.S., including a gay person.  So, while I support civil unions, I don't see how 'gay rights' are any different than my rights?  They can marry someone of the opposite sex the same as I can, no different rights there.  So, the equal rights argument is a bit of a fallacy.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

If all the cons on this thread dun give a flying fuck about GLBT people, why are you so agitated at the thought they'd have the same rights and dignity that you have?


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > René Anafoutra;2890702 said:
> ...



Mebbe so, but more reliable data is unavailable.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> If all the cons on this thread dun give a flying fuck about GLBT people, why are you so agitated at the thought they'd have the same rights and dignity that you have?



They already have the same rights, exactly the same, as the rest of us.  WHat they want are special rights.  And that agitates me.  And it should any other person.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Oct 26, 2010)

I care about people.  It's in my nature to want to make sure everyone around me is doing well.

Peoples sexual desires have no meaning beyond finding someone with the same desires.

As far as politics are conserned, the DADT is comical at best (I knew more gay sailors than Spanish sailors)  Keeping gays from getting married is unConstitutional.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 26, 2010)

I think the general answer will be ...I don't care as long as I don't have to look at them

As long as gays lurk in the shadows and don't make waves they are acceptable. But to ask to openly and proudly serve in the Military or marry the person they love, conservatives start to get squeemish


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2010)

Who is keeping gays from getting married?


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Who is keeping gays from getting married?



As I said....marry the person you love


----------



## Two Thumbs (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> René Anafoutra;2890668 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



the 10% of humanity being gay is a falsehood myth (I'm not calling you a liar, you just beleived what you were told)

What Percentage of People are Homosexuals?

The truth is that this ten percent statistic comes from a report published more than 40 years ago  the famous 1948 study led by William Kinsey.6 The only problem with this report is that its findings were terribly flawed by the methodology used to collect the supposedly representative sample of the U.S. population.7 

Why were his findings flawed? For several reasons, first and foremost being that approximately 25 percent of the 5,300 individuals Kinsey studied were prison inmates, "who by the nature of their confinement, couldn't have heterosexual intercourse." In addition, 44 percent of these inmates had had homosexual experiences while in prison.8 This was hardly a representative sample of the American population. 

But there were other major flaws in the group selected for the research. Kinsey admitted that "several hundred male prostitutes" were used in his sample. This alone would make a major difference in his findings.9

What are the real figures as far as we can tell today? One recent study of men conducted between 1984 and 1987 by David Forman, the senior staff scientist at the Radcliffe Infirmary (Oxford, England), found that only 1.7 percent of the sample study had ever had homosexual intercourse.12 An even more recent study, conducted at the University of Chicago in 1989 and reported at the 1990 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, resulted in a figure "less than 1% exclusively homosexual."13 


Homosexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The number of people who identify as gay or lesbianand the proportion of people who have same-sex sexual experiencesare difficult for researchers to estimate reliably for a variety of reasons.[4] In the modern West, major studies indicate a prevalence of 2% to 13% of the population.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] 


http://www.gendermatters.org.au/Pap... Percentages of Homosexuals and bisexuals.doc

In their book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Hatred and Fear of Homosexuals in the 90s, authors Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (Plume, New York, 1990, pages 177-178) stated that the 10% homosexual and lesbian claim was a figure which the homosexual and lesbian lobby propagandists have been continually pumping into heterosexuals heads for many years. Kirk and Madsen wrote: Based on their personal experience, most straights probably would put the gay population at 1% or 2% of the general population. Yetwhen straights are asked by pollsters for a formal estimate, the figure played back most often is the 10% gay statistic which our propagandists have been drilling into their heads for years. 


On a personal level.  If I quadruplad the number of known gay or "I think he/she's gay, I would come well short of 10%


----------



## Two Thumbs (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Who is keeping gays from getting married?



Most state governments.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2010)

Two Thumbs said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Who is keeping gays from getting married?
> ...



Please post any link supporting that.  There is no state government that forbids two homosexuals getting married.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Please just ignore the rabbi

In his twisted mind, allowing homosexuals to marry the opposite sex is the same as allowing them to marry the person they love


----------



## Dr.House (Oct 26, 2010)

Don't give a fuck...

You'll find most conservatives agree with that...


----------



## René Anafoutra (Oct 26, 2010)

Two Thumbs said:


> I care about people.  It's in my nature to want to make sure everyone around me is doing well.
> 
> Peoples sexual desires have no meaning beyond finding someone with the same desires.
> 
> As far as politics are conserned, the DADT is comical at best (I knew more gay sailors than Spanish sailors)  Keeping gays from getting married is unConstitutional.



Oh boy, the Constitution!  What does it have to say about gays getting married?

What about people who are into bestiality?  Can a man marry a sheep?

Note that I am ignoring a certain user's strawman argument about hating homosexuals.  I don't hate homosexuals or care what they do.  I just don't believe that a union between them can be a marriage, and I don't want to pay the bill for their AIDS.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 26, 2010)

René Anafoutra;2891642 said:
			
		

> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > I care about people.  It's in my nature to want to make sure everyone around me is doing well.
> ...




Look up the 14th amendment in the Constitution

Bestiality is against the law, homosexuality is not

People who are married and loyal to their partner are less likely to get AIDS than those who are not


----------



## Two Thumbs (Oct 26, 2010)

René Anafoutra;2891642 said:
			
		

> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > I care about people.  It's in my nature to want to make sure everyone around me is doing well.
> ...



I didn't say anything about hating gays.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> René Anafoutra;2891642 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And people who don't engage in sodomy are even less likely.  Maybe we should outlaw sodomy?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I'm not going to bother posting link after link on this.  Since it's in the news so often.

There are around 3 states that have made it legal for gays to marry.  Cali actually banned gay weddings for a while.

For me, it's perfectly fine for a state to have these laws.  It's States rights.  Majority rules, if you don't like the rules in a state, move.  If it's a Fed law you don't like.  Where can you go?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > René Anafoutra;2891642 said:
> ...




What?

Do you honestly think you can only get it from sodomy?


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2010)

Two Thumbs said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Where did you divine that from anything I wrote?  ADD kicking in today?


----------



## René Anafoutra (Oct 26, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Look up the 14th amendment in the Constitution



I've been all over the 14th amendment, ever since the argument about Barry's citizenship started, and I have not seen anything about homosexuals.  What is your point?



> Bestiality is against the law, homosexuality is not



In what state?  The last time I checked the revised statutes in Arizona and Texas, homosexuality was still illegal.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2010)

Two Thumbs said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



Not a single state bans two people from getting married in whatever ceremony they want.  Sorry, fail.


----------



## René Anafoutra (Oct 26, 2010)

Two Thumbs said:


> What?
> 
> Do you honestly think you can only get it from sodomy?



Yeah, don't forget IV drug use.  Whoring around with bisexual men will do it too.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > If all the cons on this thread dun give a flying fuck about GLBT people, why are you so agitated at the thought they'd have the same rights and dignity that you have?
> ...



What can possibly bother you about two consenting adults wanting to marry each other, regardless of what their sex is? How does THAT agitate you?


----------



## Mad Scientist (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Do you give a flying fuck about homosexuals and how they live their lives?
> This is a spin off of Dr House's comment to Jerkbert in the thread on conservative homosexuals.


Two consenting adults can do whatever they want in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

I just wish more people, homo and hetero, would keep it to themselves.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



It doesn't.  WHo said it did?


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Two Thumbs said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > René Anafoutra;2890668 said:
> ...



I think the data on the incidence of homosexuality is fun stuff to discuss, if statistics are fun for you.  It matters little whether the incidence if 1% or 10% IMO -- the point I had hoped to make is that no matter how permissive or repressed the society might be, the level remains approximately the same.  Clearly, this is evidence that homosexuality is not a nuture-only based event.

Your figures are too low if we are judging off RL experience.  Mine would be around 33%.  I suspect we are both wrong.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




Ummm, YOU did. See bolded. Why don't you tell us what "special rights" they want that bother you so much.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2010)

So your point is that even though you're wrong, you're still right?  Hello?


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Dr.House said:


> Don't give a fuck...
> 
> You'll find most conservatives agree with that...



Then explain these whack jobs to me......

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtsovQiPE24"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtsovQiPE24[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJR7EQRFTS0"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJR7EQRFTS0[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_OnP4JKi08"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_OnP4JKi08[/ame]


----------



## uptownlivin90 (Oct 26, 2010)

Newby said:


> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



So why then give them the right to partake in "civil unions" with someone of the opposite sex. Isn't that give them "special rights"? 

Come on, you know that reasoning is flawed.

Keep the state out of marriage between consenting adults and allow the church and various religions to sanction marriages. The only thing the state should do is recognize what the churches have done as legitimate as long as it involved consenting adults. Yes that includes polygamy.

And no marriage is not historically between a man and a woman. It is between a man and however many women he can afford to take care of. Historically.


----------



## del (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > Don't give a fuck...
> ...



um, they're whackjobs. hope that helps


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > René Anafoutra;2891642 said:
> ...



You're too late, genius.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

You wanna live where homosexuality is illegal?  Move to Iran.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Two Thumbs said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



It is no state's right to legislate against the basic civil rights of any citizen.


----------



## Cuyo (Oct 26, 2010)

uptownlivin90 said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > snjmom said:
> ...



The Con strawman that "They have the same right to engage in a straight wedding, ergo they have equal rights and are asking for special rights" is self-defeating, in addition to being ridiculous.  By that logic, they're not asking for special privileges at all, because if homosexual marriage was legalized, the privilege would extend to heterosexuals as well.

Unadulterated silliness.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 26, 2010)

René Anafoutra;2891755 said:
			
		

> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Look up the 14th amendment in the Constitution
> ...



_  Can I have a link showing homosexuality is illegal in Texas or Arizona?_


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

René Anafoutra;2891761 said:
			
		

> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > What?
> ...



So will m-2-f intercourse and a few other sex acts.  Sometimes...but then, that's the trouble.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



So you have been bitching about gays marrying just for shits and giggles?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Oct 26, 2010)

Rabbi - simple question

Are you in favor of a man being able to legally marry another man?


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



And thats the key point...you don't get to vote on what rights others are allowed to have.

States wanted the right to have Jim Crow laws also. If you didn't like it you could move to another state


----------



## RDD_1210 (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



He's playing a game of semantics. He is totally in favor of gays getting married...as long as it's to people of the opposite sex. He's not in favor of legal unions between members of the same sex.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> Rabbi - simple question
> 
> Are you in favor of a man being able to legally marry another man?



Please show me where a man is not able to marry another man.
What I am opposed to is the state sanctioning such "marriages" and giving the partners benefits.  This confers extra benefits on some people, favoring them at the expense of other solely based on their sexual preference of the moment.  This would appear to fail the constitutional provisions of the 14th Amerndment.

Simple question: Are you in favor of giving tax breaks to people because of whom they like to fuck?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Rabbi - simple question
> ...




And there it is. Rabbi is much like many conservatives, anti-homosexual. Thanks for your fake attempt at supporting gay rights.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Rabbi - simple question
> ...



I'm in favor of giving the same breaks to everyone. So if hetero married couples can get a tax benefit due to being married, gay couples should as well. If hetero couples don't get a tax break, then gay couples shouldn't either. Equal treatment. 

Do you think hetero couples should get a tax break from the government?


----------



## Cuyo (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Rabbi - simple question
> ...



No no, it wouldn't be "extra benefits."  Straight men would be allowed to marry other men as well and reap the same benefits.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



I dun think any married couple should get a tax break merely for being married.  However, I do think any couple who wants should be allowed to marry, regardless of gender.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Oct 26, 2010)

i care!  i for one suck at interior decorating


----------



## Cuyo (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Agreed.  Government should get out of marriage altogether.  Civil unions for all from the State; Marriage from the private institution from which you seek it, if such institution is willing to provide it to you.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 26, 2010)

> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


----------



## RDD_1210 (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Yeah, whether or not married couples should receive any sort of breaks just because they are married is a whole different topic. However, it should be discussed in the context of married couples, not hetero married couples or homo married couples.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Oct 26, 2010)

i am against gay marriage but some part of me wants it to happen everywhere, so then a few years later when 50% of them divorce and lose 50% of their assets and have to pay alimony/maintenance they are going to wish they can turn back the hands of time...and i for one will laugh


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

I am "impressed" with the hypocrisy on this thread, best exemplified by The Rabbi.  HIS rights matter.  His privacy matters.  HIS dignity matters.  And he has zero interest in anyone else's.

Unless they are GLBT people, who want to marry or join the military, or a woman who wants an abortion, or ---

Well, you get the idea.  Nobody loves a heavy handed government busybody more'n these sorts of fake conservatives.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

Andrew2382 said:


> i am against gay marriage but some part of me wants it to happen everywhere, so then a few years later when 50% of them divorce and lose 50% of their assets and have to pay alimony/maintenance they are going to wish they can turn back the hands of time...and i for one will laugh



I have friends who are divorce lawyers.  That alone makes me support gay marriage.


----------



## DiamondDave (Oct 26, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



That is my stance as well...


----------



## RDD_1210 (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> I am "impressed" with the hypocrisy on this thread, best exemplified by The Rabbi.  HIS rights matter.  His privacy matters.  HIS dignity matters.  And he has zero interest in anyone else's.
> 
> Unless they are GLBT people, who want to marry or join the military, or a woman who wants an abortion, or ---
> 
> Well, you get the idea.  Nobody loves a heavy handed government busybody more'n these sorts of fake conservatives.



He's easily the biggest hypocrite/liar on this site and that's saying something.


----------



## Cuyo (Oct 26, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > I am "impressed" with the hypocrisy on this thread, best exemplified by The Rabbi.  HIS rights matter.  His privacy matters.  HIS dignity matters.  And he has zero interest in anyone else's.
> ...



Looks like he ran away from another one.  That's Ok, it's his right.  He has the same right to run away from a thread as someone who's not an idiot.


----------



## DiamondDave (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> I am "impressed" with the hypocrisy on this thread, best exemplified by The Rabbi.  HIS rights matter.  His privacy matters.  HIS dignity matters.  And he has zero interest in anyone else's.
> 
> Unless they are GLBT people, who want to marry or join the military, or a woman who wants an abortion, or ---
> 
> Well, you get the idea.  Nobody loves a heavy handed government busybody more'n these sorts of fake conservatives.




Many choices and behaviors can get someone out of the military or not allow them in in the first place... and I am all for homosexuality being one of those unwanted behaviors in the military where logistics, morale, and mission are more important than anywhere else

As for abortion... opposition to it is about the protection of an innocent human life.. which has nothing to do with the topic at hand... and the protection of innocent life is not inherently 'heavy handed government'

But if 2 guys want to live together as a family.. let them have a civil union.. have every family couple unit recognized that way by government.. with the same rights to inheritance, power of attorney, filing of taxes, etc...


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



I would ask how you possibly got that out of anything I wrote.  But I am dealing with a mental midget who cannot do simple math, so what can anyone expect?


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



You are exactly right!
So lets say Cuyo and I are old college friends.  I lost my job and need medical care (this is supposing Obamacare hasn't eliminated employer sponsored coverage).  He and I can just declare ourselves "married" and bango-- I get the benefit of his coverage.  We don't have to touch dicks or anything.

Remind me how this is supposed to be good for society?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



LOL! Are you really going to bring up the fact again that you don't know how to calculate a basic percentage increase. Shall I link to that post where you put your ignorance on full display, just so you can ignore it, AGAIN?


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2010)

DiamondDave said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



What is the difference between "civil union" and "marriage" under that scenario?


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Sure, go ahead and show what a tool bag you are and incapable of telling how much different 85 and 90 are.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



So are you against government benefits for ALL married couples or just those for married gay couples?


----------



## Cuyo (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Who cares?  A marriage is a partnership among individuals.  If we're old college friends, even if we're straight but un-interested in marrying, what's wrong with us pooling our assets and liabilities the same as a traditional married couple?  Why must it always be a sexual relationship?

2 brothers, a spinster and her Aunt, two life-long, confirmed bachelor friends - Why can't anyone participate in this partnership among individuals?


----------



## DiamondDave (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



Civil union would be a government recognized family pairing for the simple means of easier census, taxation, legal inheritance, etc... 

Keeping the government out of any recognition of marriage keeps the government from forcing others to accept behavior they don't believe in... when held in the hands of the religious institutions, it keeps it a personal choice of acceptance, tolerance, or neither... I don't agree with the choice of catholics to pray to saints, nor with the polygamist mormon sects choice to accept men with multiple wives... and I am not forced to accept them no matter what others think or believe... but the moment government gets involved in the aspect of marriage, it does bring forced acceptance of a chosen behavior... not something I am keen on


----------



## Cuyo (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



It's separating the legal aspect from the cultural/religious aspect.  The legal aspect in a secular society should be available to any two people who want it.  The religious aspect is to be decided by the institution from which the marriage is sought.

Incidentally, in that scenario I could "Marry" my girlfriend in church, but have no partnership/civil union status recognized by the government.  I fail to see a problem with that.  If approval of the "God" of your choosing and your family/community is important, but you're not willing to make the contractual leap for whatever reason, two people should have the ability to do so.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



hahaha, this should be good. 

Basic Math Question

Here comes the deflection in 3,2,1.....


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I don't derive a benefit from your marriage to Mrs. Rabbi.  Does that mean it should not be recognized legally?


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



Gays do not want to marry because of tax incentives, hospital benefits or other financial incentives. Neither do most heterosexuals. They want to be able to stand up in front of society, publicly declare their love for one another and have society recognize their union. They want to call their partner their husband or wife.

Mostly, they want society to treat them like they treat any other couple


----------



## DiamondDave (Oct 26, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



So you want government to force acceptance of a chosen behavior because it fits your agenda... got it

Sorry... but I'll take freedom over government forced acceptance

I could choose to tattoo my face like a baboon and put 75 piercings in it... and with that choice comes the possibility of one or many or all people not accepting it.... too bad, too sad.... it's not a job of government to make other people accept your personal choices


----------



## nraforlife (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Do you give a flying fuck about homosexuals and how they live their lives?
> 
> This is a spin off of Dr House's comment to Jerkbert in the thread on conservative homosexuals.



As long as they do not make demands to be allowed to 'marry', are kept out of positions in public schools and otherwise keep their perversions private and in the closet, no.


----------



## midcan5 (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> I want people to live in dignity and peace.
> 
> Ergo, I care.



Right on.

There is an odd flavor to tolerance of the sort demonstrated in this thread. It is a complicated emotion in which some hide from their real feelings about gays. Respect and consideration, as well as equal rights, trump tolerance when tolerance is only an excuse for the status quo.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/health-and-lifestyle/50615-know-what-really-causes-homosexuality.html



"...the exact same experience can mean two totally different things to two different people, given those people's two different belief templates and two different ways of constructing meaning from experience. Because we prize tolerance and diversity of belief, nowhere in our liberal arts analysis do we want to claim that one guy's interpretation is true and the other guy's is false or bad. Which is fine, except we also never end up talking about just where these individual templates and beliefs come from. Meaning, where they come from INSIDE the two guys. As if a person's most basic orientation toward the world, and the meaning of his experience were somehow just hard-wired, like height or shoe-size; or automatically absorbed from the culture, like language. As if how we construct meaning were not actually a matter of personal, intentional choice. Plus, there's the whole matter of arrogance..."  David Foster Wallace


----------



## RDD_1210 (Oct 26, 2010)

nraforlife said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Do you give a flying fuck about homosexuals and how they live their lives?
> ...


----------



## René Anafoutra (Oct 26, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Gays do not want to marry because of tax incentives, hospital benefits or other financial incentives. Neither do most heterosexuals. They want to be able to stand up in front of society, publicly declare their love for one another and have society recognize their union.



So perverting the institution of marriage is going to accomplish that?  I don't think so.



> They want to call their partner their husband or wife.



So let them.  I will try to cover my face when I laugh.



> Mostly, they want society to treat them like they treat any other couple



Then they can act like any other couple.


----------



## theHawk (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Do you give a flying fuck about homosexuals and how they live their lives?
> 
> This is a spin off of Dr House's comment to Jerkbert in the thread on conservative homosexuals.



Nope, could care less about homosexuals.

Homosexuals are always announcing to the world they are gay and want special attention and special rights, when no one gives a shit.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Oct 26, 2010)

Still not one person opposed to homosexuals being married is able to say how gays being legally married actually impact their life in any way.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> Still not one person opposed to homosexuals being married is able to say how gays being legally married actually impact their life in any way.



I think its about being "more special".   Some conservative dinosaurs fear recognizing the rights and dignity of GLBT people will lessen the admiration we all have for them.

They can relax....I could not possibly admire them less.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

theHawk said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Do you give a flying fuck about homosexuals and how they live their lives?
> ...



I give a shit.  I like most of the GLBT people I have met.

On the other hand if you are straight, I do not care.  I wish all you old cons would become asexual, not reproduce and your bigotry would die off with you.


----------



## theHawk (Oct 26, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



They already have that ability and right.  No state outlaws gay marriages.  True conservatives like myself would oppose any such law because government can't ban religious ceremonies.  Any gay person can go to a church that performs "gay marriages", slip rings on each other's fingers, and call their partner "my husband" or whatever.  NOTHING prevents this now.



rightwinger said:


> Mostly, they want society to treat them like they treat any other couple


There, now you are actually telling some truth.  This whole debate about "gay marriage" is really about gays trying to force the rest of society into treating them like "any other couple".  The Thought Police are out!


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 26, 2010)

DiamondDave said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



You are still free to hate anyone you choose.

 The difference is that Government is not obligated to adhere to your petty biases and hatreds of those who are different from you.


----------



## theHawk (Oct 26, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> Still not one person opposed to homosexuals being married is able to say how gays being legally married actually impact their life in any way.



It doesn't impact my life, and by the way there is nothing preventing homos from getting married.  You're talking about state recognition of such marriages.  What does it effect you or any other homo if myself or the rest of society doesn't recognize their "gay marriage"?


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

theHawk said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Still not one person opposed to homosexuals being married is able to say how gays being legally married actually impact their life in any way.
> ...



O, health care decisions, inheritance laws, employer benefits, child custody, etc. etc. etc.  Yanno....all the benefits you get from your marriage?


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 26, 2010)

theHawk said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



The issue is having a legally accepted marriage that acknowledges your relationship. The same as heterosexuals have. 

Nobody is forcing you, as an individual, to accept gay marriage. You are free to hate whoever you please. You do not have to accept any straight marriage either. If someone chooses to marry a fat, hunchbacked, dwarf....you do not have to accept it, but society does


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

theHawk said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Yes, you are right.  The essential struggle is to afford GLBT people the exact same civil rights you have.  Was this clouded in mystery for you until now?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Oct 26, 2010)

theHawk said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Still not one person opposed to homosexuals being married is able to say how gays being legally married actually impact their life in any way.
> ...



I don't care if you or anyone else approves or recognizes of gay marriage. What I do care about is that if the government officially recognizes hetero marriage in any shape or form then it should do the same for gay marriage as well. How does the government officially recognizing gay marriage in the same way that it recognizes straight marriage have any impact on you or anyone else?


----------



## theHawk (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Power of attorney for most of that.

Most of society isn't going to be confortable giving children over to be raised by homos when its their standard practice to "recruit" underaged.  But that's what this debate really boils down to isn't it?   The "rights" that NAMBLA is pushing for.


----------



## theHawk (Oct 26, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



For the reasons I just stated in the above post.

This is really about pushing the NAMBLA agenda to get society to accept homosexuals and pedophilia.


----------



## Liability (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Do you give a flying fuck about homosexuals and how they live their lives?
> 
> This is a spin off of Dr House's comment to Jerkbert in the thread on conservative homosexuals.



I don't care about any person's sexual orientation provided they don't inflict it on others without valid consent.  By this I mean:  keep sexuality a little discreet.  I don't really want my kids, for example, exposed to overt  sexual expression between folks, regardless of their sexual identity.  But in the privacy of his own home, I don't care if a guy enjoys homosexual activity or heterosexual activity.  

Likewise, I don't care if some really really HAWT lipstick lesbian engages in ultra libidinous activity with some other drop-dead gorgeous lipstick lesbian in the privacy of their own homes.  Hell, in that case, I'd like permission to peek.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Oct 26, 2010)

theHawk said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



And this statement right here shows there is no point in attempting to have a rational discussion with you. Holy fucking stone age.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Oct 26, 2010)

theHawk said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



LOL, the NAMBLA agenda? LMAO. Awesome. 

How does the "NAMBLA Agenda" affect you directly?


----------



## theHawk (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Yes, you are right.  The essential struggle is to afford GLBT people the exact same civil rights you have.  Was this clouded in mystery for you until now?



No, thats not what I said.

They have the same civil rights as everyone else already. 

Getting a few tax perks from the government because of having a married status isn't a "civil right".


----------



## theHawk (Oct 26, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Wow, what a sick individual you must be.  NAMBLA wants it to be legal to rape little boys.  I would think all of society would have a problem with that.  But, apparently there are exceptions....like you.


----------



## del (Oct 26, 2010)

theHawk said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



blow me


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

theHawk said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, you are right.  The essential struggle is to afford GLBT people the exact same civil rights you have.  Was this clouded in mystery for you until now?
> ...



Yes it is.  So is deciding end of life care for your spouse, inheriting his property, receiving survivor's benefits from social security, insuring his life and a bazillion other legal effects of being married.


----------



## theHawk (Oct 26, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Well if I am so in the stone age, why doesn't the Democratic Party run on the platform of allowing fighting to allow homosexuals the right to adopt children.  I'm sure ya'll will win landslides.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

del said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



I'd like to hurt theHawk.  Can I?  Huh?  I'll pay good money for the privilege.  Honest.


----------



## theHawk (Oct 26, 2010)

del said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



No thanks, I'm not a homo.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Oct 26, 2010)

theHawk said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



The scary thing is, I don't know if you're serious or not.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

theHawk said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



What a waste of space you are, theHawk.  You obviously do not shit from shinola about pedophilia.  A healthy, adjusted gay man is no threat to children anymore than a healthy adjusted straight man is.


----------



## theHawk (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



Wow, personal threats of violence.

You libs sure are tolerant of other people's opinions!


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

theHawk said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



No shit.  First you'd have to qualify as human.


----------



## del (Oct 26, 2010)

theHawk said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



that's not what the guys at the bus depot say.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

theHawk said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



I'm not a liberal, you fucking moron.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Oct 26, 2010)

theHawk said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



Why don't republicans run on the platform of being able to rape babies while wearing Nazi uniforms? Everyone knows thats the driving force behind all their policies, right?


----------



## theHawk (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> A healthy, adjusted gay man is no threat to children anymore than a healthy adjusted straight man is.



Can't argue with that.  But how often is a gay man a "healthy, adjusted" person?


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

theHawk said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > A healthy, adjusted gay man is no threat to children anymore than a healthy adjusted straight man is.
> ...



I will explain, if you are really open to learning.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 26, 2010)

theHawk said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



Do you have difficulty in distinguishing legal activities (homosexuality) from illegal activities (child rape)????


----------



## theHawk (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Oh I'm sorry, what are you calling yourselves now?  Progressive?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Oct 26, 2010)

Ahhh, now it makes sense. TheHawk is from Texas. Should have picked up on that earlier.


----------



## theHawk (Oct 26, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> Ahhh, now it makes sense. TheHawk is from Texas. Should have picked up on that earlier.



I reside and work in Texas.  Not from Texas.


----------



## theHawk (Oct 26, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Nope, do you?


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 26, 2010)

theHawk said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...




Do you have any proof of current NAMBLA activities trying to push those "rights"??

NAMBLA only exists a tool to invoke fear by right wingers


----------



## RDD_1210 (Oct 26, 2010)

theHawk said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Ahhh, now it makes sense. TheHawk is from Texas. Should have picked up on that earlier.
> ...



I know, we already established you're from the stone age.


----------



## theHawk (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



I have an open mind.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 26, 2010)

Newby said:


> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



The way I have always seen the rights part of the debate is in regards to things like health insurance, the right to visit significant others in the hospital and things like that.  Things that I as a straight person have given to me and take for granted that are not there for a homosexual couple.

As far as I am concerned the government needs to get out of the marriage business entirely and allow the church to deal with the marriage issue.  To me that means that the government needs to establish "civil union" contracts that apply to both gay and straight.  

Marriage being a rite of the church would of course be available to a homosexual couple through a church body that accepted the couple as they were.

Immie


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 26, 2010)

theHawk said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



If you are unable to distinguish between the rape of a child and consensual sex between consenting adults....it is obvious that you do


----------



## theHawk (Oct 26, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Well, judging from the name Man BOY Love Association....

I'll let you defend these sick fucks...



> The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a pedophile and pedarasty advocacy organization in the United States that *works to abolish age of consent laws decriminalizing adult sexual contact with minors*,[2][3] and for the release of all men who have been jailed for sexual contacts with minors that did not involve coercion.


North American Man/Boy Love Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> If all the cons on this thread dun give a flying fuck about GLBT people, why are you so agitated at the thought they'd have the same rights and dignity that you have?



For me personally, it is that I dislike activists of all ilks especially the ones that try to force everyone else underneath their heals.  That has been the M.O. of the GLBT movement.  They are not willing to compromise i.e. civil unions for all.  They want full marriage rights in all churches and that in my opinion is just plain wrong.

Immie


----------



## RDD_1210 (Oct 26, 2010)

theHawk said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



WTF does NAMBLA have to do with homosexuals being able to legally marry??


----------



## theHawk (Oct 26, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Are you unable to understand that they want to LEGALIZE what is ILLEGAL.  That is their STATED GOAL.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

theHawk said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



Okay, let's test that theory.

A pedophile is an adult -- of either gender -- who sexually desires children so young, they have no secondary sex characteristics yet.  With me so far?  These people may have boyfriends or husbands, but those relationships are not satisfying, and many times are merely "covers" so they seem like everyone else and can better access prey.

You can call it evil or psychotic, but by whatever value system you apply, pedophilia is a life killing act against a child that society should and mostly does go to any length to eradicate.  The people who pose the greatest risk to children are not strangers and they are certainly not gay men.  They are pedophiles posing as straight, married men and women.  Usually, they are known to the child's parents as extended family or friends.

A lesbian or gay man has no more sexual desire for a child than any normal straight person does.  Many do have the same desire anyone else has to parent, by reproduction or adoption, and these rights should be respected, just as yours are.


----------



## theHawk (Oct 26, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> WTF does NAMBLA have to do with homosexuals being able to legally marry??



I know it may be hard, but try to keep up sparky.

I already pointed out that gays already have the right to get married, nothing outlaws it.

I already pointed out that this whole "gay marriage" debate is really about getting the rest of society to recognize those "gay marriages", to force acceptance upon others.

I already pointed out that this whole "debate" is really about pushing forward the entire gay agenda.  

And that includes forcing society to accept, and condone other issues outside of marriage such as gays openly serving in the military, gays adopting children, and gays "recruiting" children.  NAMbLA is all about allowing gays adopting children.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 26, 2010)

theHawk said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



You have yet to show me that NAMBLA still exists, except in your fantasies


----------



## RDD_1210 (Oct 26, 2010)

theHawk said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > WTF does NAMBLA have to do with homosexuals being able to legally marry??
> ...



Thanks for clearing that up. 

I realize now that I'm dealing with an actual uneducated bigot. No use trying to reason with him. 

I'm done here.


----------



## rdean (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Do you give a flying fuck about homosexuals and how they live their lives?
> 
> This is a spin off of Dr House's comment to Jerkbert in the thread on conservative homosexuals.



For some on the right, gays seem to be all they think about.


----------



## Liability (Oct 26, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Wow.  You tend to say lots of stupid and baseless crap, leftwinger, but THAT is pretty damn dumb even by your lowly standards.

NAMBLA is just a tool, eh?

Putting aside your general incoherence,  are you actually suggesting that NAMBLA is an illusory group only?

In fact, NAMBLA does exist.  It is a group dedicated to pedophile "rights."  

While I agree that the hideous group, NAMBLA, is not validly connected to an argument about the nature of homosexual rights, that is different than denying reality.  And, sadly, reality is that NAMBLA does exist* and does seek to gain acceptance of pedophile "rights."

____________________
* it has been described as "all but defunct" but there is no verified evidence that it is actually defunct.  And, frankly, even if it is actually NOW defunct, the fact that it so recently existed in the open makes it real and not just some right-wing bogeyman.


----------



## theHawk (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



"A lesbian or gay man has no more sexual desire for a child than any normal straight person does."
If this was true then the percentage of homosexual pedophiles in prison should reflect the same percentage of homosexuals in society.

For example, if homos make up 3% of all of society then according to you they should only make up 3% of convicted pedophiles.

Of course our government refuses to keep records on people that identify themselves as homosexual via census (even though they keep track of other ethnic and religious groups), and they don't keep good public records on convicted pedophiles.  But if you look at independant studies and polls done, you'll easily find that the percentage of convicted homosexual pedophiles is vastly greater than the percentage of homos.  Some studies have shown that 30% of convicted child molesters are homosexual.  I'm sure you'll argue that there aren't any real accurate numbers do go by, and I would agree.  But that is because the pro-homosexual agenda doesn't want us to know the numbers.
But, no matter how you cut it, if homos make up 2-10% of society, yet make up 20-45% of convicted pedophiles, then its quite clear homos are much more likely to molest children.

Do some research on your own, and make up your own mind.  That is if you have an open mind on the subject.


----------



## theHawk (Oct 26, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



If that was true you'd be able to prove me wrong.  But all you can do is call me a "bigot" (what a surprise).

The fact is you cannot dispute that NAMbLA is advocating that gays have the right to adopt children, and you cannot deny that same political goal is the agenda of the leftists and Dems in their fight for "gay rights".


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

theHawk said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



Most pedophiles have only limited gender preferences as to prey, but they can more easily access children of the same sex.  The body of a 5 year old boy compared to a girl is not all that different, and you'd be just as likely to find preferences for hair color as gender.  What you are not getting here is that any adult who looks at a 5 year old with lust is not later going to glance at *any*  adult with lust too.

This is seriously fucked brain wiring we are talking about, and these sick fucks are NOT (almost ever) openly GLBT.  Gay, by definition, means sexual desire for an ADULT same sex partner.

And BTW, pedophilia is not limited to men, but crimes by women are way underreported.


----------



## Liability (Oct 26, 2010)

It would be a lot like working (which I am busy avoiding for the moment) so I don't feel inclined to go verify this, but my memory is that pedophilia is more common in the heterosexual community than it is in the homosexual community (percentage wise).

But whether you're gay or straight, heed the warning:

LEAVE the children alone.

There is no known "cure" for pedophilia.  Thus, many of us are willing to consider the death penalty as an option.

LEAVE the kids alone.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2010)

DiamondDave said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



OK.  I still don't see a big difference between civil union and marriage.  But under "civil union" any two people, or three or 100 could undertake a union for whatever benefits it confers.
Now, do you want to argue gov't should not confer any benefit?  Meaning in a divorce gov't should not decide property divisions or child custody.  It should tax people regardless of whether they have 3 children or no children.
I can see an argument for equal taxation. But the idea of marriage as the bedrock of society permeates through our legal code.  Getting rid of it will have severe and unforeseen consequences.  The cure will be worse than the disease.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Okay, let's test that theory.
> 
> A pedophile is an adult -- of either gender -- who sexually desires children so young, they have no secondary sex characteristics yet.




No, not at all. You seem to be making baseless generalizations today.
If you have sex with a boy who is 13 or a girl who is 12 you are a pedophile.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, let's test that theory.
> ...



It is a crime, but no, it is not pedophilia.  

Pedophilia - children, causes, DSM, functioning, therapy, adults, person, people, used, personality, skills, health, traits, mood, Definition, Description, Causes and symptoms


----------



## bodecea (Oct 26, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> The only thing I have against the gay movement are those obscene parades they have in San Francisco. Other than that. No. It's their life. They should live it.



How many have you been to?


----------



## Liability (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...




No.

Pedophilia has many defintions and some of them come with a subset of problems concerning "definitions."

But whether it is a recurent desire or merely the first overt action, a pedophile is an adult who has sexual contact with children (usually, but not always pre-pubescent children).

Why worry about the exactitude of that difficult definition?

Adults:  When it comes to sexuality, leave minors alone. 

Simple enough.


----------



## Liability (Oct 26, 2010)

bodecea said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > The only thing I have against the gay movement are those obscene parades they have in San Francisco. Other than that. No. It's their life. They should live it.
> ...



Irrelevant.  What possible difference could the answer to that "question" make?


----------



## bodecea (Oct 26, 2010)

Newby said:


> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


Yes.   It's a gender discrimination issue.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 26, 2010)

Liability said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Willow has made a judgement that our parades are obscene.   How many has she been to to see that they are indeed "obscene"?


----------



## bodecea (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > If all the cons on this thread dun give a flying fuck about GLBT people, why are you so agitated at the thought they'd have the same rights and dignity that you have?
> ...



What Special Rights are those?


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Hell, I have $5 says Willow has never set foot in San Fransisco.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Of course they do...and you know it.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 26, 2010)

Dr.House said:


> Don't give a fuck...
> 
> You'll find most conservatives agree with that...



True conservatives.


----------



## Liability (Oct 26, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



That's not exactly what Willow said.  She spoke of the ones that WERE (in her estimation) "obscene."  Expressing that tells you absolutely NOTHING about whether she judges "all" of "your" parades in SF to be "obscene" or not.

Further, one can "see" "your" parades without EVER going to California at all.  

There's this thing called "video" and this other thing called the "internet" and there's also "television."

Word.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 26, 2010)

René Anafoutra;2891642 said:
			
		

> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > I care about people.  It's in my nature to want to make sure everyone around me is doing well.
> ...


And I'm guessing they don't want to pay the bill for  your heart disease or cancer either.   Win/Win.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



I can make a judgment that eating feces is disgusting.  And I've never done it.  Experiencing something isn't necessary to making a judgment about it.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 26, 2010)

Liability said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



So, you and/or Willow have watched a COMPLETE San Francisco Gay Pride Parade on video and or tv.    So, tell us....what are the majority of the floats, marchers, marching on behalf of?  What kind of groups have you seen marching in the parades?  List by genre.

And how do said parades compare to Mardi Gras parades?   

(I've been to both, myself)


----------



## bodecea (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



How many gay pride parades have you been to and watched?


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2010)

bodecea said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



None.
What was your point again?


----------



## Madeline (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



God forbid any actual facts interfere with your foaming at the mouth.  I think it's gracious of GLBT people not to bitch at how your PDAs squork them.

Or did you think this was just a one way thingie?


----------



## bodecea (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Rabbi - simple question
> ...



So,  you support state sanctioned gender discrimination.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



So, you have no real idea of what a gay pride parade consists of....you are just speaking from your prejudices against gay people.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Do you give a flying fuck about homosexuals and how they live their lives?
> 
> This is a spin off of Dr House's comment to Jerkbert in the thread on conservative homosexuals.



Those of my friends, colleagues, associates, and family that I know are gay--some I don't have a clue whether they are straight or gay and don't care--I do care that they are well, happy, getting along okay.   A person's sexual orientation doesn't change how I feel about anybody in that way and I do care about those I like, love, respect, etc.

As to what my straight or gay friends and/or associates etc. do in their personal lives, I would hope that it was not harmful or damaging for them, but it's their business and not for me to like or dislike.


----------



## Liability (Oct 26, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



So, you apparently cannot (EVER) refrain from jumping to unsupported and unsupportable "conclusions" derived from incomplete evidence.

It's either that or you are aware of what you're doing and simply choose to be dishonest.

Take a test, boredtoseeya.  Show me where I discussed anything about MY views about any parades in SF which I claim to have seen.

Then, show us where Willow EVER claimed that she had set foot in SF much less watched one of your parades there.

Then,  demonstrate that one would be required to see ALL of a parade to take note of any part or portion thereof that one deems "obscene."

I do know that I have seen gay folks in a variety of gay parades (and I believe but am not certain that some of them were in SF) on television (and it would have been cable -- or maybe I saw the stuff on the internet) where the gay guys were pretty much shaking their uncovered penises for all the world to see and the lesbian women were baring their breasts for all the world to see.  If I consider that "obscene" that's my opinion.  If Willow is more adamant than I am that it "is" without doubt "obscene," then that might be her opinion.

And none of that requires that the entire parade be obscene.

So, again, your rhetoric is meaningless.


----------



## elvis (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Do you give a flying fuck about homosexuals and how they live their lives?
> 
> This is a spin off of Dr House's comment to Jerkbert in the thread on conservative homosexuals.



nope.  and they should be allowed to get married.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I noticed you ignored my post.....AGAIN. Pathetic.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



    What in the world makes you think male/female "college friends" aren't doing that kind of thing already?

 

Thanks for PROVING another way that Straights get Special Rights that gay people don't get.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Do you give a flying fuck about homosexuals and how they live their lives?
> 
> This is a spin off of Dr House's comment to Jerkbert in the thread on conservative homosexuals.



People who practice homosexuality experience higher rates of many diseases, including:

Human Papillomavirus (HPV)
Hepatitis A, B and C
Gonorrhea
Syphillis
Gay Bowel syndrome
HIV/AIDS
Bacterial vaginosis

People who practice homosexuality have higher rates of:

Alcohol abuse
Drug abuse
Nicotine dependence
Depression
Suicide
Domestic violence (20 times more common than among heterosexuals)

In addition to a domestic violence rate that is 20 times higher than among heterosexuals, these are some of the negative effects homosexuality has on society:

Higher rates of child molestation*
(Nearly 1/3 of the child abuse cases are homosexual in nature, and homosexuals are only 3% of the population.)

Daughters of lesbian "parents" are more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior and experience the consequences of that behavior.

In areas in which homosexual marriage has become accepted (The Netherlands and areas of Scandinavia, for example), the fundamental building block of society--the family--has fallen apart. In some of these areas as many as 80% of the children are born outside of a family.

Children of homosexual "parents" do the worst in 9 of 13 acedemic categories when compared with both married heterosexual couples and cohabitating couples.

Homosexual behavior is linked with higher rates of promiscuity, physical disease, mental illness, substance abuse, child sexual abuse and domestic violence--all things that impact society negatively. Don't try to say homosexual behavior doesn't hurt society--it is a major force that tears down society and harms children. 

Homosexuality Harms Society


----------



## DiamondDave (Oct 26, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



ahhh.. the liberal tactic of trying to use a strong word that was never uttered in a feeble attempt to 'win' a point... not gonna work now, wrongwinger, just as I have not let it work with you in the past

The government, when involved, is making you adhere to a stance based on a personal choice of another... sorry, asswipe, that is not the role of government... nor should it be... 

What you are advocating is forced acceptance of that personal choice.. which is inherently against the concept of freedom... but this is par for the course for the likes of you


----------



## bodecea (Oct 26, 2010)

Liability said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Having waded thru your rudeness (and you cannot use me being rude to you as an excuse, I've been nothing but courteous to you in this thread)...it is clear that you have nothing pertinent to say about the absolute FACT that if someone is going to make a JUDGEMENT about something being obscene, they should at least have some knowledge ... some experience about that thing they are judging.

Willow has not replied yet, but I will guess she has never been to a gay pride parade, so she is (again) making ridiculous assumptions about something she knows nothing about.

You....you are simply being you.   Hiding behind your rudeness.


----------



## kwc57 (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Do you give a flying fuck about homosexuals and how they live their lives?
> 
> This is a spin off of Dr House's comment to Jerkbert in the thread on conservative homosexuals.



Personally no.  I have a family member who is gay as is my best friend from college.  That being said, I am unaware of any liberal organizations trying to prevent same sex marriage or pass amendments to protect hetero marriage.  If memory serves, those are my fellow conservatives.......so I'd have to say yes, some do indeed give a flying fuck about how homosexuals live their lives.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 26, 2010)

bodecea said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Well, one in our town in Kansas some time back featured a troop of gay guys all wearing ENORMOUS stuffed penises strapped on and swinging back and forth as they marched.  I thought this extremely inappropriate for a parade attended by ordinary people including kids and said so.  So, incidentally, did my gay friends who did NOT participate in that kind of vulgarity.

We would not tolerate such from 'straight' people.  Why should we tolerate such from 'gay' people?  It isn't a double standard.  It is cultural values of what is appropriate and what is not.

I was also running a large agency at that time which, among other things, included a life drawing class attended mostly by senior citizens.  When my model called in sick at the last minute one day, I went down to a dance class in session--this was attended by a number of gay guys who were heavily active in our community theater and honed their dance skills at our place.   "Fred" was openly gay and a hunk.  I mean REALLY well built and very good looking.  He agreed to stand in as a model, though it took some persuasion to keep him from removing ALL his clothes and giving the old ladies a real thrill.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 26, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Do you give a flying fuck about homosexuals and how they live their lives?
> ...




Your source cracks me up....www.evangelical.us.....:rofl:


----------



## bodecea (Oct 26, 2010)

theHawk said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


There it is......right there.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 26, 2010)

theHawk said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



And NAMBLA = Gays, right?


----------



## bodecea (Oct 26, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



What town in Kansas is that?   And as for not tolerating that from straight people....have you ever been to a Mardi Gras parade?   They tolerate that and a whole lot more....and yes, I've seen it myself.


----------



## Liability (Oct 26, 2010)

elvis said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Do you give a flying fuck about homosexuals and how they live their lives?
> ...



Or, at the very least, the STATE should get OUT of the business of involvement in the memorialization of the "status" of marriage.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 26, 2010)

bodecea said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



They are?  This is a widespread problem?  News to me.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


Define "widespread".   It happens....they're called marriages of convenience....for many reasons...green cards, roommates, benefits....in the military for BAQ/BAS....


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Oct 26, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Yea that's all you can do is laugh because you certainly can't argue the facts presented. But that's what you liberal do.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Oct 26, 2010)

bodecea said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Why yes it does.

Can you offer proof to the contrary?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Do you give a flying fuck about homosexuals and how they live their lives?
> 
> This is a spin off of Dr House's comment to Jerkbert in the thread on conservative homosexuals.



Nope  sorry.


----------



## theHawk (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



That is YOUR definition, not THE definition of "gay" or "homosexual".  Homosexuality is defined as:

 2. erotic activity with another of the same sex 
Homosexuality - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

It does not limit it to within a certain age.  By your definition a man who is only attracted to male children isn't a homosexual.

There is no doubt we are talking about some seriously fucked brain wiring, whether or not they are "openly gay" or not is irrelivant.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I am not 100% certain what Bodecea is talking about here, but if it is what it sounds like and these couples are not actually married but just claiming to be, then I would think that constitutes fraud and could get them into trouble.

Immie


----------



## bodecea (Oct 26, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



I laugh at YOUR source as much as you would laugh if I sources MediaMatters or Huffington.   

But, I don't expect you to get that.    Which makes it even funnier.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 26, 2010)

Immanuel said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Nope...they are totally, legally married.   Just because they marry for other reasons besides love doesn't make their marriages illegal.   Only if they marry someone of the same gender (love or not)....then, except in a few states, it IS illegal.


----------



## theHawk (Oct 26, 2010)

bodecea said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Well what the fuck would you call "Man-Boy" love?


----------



## theHawk (Oct 26, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Yes, and guess what, gays get married for the same reasons too!  I knew a gay female and gay male in military that got married to each other so they could get the benefits.


----------



## theHawk (Oct 26, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Only if they marry someone of the same gender (love or not)....then, *except in a few states, it IS illegal*.



Thats an outright lie.  Gay marriage isn't illegal in any state.  Name one gay couple that has been thrown in jail because of their "marriage".


----------



## chanel (Oct 26, 2010)

I do not know nor care what consenting adults do in their own bedrooms.  I know plenty of gays who are great people, and some who are pricks.  Just like heteros.  Imagine that. 

I believe in civil unions, but not gay marriage.  It's not a religious/moral issue for me.  Just a semantic one.  Marriage is between a man and woman.  Bill Clinton said so.

Gay people can marry.  But only to the opposite sex.


----------



## kwc57 (Oct 26, 2010)

theHawk said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



Pedaphilia.


----------



## Gunny (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Do you give a flying fuck about homosexuals and how they live their lives?
> 
> This is a spin off of Dr House's comment to Jerkbert in the thread on conservative homosexuals.



And homosexuality is about as current an event as dirt.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 26, 2010)

theHawk said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



So, just because Madeline said that, you think we all agree with her on that?


----------



## bodecea (Oct 26, 2010)

theHawk said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



Well, we DO have standards.


----------



## nraforlife (Oct 26, 2010)

Madeline said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Yeppers always figured cashing in was the real motivation.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 26, 2010)

kwc57 said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



And most are hetero males and most pedophilia is against girls....by those hetero men.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 26, 2010)

nraforlife said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



Yeppers, for straight couples.   That's why they want to keep it to themselves...the cashing in part.


----------



## Liability (Oct 26, 2010)

bodecea said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



But the question was about "man-boy" love.  And although that is pedophilia, it is also gay pedophilia.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 26, 2010)

Liability said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...





And that doesn't make it any LESS wrong or any MORE wrong than any other kind of pedophilia....MOST of which is committed by straight men....sad to say, quite frequently by male relatives/family friends...family priests.


----------



## del (Oct 26, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Do you give a flying fuck about homosexuals and how they live their lives?
> ...



this is the home page for the stats fuckwit cites.

Introduction to Jesus Christ

  

how much does a good used triceratops saddle cost?


----------



## bodecea (Oct 26, 2010)

del said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I tried to warn him about his source.....but nooooooooooo


----------



## del (Oct 26, 2010)

bodecea said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



it might be the CDC study for all i know-too bad. it's good to use neutral sources for just that reason


----------



## Charles_Main (Oct 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Do you give a flying fuck about homosexuals and how they live their lives?
> 
> This is a spin off of Dr House's comment to Jerkbert in the thread on conservative homosexuals.



Not in the slightest.


----------



## nraforlife (Oct 27, 2010)

bodecea said:


> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Well that is what marriage IS- a man & a woman. The society as whole believes that certain tax & social perks for those couples advance the General Welfare. On the otherhand hardly anybody thinks providing cash rewards to fags for buttfucking and lezboes for carpet munching has any payoff for the general society. Get used to it. We don't really care all that much what you do when out of sight, but we sure as hell ain't gonna pay you to do it.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 27, 2010)

nraforlife said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > nraforlife said:
> ...



But we will pay for heteros who do those things....all because of gender....government sanctioned gender discrimination.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 27, 2010)

del said:


> how much does a good used triceratops saddle cost?


----------



## Sky Dancer (Oct 27, 2010)

This is the kind of thread I'm not gonna miss.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 27, 2010)

chanel said:


> I do not know nor care what consenting adults do in their own bedrooms.  I know plenty of gays who are great people, and some who are pricks.  Just like heteros.  Imagine that.
> 
> I believe in civil unions, but not gay marriage.  It's not a religious/moral issue for me.  Just a semantic one.  Marriage is between a man and woman.  Bill Clinton said so.
> 
> Gay people can marry.  But only to the opposite sex.



Because it is so critical we legally designate GLBT people as second class citizens, and legally describe hetero marriages as "morally superior"?  Bullshit.

One thing you geniuses who fence-sit and propound this nonsense never consider is, where do I litigate the dissolution of a "civil union"?  I can't go to Family Court -- that court's jurisdiction is over marriages.  I have no body of statutory or case law to guide me, and I can't predict the legal outcome for my client with any certainty.  WTF do we need TWO different legal systems for marriage and family, merely because only some people in them are GLBT?


----------



## Madeline (Oct 27, 2010)

nraforlife said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > nraforlife said:
> ...



The majority of Americans support GLBT people's marriage and family rights, genius.  Might want to leave the house occassionally and air out your brain, mebbe speak to someone who isn't a dues paying member of the American Nazi Party.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 27, 2010)

Madeline said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> > I do not know nor care what consenting adults do in their own bedrooms.  I know plenty of gays who are great people, and some who are pricks.  Just like heteros.  Imagine that.
> ...



Civil Unions....ok with me as long as ALL legal marriages are officially changed to civil unions....which required all legal documentation, statutes, laws, forms, etc. had the word "marriage" changed to "civil union".     There was a petition in CA to get such a proposition on the ballot....I signed it.   It didn't get enough signatures to make it to the ballot....yet.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 27, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > chanel said:
> ...



Do you have any idea what sort of constitutional (state, not federal) and legal morass that would create?  How long do you think it would take before some shiney new lawyer came up with the argument that last week's case law on marriage did not apply because this week's lawsuit concerned a civil union?

You're talking about Millions (Billions) of dollars wasted because the semantics give some homophobes heartburn, bodecea.  It isn't that I care whether the union is known as a "marriage" or a "giraffe"....but we have been using caselaw on "marriage" that dates back to the Code of Hammurabi and the Magna Carta.

I should start from scratch, why?


----------



## bodecea (Oct 27, 2010)

Madeline said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Because religionists want a patent on the word "marriage".


----------



## Newby (Oct 27, 2010)

How is that any different than you thinking you can redefine it to mean whatever you want?


----------



## bodecea (Oct 27, 2010)

Newby said:


> How is that any different than you thinking you can redefine it to mean whatever you want?



You seem to think that words are static.  They are not.


----------



## Newby (Oct 27, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > How is that any different than you thinking you can redefine it to mean whatever you want?
> ...



Sorry, but I don't see you as being any different than the 'religionists'.  Marriage has been a defined entity for thousands of years, it means a specific thing in our society.  If all the GLBT community cares about are legalities, you should stay away from it and go for the civil union.  But, despite what they say, that's not what they want.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 27, 2010)

Newby said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Legal marriage under our American system has been a defined entity for thousands of years?    Really?   Fascinating since America as a nation has only been around for less than 250 years.   How is that possible?

Please explain that for us.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Oct 27, 2010)

And STILL not one of them can say how Homosexuals being legally married actually affects them personally. Pathetic.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 27, 2010)

Madeline said:


> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Talking out of your ass again?  Gay marriage has been rejected by voters in every state it appeared on the ballot.


----------



## Newby (Oct 27, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Did I say anything about 'American'?  I don't think so, you might try addressing the post instead of arguing with a strawman.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 27, 2010)

Newby said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


Hello, Newby!!!   The whole topic under discussion is American legal marriage.   Whether the American legal government should recognize American legal marriages or not.

So, you admit to going on and on about something that has NOTHING to do with the topic...alrightie then.


----------



## theHawk (Oct 27, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > nraforlife said:
> ...



You beat me to it.

If the "majority" of Americans supported it, why don't they just pass laws?  Nope, like most of the liberal agenda, it can only be shoved into American society through liberal activist judges in the courts.


----------



## theHawk (Oct 27, 2010)

bodecea said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



Well, maybe Dell can direct his homosexual requests to you.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 27, 2010)

theHawk said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



You don't get this whole same sex concept, do you?


----------



## bodecea (Oct 27, 2010)

theHawk said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...




You mean like the majority that voted away slavery?

The majority that voted away Jim Crow?

The majority that voted away Segregation in schools?

That majority doesn't seem to exist....at first.


----------



## Newby (Oct 27, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



We're talking about the institution of marriage, which was a concept long before America was.  Get with it.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 27, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



LMAO!  Then by all means, let's get busy spending Billions of wasted dollars to mollycoddle those freaks.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 27, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> And STILL not one of them can say how Homosexuals being legally married actually affects them personally. Pathetic.



Because they do not feel "special" unless they can legally define other people as second class citizens.  Ain't that obvious?


----------



## Madeline (Oct 27, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > nraforlife said:
> ...



Sure, after campaigns of disinformation and fear-mongering, brought to you by the coffers of the RCC and the Mormon Church, etc.  But opinion polling in less hysterical times consistently shows most Americans support marriage rights for GLBT people.

Civil Rights

Just having the cash to buy an election ain't the be-all and end-all of American citizens' opinions, The Rabbi.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 27, 2010)

Newby said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



No...we are talking about legal marriage...as in marriage licenses issued by our government....you know....in America.  and the equal rights afforded to fellow tax-paying, law-abiding citizens under the Constitution....of America. 

You still don't know what the discussion is about....how sad is that?


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 27, 2010)

theHawk said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



The majority does not get to vote on what rights the minority is allowed to have...


That is why we have courts


----------



## del (Oct 27, 2010)

theHawk said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



spit or swallow?


----------



## Madeline (Oct 27, 2010)

Newby said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Yanno Newby, I am not a christian and even I know, polygamy and same sex marriage along with every other adult love pair bond possible between or among human adults is all described in the Bible in very loving terms.  

Are you a "cafeteria christian", who just follows the Bible when it suits her?


----------



## Intense (Oct 27, 2010)

bodecea said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



All growth takes time and persuasion Bodecea. Short cuts, compound the issues. Judicial Construction is a hurtful tangent. Focus on the persuasion. You would not like me or anyone imposing our will on you. Same Same.


----------



## Newby (Oct 27, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



And that just shows why you do not understand the opposition to it, you don't understand how people look at it.  And while you don't, you're not going to have much success at winning then.


----------



## Newby (Oct 27, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



In loving terms??  I guess I missed that part then.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 27, 2010)

Newby said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Let me completely clear.  The caselaw and legal principles I spoke of as dating back to the Magna Carta are predominately about the property and inheritance rights of spouses and children in families...not about the outer limits of who may legally form a marriage.  It has only been 43 years since Loving v. Virginia declared miscegenation laws are unconstitutional and yet STILL just last year, a JOP in Louisiana refused to marry an interracial couple (hetero) because "he doesn't believe in it".

Interracial Couple Denied Marriage License By Louisiana Justice Of The Peace

You'd be very hard pressed (I hope) to find an American in his 20's or 30's who doesn't see the GLARING civil rights violation this JOP committed, Newby -- but if you look around among Baby Boomers or their elders, it would be possible, yes.  I can CLEARLY remember the physical risks interracial couples (hetero) faced in my HS and even college years.  Random assaults on the street were not uncommon.....some/many strangers were extremely angry at the very sight of them and would attack.

My point is, the clear light of day has us all 100% certain that interracial marriage is an American civil right....and only 40 years ago, a majority of US adults were unsure or opposed.  Gay marriage has far more popular support now than interracial marriage had then and *it is a legal inevitabilty in this country*.  And for the same reason -- it is an adult's personal, private civil right to marry the adult they choose, regardless of gender.

Your kids and grandkids are gonna wonder WTF all the fuss was over, just as you may wonder HTF anyone in their right mind could ever have opposed interracial marriage.  That's the beauty of this country....we move inevitablily towards freedom as our one true road.


----------



## Newby (Oct 27, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



The only difference being that your example does not fit the same criteria that we have now with gays.  An interracial couple were still 1 male and 1 female, what is happening now is the effort to change the *fundamental* meaning of what marriage is and has been for centuries.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 27, 2010)

Newby said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Yes  you are correct. They are trying to change the fundamental meaning of marriage and correct centuries of injustice. Can you explain the harm you will suffer if gays are allowed to marry?


----------



## bodecea (Oct 27, 2010)

Newby said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Jonathan and David.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 27, 2010)

Newby said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Show where American law FOR CENTURIES has stated that legal marriage is only between one man and one woman.

Links plz.


----------



## Intense (Oct 27, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Jonathan and David

That's disputable. I've seen both sides of that argument, at best you can question it. The reference is not conclusive. Not a good defense at all. If you can get past Roman's Chapter 1 and 2, you might have something scripturally, but I doubt it. You'd be better off with the Nobody's perfect, we all have vices defense.  We all carry burdens, there are no exceptions.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 27, 2010)

Intense said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Ahem.  You can question EVERYTHING in the Bible.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 27, 2010)

Ask any Jew.  The Old Testament is more or less the Torah, and they have 5,000 years' practice interpreting it.  Judaism is likely the most sex-positive of all mainstream American religions and the OT definately DOES contemplate same sex marriage.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 27, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Ask any Jew.  The Old Testament is more or less the Torah, and they have 5,000 years' practice interpreting it.  Judaism is likely the most sex-positive of all mainstream American religions and the OT definately DOES contemplate same sex marriage.


Talking out of your ass again?  Do you have any--anything at all-support for that statement?  I mean like something based in reality.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 27, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Ask any Jew.  The Old Testament is more or less the Torah, and they have 5,000 years' practice interpreting it.  Judaism is likely the most sex-positive of all mainstream American religions and the OT definately DOES contemplate same sex marriage.
> ...



I'm fresh out of Jews right at the moment, The Rabbi.  Lemme see if I can scare one up for you.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 27, 2010)

Madeline said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



So the answer is: Yes. No.
Glad we cleared that one up. 
Any other pieces of misinformation or misconceptions you'd care to post? How about the fact that Ben Franklin married a young man but had to divorce him when got to Paris?


----------



## jillian (Oct 27, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



and how would you correct her being the great pretend jewish scholar that you are?


----------



## Madeline (Oct 27, 2010)

jillian said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Pretend Jew is more like it...even a shiksa like me can spot that fake. I dun buy GHook as a Jew, either.  What is this weird USMB thingie of claiming cool points that dun belong to you?

We got fake women, fake vets, fake blacks.....yikes!


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 27, 2010)

Madeline said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


And fake sentient beings.  Like you.

I'm not the one that has posted absurd, grossly incorrect things over the past two days here.  I wasn't the way who said Joe Biden was Thomas' superior at EEOC.  I'm not the one who claimed that the public supports gay marriage.  And I'm not the one claiming the "Old Testament" supports homosexual marriage.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 27, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Man, you DO read all my posts, The Rabbi.  I dun know whether to be creeped out or flattered.

I was *wrong* about Joe Biden. I *said* I was *wrong* on the thread where I made my error.  

The majority of the American public DOES support gay marriage.  See this post.....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2896282-post215.html

And The OT does speak lovingly of all sorts of adult love pair bonds (and of polygamy), including same sex ones....






http://gardenofpraise.com/bibl15s.htm


----------



## Intense (Oct 28, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



You can Question everything period. Free will is pretty cool huh. 

From my perspective, I have a friend that is closer than a brother, this is a platonic friendship. I am familiar with the verses used on your side of the argument, and I know they can be interpreted the way you would prefer, but, it is a presumption, taking a leap, to get there. Interpreting it the more accepted way, actually does fit better all the way around. 

My point or suggestion, in relation to the Bible would be to question the validity of precepts and Justification's being from God or Man? Where the Scribes Protecting Principle, through the chronicled word of the Prophets, or running cover, abandoning principle, trying to protect and justify misdeeds of the Prophets and Rulers. 

My faith in God is complete, I surrender to it. My faith is not in anything of this world, though I appreciate this world. The Written word is at best other peoples words telling us what God is, and what God is not. Is it inspired, Yes, are there appear to be contradictions, yes. At some point in our lives we all need training wheels, there may come a time when we may even need them again. I believe that we are each meant to see and experience life through our own eyes, our own experience. God gave us Conscience as a guide and barometer, we learn through cause and effect, experience, and what we share. The Gay thing, even Gay Marriage is between you and your Maker, My load under the same Authority. My advice is that you coin a different term other than the word Marriage, be creative, have fun with it.  You will find much more tolerance and support doing that.
Locke followed the two great commandments and built the foundation of his philosophy on them. Jefferson pretty much limited his interest to Psalm's, Proverbs, and Jesus words in the New Testament. We are all governed by cause and effect. Conscience first in all things.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 28, 2010)

Now that sounded truely inspired.  

Thankies, Intense.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 28, 2010)

Madeline said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Joe Biden was never head of EEOC.
Gay marriage has failed in every ballot measure.
The OT condemns homosexual sex and prescribes teh death penalty for it.

Facts are inconvenient things, I know.  Better to make them up to suit yourself.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 28, 2010)

> The Rabbi wrote:
> 
> Joe Biden was never head of EEOC.
> Gay marriage has failed in every ballot measure.
> ...



I was in error about Joe Biden, and I have said so.  Let me see a post you made in which you admitted a mistake of fact, The Rabbi.

Gay marriage has failed in ballot initiatives because of interference from organized religions, not because the average American does not support GLBT people's rights.  You can bang that drum all you like, but the research is unequivocal.

The OT includes more passages than Levittucuss, which you misinterpret anyway.

Gentiles who claim to be Jews on the 'net for the stolen cool points are assholes, and don't realize how easy it is to see through their costume.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 28, 2010)

Madeline said:


> > The Rabbi wrote:
> >
> > Joe Biden was never head of EEOC.
> > Gay marriage has failed in every ballot measure.
> ...



So every ballot has been shanghaid by those nasty religion groups in contravention to the will of the people?  Do you really believe that?
Please show passages that say homosexuality is OK.  Also please tell me how to read my own bible and how I misintepret Vayikra.


----------



## kwc57 (Oct 28, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Gay marriage has failed in ballot initiatives because of interference from organized religions, not because the average American does not support GLBT people's rights.  You can bang that drum all you like, but the research is unequivocal.



I have to differ with you here.  When I step into the ballot box to cast my private and secret vote, what all the outside interests have shouted at me to influence me can go get screwed.  I vote the way I want.  If the average American supports GLBT rights, why aren't they casting their ballots that way?


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 28, 2010)

kwc57 said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Gay marriage has failed in ballot initiatives because of interference from organized religions, not because the average American does not support GLBT people's rights.  You can bang that drum all you like, but the research is unequivocal.
> ...



I do believe most Americans would strongly support a new institution of civil union for all people--not just gays--who for whatever reason do not or cannot marry but who need to organize themselves into legally recognized family groups that would provide the protections they need.

I do believe most Americans do not want to change the definition of marriage because they know it will change it into something it has never been and further weaken an institution that has served the nation well.

The vote has nothing to do with anybody's 'rights'.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 28, 2010)

kwc57 said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Gay marriage has failed in ballot initiatives because of interference from organized religions, not because the average American does not support GLBT people's rights.  You can bang that drum all you like, but the research is unequivocal.
> ...



The reason is that most older Americans are still biased against homosexuals. They were raised to believe that homosexuality was sinful, deviant and a threat to small children. Polling trends on younger voters shows more tollerance for the homosexual lifestyle. 
Either by the courts or by changing voter demographics Gay Marriage will eventually be allowed in this country


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 28, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Actually older Americans are the biggest proponents of gay marriage.  It's younger people that vote overwhelmingly against it.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 28, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > > The Rabbi wrote:
> ...



It ain't "your" Bible.  It belongs to every Jew and christian on Planet Earth.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 28, 2010)

kwc57 said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Gay marriage has failed in ballot initiatives because of interference from organized religions, not because the average American does not support GLBT people's rights.  You can bang that drum all you like, but the research is unequivocal.
> ...



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P04-ccuRXs"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P04-ccuRXs[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhaXh1UY7-4"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhaXh1UY7-4[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtsovQiPE24"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtsovQiPE24[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3Oe6shhKug"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3Oe6shhKug[/ame]


----------



## Madeline (Oct 28, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



How does your neighbor's marriage weaken yours, foxfyre?

As for the civil union idea, I have discussed that at length on this thread.....I'm not anxious to repeat it again.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 28, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



This is nonsense.  Back it up or STFU.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 28, 2010)

Madeline said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...





> 1: And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
> 2: Speak unto the [bold]children of Israel[/bold], and say unto them, I am the LORD your God.
> ....
> 22: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.



Are Christians the "Children of Israel"??  No, they are not.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 28, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



Only in Rabbi's Bizarro World







http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009/06/future_trends_f_1.html


----------



## jingjing2116 (Oct 28, 2010)

I like this article; I hope you can continue to the fund! This article feel good, there are deep moral, mood is not bad, you have such thoughts, I am very impressed. You are great!Although I am just passing through, but I think I will be your feelings these words long. Thank you, so that I can share with you.


----------



## nraforlife (Oct 29, 2010)

Madeline said:


> ............. after campaigns of disinformation and fear-mongering, brought to you by the coffers of the RCC and the Mormon Church, etc.  But opinion polling in less hysterical times consistently shows most Americans support marriage rights for GLBT people.
> 
> .......................[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]




Hmmmmmm, which to believe- biased polls intended to produce a predetermined result....................OR actual election day tallies


----------



## nraforlife (Oct 29, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> ...........The reason is that most older Americans are still biased against homosexuals. They were raised to believe that homosexuality was sinful, deviant and a threat to small children. ...................




aka told the truth


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 29, 2010)

nraforlife said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > ...........The reason is that most older Americans are still biased against homosexuals. They were raised to believe that homosexuality was sinful, deviant and a threat to small children. ...................
> ...



They were also raised to believe that blacks deserve to be treated as second class citizens. People can change........obviously, you can't


----------



## bodecea (Oct 29, 2010)

nraforlife said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > ...........The reason is that most older Americans are still biased against homosexuals. They were raised to believe that homosexuality was sinful, deviant and a threat to small children. ...................
> ...



The truth....is that most molested children are girls...molested by adult STRAIGHT males....often their own fathers, brothers, cousins, uncles, grandfathers, step-fathers, and family friends.    Pretty sick straight male stuff right there.    1 in 4 girls will be sexually molested by a straight adult male before they reach 18.   ONE IN FOUR!!!!


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 29, 2010)

bodecea said:


> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Whew.  Thank goodness no boys get molested. Ever.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 29, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Do you give a flying fuck about homosexuals and how they live their lives?
> 
> This is a spin off of Dr House's comment to Jerkbert in the thread on conservative homosexuals.


Judging from the comments on this thread, not only do many "conservatives" care about the issue, they also obsess about it and spend a lot of time thinking about and discussing it.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 29, 2010)

Ravi said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Do you give a flying fuck about homosexuals and how they live their lives?
> ...



Actually the correct answer is no.  What did happen was the fags and their fellow travellers introduced "gay marriage" and equated the two.  No one gives a shit whether someone is gay or not.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 29, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


Obviously, YOU do. No use lying to yourself.


----------



## Madeline (Oct 29, 2010)

Ravi said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


----------



## Madeline (Oct 29, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I'm so fucking delighted you aren't Jewish, The Rabbi.


----------



## nraforlife (Oct 30, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> aka told the truth



.. People can usually manipulated or guilt tripped by us in the fag rights crowd........obviously, you can't[/QUOTE]

and it breaks your wittle heart doesn't it.


----------



## nraforlife (Oct 31, 2010)

Sooooo is my understanding correct that Madeline is a lezbo and rather defensive about it?


----------



## Madeline (Oct 31, 2010)

nraforlife said:


> Sooooo is my understanding correct that Madeline is a lezbo and rather defensive about it?



No you twatwaffle.  I'm straight, but I love many GLBT people dearly, and injustice always offends me.

I'd even take up for your right to be treated with dignity, if you had any.


----------



## nraforlife (Nov 5, 2010)

Madeline said:


> ...............  I'm straight, ...................




Sure you are.......... come on out of the closet and proclaim your true nature. Afterall its not as if most of us could despise you anymore than we do already.


----------



## Dis (Nov 6, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Do you give a flying fuck about homosexuals and how they live their lives?
> 
> This is a spin off of Dr House's comment to Jerkbert in the thread on conservative homosexuals.



What they do in their own homes is up to them.. Just don't do it in my house.


----------

