# Homophobia: Fun Fact



## hazlnut




----------



## get_involved

If you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion. I have the right NOT to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.


----------



## Noomi

get_involved said:


> If you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion. I have the right NOT to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.



Well its not called homo-opinion, is it? Its called homophobia for a reason.


----------



## eots

hazlnut said:


>



same could be said for cannibalism...just sayin


----------



## jtpr312

Yeah, many species eat their own feces also, you gonna argue how it's natural for human beings to do so because of that.


----------



## eots

*are you a Cannibalphobe ?*


----------



## Mr. Shaman

get_involved said:


> If you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion. *I have the right NOT to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.*


Is there something you're *trying* to say*?*​


> *Obsession With Homophobia*​


----------



## Mr. Shaman

eots said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> same could be said for cannibalism...
Click to expand...


You surely do seem to enjoy being wrong, so consistently.​


----------



## Mr. Shaman

jtpr312 said:


> Yeah, many species eat their own feces also, you gonna argue how it's natural for human beings to do so because of that.


*"conserva"*-_logic_: 

*It doesn't NEED to make sense.*


----------



## Coloradomtnman

get_involved said:


> If you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion. I have the right NOT to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.



So, you admit that you're intolerant.  And not just intolerant of an individual, but of an entire group of people.

At least you had the balls to admit it, unlike many of your conservative compatriots.


----------



## SniperFire

eeeewwww.



A fag thread.


----------



## Sunni Man

No other species has members of it's group engaged in packing each others fudge.


----------



## SniperFire

Sunni Man said:


> No other species has members of it's group engaged in packing each others fudge.



That would be unnatural.  



..and gross.


----------



## Sunni Man

Homophobe!!!


----------



## eots

Mr. Shaman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> same could be said for cannibalism...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You surely do seem to enjoy being wrong, so consistently.​
Click to expand...


hey I am not judging..as long as its between two consenting adults and properly prepared and seasoned..who am I to say


----------



## Caroljo

hazlnut said:


>



So you're comparing the human species with animals.....huh.
I guess we can start calling homosexuals animals now without any arguments?


----------



## Sunni Man

Well, homos do engage in animalistic behavior.


----------



## G.T.

Homophobia exists because of years of sociological brainwashing, and said brainwashing is being undone in the U.S. via exposure throughout the culture - especially on television.

Only people that cannot think deeper about their human existence could be taught all their lives to both love their neighbor, and that homosexuality is icky.


----------



## SniperFire

G.T. said:


> Homophobia exists because of years of sociological brainwashing, and said brainwashing is being undone in the U.S. via exposure throughout the culture - especially on television.
> 
> Only people that cannot think deeper about their human existence could be taught all their lives to both love their neighbor, and that homosexuality is icky.



LOL

Homos have always been considered gross in culture with very few exceptions right before a culture collapsed thanks to moral decay.


----------



## JoeB131

Sunni Man said:


> No other species has members of it's group engaged in packing each others fudge.



Why is it that homophobes seem to always be ready to use descriptions of what they revile like they are writing bad slash-fiction?  

It's like a "Vegetarian" who can't stop talking about steak!


----------



## G.T.

JoeB131 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> No other species has members of it's group engaged in packing each others fudge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that homophobes seem to always be ready to use descriptions of what they revile like they are writing bad slash-fiction?
> 
> It's like a "Vegetarian" who can't stop talking about steak!
Click to expand...


It must seethe to convey the distaste, or else they're not doing their job of Judgement and Bias.


----------



## SniperFire

JoeB131 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> No other species has members of it's group engaged in packing each others fudge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that homophobes seem to always be ready to use descriptions of what they revile like they are writing bad slash-fiction?
> 
> It's like a "Vegetarian" who can't stop talking about steak!
Click to expand...


Do you disagree with the fact he presented?


----------



## JoeB131

SniperFire said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> No other species has members of it's group engaged in packing each others fudge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that homophobes seem to always be ready to use descriptions of what they revile like they are writing bad slash-fiction?
> 
> It's like a "Vegetarian" who can't stop talking about steak!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you disagree with the fact he presented?
Click to expand...


Since other species engage in anal sex,  no.... it's ain't a "fact".  

Ever see two male dogs humping each other?


----------



## Sunni Man

Humping isn't penetration.............


----------



## SniperFire

eeeewwwwww..........

gross


----------



## G.T.

Sunni Man said:


> Humping isn't penetration.............



You're really going to try to deny homosexuality in other species...............without so much as a google first? 

Weaksauce


----------



## Sunni Man

I had a friend who's dog was always humping peoples legs.

Got so bad that he finally had to put the dog down.

I believe there is a parallel between this dog and fudge packers.

Both are highly confused.........


----------



## SniperFire

Sunni Man said:


> I had a friend who's dog was always humping peoples legs.
> 
> Got so bad that he finally had to put the dog down.
> 
> I believe there is a parallel between this dog and fudge packers.
> 
> Both are highly confused.........



Well, at least he put it out of its misery.


----------



## JoeB131

Sunni Man said:


> I had a friend who's dog was always humping peoples legs.
> 
> Got so bad that he finally had to put the dog down.
> 
> I believe there is a parallel between this dog and fudge packers.
> 
> Both are highly confused.........



Difference between a Pit Bull humping your leg and a Chihuahua humping your leg? 

You let the Pit Bull finish.  

You know, for someone who claims to find the practice revolting, you spend an awful lot of time thinking about it.  

Like a vegetarian who can't stop talking about Steak.


----------



## Skull Pilot

get_involved said:


> If you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion. I have the right NOT to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.



You have the right not to agree with it but you have to tolerate it unless of course you want to violate the civil rights of some people.


----------



## JoeB131

Skull Pilot said:


> get_involved said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion. I have the right NOT to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right not to agree with it but you have to tolerate it unless of course you want to violate the civil rights of some people.
Click to expand...


If I called a co-worker a queer or a dyke, I'd be fired that day.  So people's right to be bigots hae already been violated.


----------



## SniperFire

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> get_involved said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion. I have the right NOT to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right not to agree with it but you have to tolerate it unless of course you want to violate the civil rights of some people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If I called a co-worker a queer or a dyke, I'd be fired that day.  *So people's right to be bigots hae already been violated.
Click to expand...


Indeed.  I can't imagine a worse insult.


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> get_involved said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion. I have the right NOT to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right not to agree with it but you have to tolerate it unless of course you want to violate the civil rights of some people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I called a co-worker a queer or a dyke, I'd be fired that day.  So people's right to be bigots hae already been violated.
Click to expand...


You can be a bigot on your own time no one is stopping you. When you are in the workplace you are on someone else's property and when you are on the clock your employer has every right to set conduct standards.


----------



## JoeB131

Skull Pilot said:


> [
> 
> You can be a bigot on your own time no one is stopping you. When you are in the workplace you are on someone else's property and when you are on the clock your employer has every right to set conduct standards.



Why do I get the feeling you thought the 13th Amendment was a bad idea, much less the labor movement?  

Fact is, your boss is probalby more likely to be a homophobe. As I said, I had a co-worker who got fired because she brought her life-partner to the company Holiday party.  What makes him fire people for homophobia openly expressed is the fact people can sue for discrimination.  Same reason sexual harrassment isn't tolerated. 

It isn't like the Douchebags will be decent human beings on their own.


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> You can be a bigot on your own time no one is stopping you. When you are in the workplace you are on someone else's property and when you are on the clock your employer has every right to set conduct standards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I get the feeling you thought the 13th Amendment was a bad idea, much less the labor movement?
Click to expand...


You're a fucking idiot. I am more for individual rights that any of you fucking sheep.



> Fact is, your boss is probalby more likely to be a homophobe. As I said, I had a co-worker who got fired because she brought her life-partner to the company Holiday party.  What makes him fire people for homophobia openly expressed is the fact people can sue for discrimination.  Same reason sexual harrassment isn't tolerated.
> 
> It isn't like the Douchebags will be decent human beings on their own.



If it could have been proven that a person was fired merely for being gay then that employee should have sued.


----------



## Si modo

hazlnut said:


>


Tell it to the Muslims.


----------



## G.T.

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> You can be a bigot on your own time no one is stopping you. When you are in the workplace you are on someone else's property and when you are on the clock your employer has every right to set conduct standards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I get the feeling you thought the 13th Amendment was a bad idea, much less the labor movement?
> 
> Fact is, your boss is probalby more likely to be a homophobe. As I said, I had a co-worker who got fired because she brought her life-partner to the company Holiday party.  What makes him fire people for homophobia openly expressed is the fact people can sue for discrimination.  Same reason sexual harrassment isn't tolerated.
> 
> It isn't like the Douchebags will be decent human beings on their own.
Click to expand...


This highlighted region makes no sense to me. It seems you're saying he fired someone b/c they brought their life partner to a party...............but he fires people for homophobia openly expressed so-as not to get sued for discrimination. odd story.


----------



## The Rabbi

Off the fags.


----------



## Indofred

I've found, most people who hate homosexuals are gay as picnic baskets and can't handle what they are so, they do the whole hate thing in a bootless attempt to make themselves want women.


----------



## Sunni Man

I work around a couple of dykes at a company a few years ago.

Never befriended them or engaged in small talk; just company business.

If I walked past a normal female co-worker trying to lift a heavy box or piece of equipment. I would stop and help her lift it. 

But if I saw one of the dykes struggling to lift something heavy. I would just walk on by and not stop to help he/she/it.

I wasn't violating company policy by not helping; because my job description did not include lifting heavy objects.


----------



## JoeB131

Skull Pilot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> You can be a bigot on your own time no one is stopping you. When you are in the workplace you are on someone else's property and when you are on the clock your employer has every right to set conduct standards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I get the feeling you thought the 13th Amendment was a bad idea, much less the labor movement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a fucking idiot. I am more for individual rights that any of you fucking sheep.
Click to expand...




Yeah, you believe in the right to mistreat employees and those with wealth to abuse those without wealth.  



Skull Pilot said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, your boss is probalby more likely to be a homophobe. As I said, I had a co-worker who got fired because she brought her life-partner to the company Holiday party.  What makes him fire people for homophobia openly expressed is the fact people can sue for discrimination.  Same reason sexual harrassment isn't tolerated.
> 
> It isn't like the Douchebags will be decent human beings on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it could have been proven that a person was fired merely for being gay then that employee should have sued.
Click to expand...


if it could be proven John Gotti murdered all those people, he's have went to jail a lot earlier. 

What kind of "logic" is that?  Of course, they had an official "excuse" for letting her go that no one actually bought. 

Bringing an employer to court is not an easy thing, which is why you need activist government.  

In this case, it was 2000, and the gal found a job with their competitor two weeks later.  I left a month after that, and told them exactly why.  The HR drone had a stupid look on his face.  He knew they did wrong.


----------



## Warrior102

hazlnut said:


>



Go suck a dick.


----------



## Seawytch

Skull Pilot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> You can be a bigot on your own time no one is stopping you. When you are in the workplace you are on someone else's property and when you are on the clock your employer has every right to set conduct standards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I get the feeling you thought the 13th Amendment was a bad idea, much less the labor movement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a fucking idiot. I am more for individual rights that any of you fucking sheep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, your boss is probalby more likely to be a homophobe. As I said, I had a co-worker who got fired because she brought her life-partner to the company Holiday party.  What makes him fire people for homophobia openly expressed is the fact people can sue for discrimination.  Same reason sexual harrassment isn't tolerated.
> 
> It isn't like the Douchebags will be decent human beings on their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it could have been proven that a person was fired merely for being gay then that employee should have sued.
Click to expand...


It is legal to fire someone simply for being gay in over half the states.


----------



## Newby

G.T. said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> No other species has members of it's group engaged in packing each others fudge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that homophobes seem to always be ready to use descriptions of what they revile like they are writing bad slash-fiction?
> 
> It's like a "Vegetarian" who can't stop talking about steak!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It must seethe to convey the distaste, or else they're not doing their job of Judgement and Bias.
Click to expand...


I'm really not seeing you as being any less judgmental here, or is it that being judgmental right back is 'okay'?  The only non-judgmental person that ever lived on the planet was Jesus Christ.  He also said something about throwing stones at glass houses...


----------



## Seawytch

Warrior102 said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go suck a dick.
Click to expand...


Did you leave some for other people?


----------



## G.T.

Newby said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that homophobes seem to always be ready to use descriptions of what they revile like they are writing bad slash-fiction?
> 
> It's like a "Vegetarian" who can't stop talking about steak!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It must seethe to convey the distaste, or else they're not doing their job of Judgement and Bias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm really not seeing you as being any less judgmental here, or is it that being judgmental right back is 'okay'?  The only non-judgmental person that ever lived on the planet was Jesus Christ.  He also said something about throwing stones at glass houses...
Click to expand...


I don't believe in Jesus, and I am of course judging bigots for their bigotry. It is my job to hunt and face off with bullies. It's what I do. I hate bullies, so I became one to infiltrate their fortress and take it over with goodness.


----------



## Newby

G.T. said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It must seethe to convey the distaste, or else they're not doing their job of Judgement and Bias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really not seeing you as being any less judgmental here, or is it that being judgmental right back is 'okay'?  The only non-judgmental person that ever lived on the planet was Jesus Christ.  He also said something about throwing stones at glass houses...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe in Jesus, *and I am of course judging bigots for their bigotry*. It is my job to hunt and face off with bullies. It's what I do. I hate bullies, so I became one to infiltrate their fortress and take it over with goodness.
Click to expand...


Therefore, you judge other people just as much as they do, why are you righteous in your judgment but they are not?  Hypocrisy is so easily rationalized.


----------



## JoeB131

G.T. said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> You can be a bigot on your own time no one is stopping you. When you are in the workplace you are on someone else's property and when you are on the clock your employer has every right to set conduct standards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I get the feeling you thought the 13th Amendment was a bad idea, much less the labor movement?
> 
> Fact is, your boss is probalby more likely to be a homophobe. As I said, I had a co-worker who got fired because she brought her life-partner to the company Holiday party.  What makes him fire people for homophobia openly expressed is the fact people can sue for discrimination.  Same reason sexual harrassment isn't tolerated.
> 
> It isn't like the Douchebags will be decent human beings on their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This highlighted region makes no sense to me. It seems you're saying he fired someone b/c they brought their life partner to a party...............but he fires people for homophobia openly expressed so-as not to get sued for discrimination. odd story.
Click to expand...


Simple logistics.  They know damned well if someone had called her a bad name, she could go to EEOC and file a complaint about "hostile work environment".  (In fact, there was one Christian co-worker she had a lot of problems with.)  Instead, they decided they were "reorganizing" that department to get rid of her.  but everyone put two and two together and got "homophobia".  

Again, during the Clinton years, where you could pretty much put out a resume in Crayon and get a better job.


----------



## G.T.

Newby said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really not seeing you as being any less judgmental here, or is it that being judgmental right back is 'okay'?  The only non-judgmental person that ever lived on the planet was Jesus Christ.  He also said something about throwing stones at glass houses...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in Jesus, *and I am of course judging bigots for their bigotry*. It is my job to hunt and face off with bullies. It's what I do. I hate bullies, so I became one to infiltrate their fortress and take it over with goodness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Therefore, you judge other people just as much as they do, why are you righteous in your judgment but they are not?  Hypocrisy is so easily rationalized.
Click to expand...


Being a bigot against others for how they were born because society taught you/brainwashed you, that it was icky is wrong. 

The kind who do such things are being washed away, into the black holes of history and being swarmed by the rising tide of acceptance. In the end when their purge is complete, I will be smiling ear to ear and asking them "what's that, now? I can't hear you."

There's no argument to be had, the choice is clear. Being good is usually innate.


----------



## Newby

G.T. said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in Jesus, *and I am of course judging bigots for their bigotry*. It is my job to hunt and face off with bullies. It's what I do. I hate bullies, so I became one to infiltrate their fortress and take it over with goodness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, you judge other people just as much as they do, why are you righteous in your judgment but they are not?  Hypocrisy is so easily rationalized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being a bigot against others for how they were born because society taught you/brainwashed you, that it was icky is wrong.
> 
> The kind who do such things are being washed away, into the black holes of history and being swarmed by the rising tide of acceptance. In the end when their purge is complete, I will be smiling ear to ear and asking them "what's that, now? I can't hear you."
> 
> There's no argument to be had, the choice is clear. Being good is usually innate.
Click to expand...



I just find it amusing that you judge others for being judgmental, dude.


----------



## SniperFire

Seawytch said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I get the feeling you thought the 13th Amendment was a bad idea, much less the labor movement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fucking idiot. I am more for individual rights that any of you fucking sheep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, your boss is probalby more likely to be a homophobe. As I said, I had a co-worker who got fired because she brought her life-partner to the company Holiday party.  What makes him fire people for homophobia openly expressed is the fact people can sue for discrimination.  Same reason sexual harrassment isn't tolerated.
> 
> It isn't like the Douchebags will be decent human beings on their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it could have been proven that a person was fired merely for being gay then that employee should have sued.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is legal to fire someone simply for being gay in over half the states.
Click to expand...


Why risk AIDS and shit around the workplace?!


----------



## G.T.

Newby said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, you judge other people just as much as they do, why are you righteous in your judgment but they are not?  Hypocrisy is so easily rationalized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being a bigot against others for how they were born because society taught you/brainwashed you, that it was icky is wrong.
> 
> The kind who do such things are being washed away, into the black holes of history and being swarmed by the rising tide of acceptance. In the end when their purge is complete, I will be smiling ear to ear and asking them "what's that, now? I can't hear you."
> 
> There's no argument to be had, the choice is clear. Being good is usually innate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I just find it amusing that you judge others for being judgmental, dude.
Click to expand...


That makes no sense. That means you're, judging me, for judging them, for being judgemental. 

It's redundant. 

Calling out baseless bigotry for what it is - is appropriate. It's not hypocrisy. 

Hypocrisy would be additional baseless bigotry.


----------



## Seawytch

SniperFire said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fucking idiot. I am more for individual rights that any of you fucking sheep.
> 
> 
> 
> If it could have been proven that a person was fired merely for being gay then that employee should have sued.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is legal to fire someone simply for being gay in over half the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why risk AIDS and shit around the workplace?!
Click to expand...


You are the perfect example of Poe's Law. Well played.


----------



## Si modo

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by whom they love, but by the content of their character.


----------



## G.T.

Si modo said:


> I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by whom they love, but by the content of their character.



It's on the rise, your dream will one day come to pass.  Of course, there will always be outliers.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

SniperFire said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homophobia exists because of years of sociological brainwashing, and said brainwashing is being undone in the U.S. via exposure throughout the culture - especially on television.
> 
> Only people that cannot think deeper about their human existence could be taught all their lives to both love their neighbor, and that homosexuality is icky.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Homos have always been considered gross in culture with very few exceptions right before a culture collapsed thanks to moral decay.
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6zPh97qYd4]Youngest Brother Has the Highest Chance To Be Gay pt1 - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_bfVvo3dd8]Youngest Brother Has the Highest Chance To Be Gay pt2 - YouTube[/ame]​


----------



## Skull Pilot

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I get the feeling you thought the 13th Amendment was a bad idea, much less the labor movement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fucking idiot. I am more for individual rights that any of you fucking sheep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you believe in the right to mistreat employees and those with wealth to abuse those without wealth.
Click to expand...


Put your money where your mouth is sheep.

find a post where I have advocated abusing anyone.



> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, your boss is probalby more likely to be a homophobe. As I said, I had a co-worker who got fired because she brought her life-partner to the company Holiday party.  What makes him fire people for homophobia openly expressed is the fact people can sue for discrimination.  Same reason sexual harrassment isn't tolerated.
> 
> It isn't like the Douchebags will be decent human beings on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it could have been proven that a person was fired merely for being gay then that employee should have sued.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if it could be proven John Gotti murdered all those people, he's have went to jail a lot earlier.
> 
> What kind of "logic" is that?  Of course, they had an official "excuse" for letting her go that no one actually bought.
> 
> Bringing an employer to court is not an easy thing, which is why you need activist government.
> 
> In this case, it was 2000, and the gal found a job with their competitor two weeks later.  I left a month after that, and told them exactly why.  The HR drone had a stupid look on his face.  He knew they did wrong.
Click to expand...


Yeah sure.  I believe that as much as I believe you were fired for being sick and not coming to work drunk.


----------



## WorldWatcher

SniperFire said:


> Why risk AIDS and shit around the workplace?!




You normally engage in anal sex at your workplace?


>>>>


----------



## Newby

G.T. said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being a bigot against others for how they were born because society taught you/brainwashed you, that it was icky is wrong.
> 
> The kind who do such things are being washed away, into the black holes of history and being swarmed by the rising tide of acceptance. In the end when their purge is complete, I will be smiling ear to ear and asking them "what's that, now? I can't hear you."
> 
> There's no argument to be had, the choice is clear. Being good is usually innate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just find it amusing that you judge others for being judgmental, dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. That means you're, judging me, for judging them, for being judgemental.
> 
> It's redundant.
> 
> Calling out baseless bigotry for what it is - is appropriate. It's not hypocrisy.
> 
> Hypocrisy would be additional baseless bigotry.
Click to expand...


It makes perfect sense.  I'm merely pointing out that you're not above the fray. I've never claimed to be above the fray. You are as judgmental as anyone else, so to cast stones at others for being 'judgmental' is just hyporcrisy.  Most heterosexual people would most likely think of gay sex as being 'icky', it's a biological reaction, the same as any other natural reaction.  I'm guessing that gay people think heterosexual sex is 'icky' so does that make them bigots too?  Judging people for their feelings or natural reactions to things they think are 'icky' is no better or worse than the judging that you are doing.  Yet you see yourself as righteous somehow. It's just the flip side of the coin being turned over, who's morals are right?  Yours?  You certainly seem to think so.  You are no different than those you point your finger at.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

JoeB131 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> No other species has members of it's group engaged in packing each others fudge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that homophobes seem to always be ready to use descriptions of what they revile like they are writing bad slash-fiction?
Click to expand...

It should be pretty obvious. They kept getting "lost", during the Evolutionary Timeline...


----------



## daveman

Noomi said:


> get_involved said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion. I have the right NOT to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well its not called homo-opinion, is it? Its called homophobia for a reason.
Click to expand...

Yes.  And that reason is the left twists and alters the meanings of words for political purposes.


----------



## Si modo

Newby said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just find it amusing that you judge others for being judgmental, dude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. That means you're, judging me, for judging them, for being judgemental.
> 
> It's redundant.
> 
> Calling out baseless bigotry for what it is - is appropriate. It's not hypocrisy.
> 
> Hypocrisy would be additional baseless bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It makes perfect sense.  I'm merely pointing out that you're not above the fray. I've never claimed to be above the fray. You are as judgmental as anyone else, so to cast stones at others for being 'judgmental' is just hyporcrisy.  Most heterosexual people would most likely think of gay sex as being 'icky', it's a biological reaction, the same as any other natural reaction.  I'm guessing that gay people think heterosexual sex is 'icky' so does that make them bigots too?  Judging people for their feelings or natural reactions to things they think are 'icky' is no better or worse than the judging that you are doing.  Yet you see yourself as righteous somehow. It's just the flip side of the coin being turned over, who's morals are right?  Yours?  You certainly seem to think so.  You are no different than those you point your finger at.
Click to expand...

I had a gay brother and he found heterosexual sex "icky".  I find homosexual sex "icky", too....I wouldn't do it.  He also thought mushrooms tasted "icky".  And, I find cooked cauliflower tastes "icky".  Plus, purple is seriously an "icky" color.

We are all such bigots, aren't we?  Violating that feelings/opinion code and all.


----------



## G.T.

Newby said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just find it amusing that you judge others for being judgmental, dude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. That means you're, judging me, for judging them, for being judgemental.
> 
> It's redundant.
> 
> Calling out baseless bigotry for what it is - is appropriate. It's not hypocrisy.
> 
> Hypocrisy would be additional baseless bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It makes perfect sense.  I'm merely pointing out that you're not above the fray. I've never claimed to be above the fray. You are as judgmental as anyone else, so to cast stones at others for being 'judgmental' is just hyporcrisy.  Most heterosexual people would most likely think of gay sex as being 'icky', it's a biological reaction, the same as any other natural reaction.  I'm guessing that gay people think heterosexual sex is 'icky' so does that make them bigots too?  Judging people for their feelings or natural reactions to things they think are 'icky' is no better or worse than the judging that you are doing.  Yet you see yourself as righteous somehow. It's just the flip side of the coin being turned over, who's morals are right?  Yours?  You certainly seem to think so.  You are no different than those you point your finger at.
Click to expand...


I'm judging noone for their biological reactions. 

It's not a biological reaction to frown upon gay people in society by means of ridicule and by way of legislation. That is what I'm frowning upon. You conflated the two to make a pias point, one that doesn't exist. 

I am indeed judging people for being baselessly biased, and will continue to do so. You can call that whatever you'd like, but the rising tide will be swallowing you any time now. 

I am very different from those I'm pointing a finger at. I'm pointing a finger at evil. At baseless bullying.

You can lash out at that all you'd like. Call it hypocritical, call it whatever you want to. You're on the wrong side of town if you think that inborn bias will forever be tolerated. It wont. Our children are much smarter for this than their elders. MUCH smarter.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> get_involved said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion. I have the right NOT to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right not to agree with it but you have to tolerate it unless of course you want to violate the civil rights of some people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I called a co-worker a queer or a dyke, I'd be fired that day.  So people's right to be bigots hae already been violated.
Click to expand...

Not to worry.

When it comes to *bigotry*, you'll *always* have a home with the *Republican Party*.​


----------



## G.T.

Si modo said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. That means you're, judging me, for judging them, for being judgemental.
> 
> It's redundant.
> 
> Calling out baseless bigotry for what it is - is appropriate. It's not hypocrisy.
> 
> Hypocrisy would be additional baseless bigotry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It makes perfect sense.  I'm merely pointing out that you're not above the fray. I've never claimed to be above the fray. You are as judgmental as anyone else, so to cast stones at others for being 'judgmental' is just hyporcrisy.  Most heterosexual people would most likely think of gay sex as being 'icky', it's a biological reaction, the same as any other natural reaction.  I'm guessing that gay people think heterosexual sex is 'icky' so does that make them bigots too?  Judging people for their feelings or natural reactions to things they think are 'icky' is no better or worse than the judging that you are doing.  Yet you see yourself as righteous somehow. It's just the flip side of the coin being turned over, who's morals are right?  Yours?  You certainly seem to think so.  You are no different than those you point your finger at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I had a gay brother and he found heterosexual sex "icky".  I find homosexual sex "icky", too....I wouldn't do it.  He also thought mushrooms tasted "icky".  And, I find cooked cauliflower tastes "icky".  Plus, purple is seriously an "icky" color.
> 
> We are all such bigots, aren't we?  Violating that feelings/opinion code and all.
Click to expand...


Finding the sex icky is fine, finding the people themselves icky for their preference is what we're talking about. Pretty stark difference.


----------



## daveman

Si modo said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell it to the Muslims.
Click to expand...


That's different.  Somehow.  It just is.

/progressive hypocrisy


----------



## Newby

Si modo said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. That means you're, judging me, for judging them, for being judgemental.
> 
> It's redundant.
> 
> Calling out baseless bigotry for what it is - is appropriate. It's not hypocrisy.
> 
> Hypocrisy would be additional baseless bigotry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It makes perfect sense.  I'm merely pointing out that you're not above the fray. I've never claimed to be above the fray. You are as judgmental as anyone else, so to cast stones at others for being 'judgmental' is just hyporcrisy.  Most heterosexual people would most likely think of gay sex as being 'icky', it's a biological reaction, the same as any other natural reaction.  I'm guessing that gay people think heterosexual sex is 'icky' so does that make them bigots too?  Judging people for their feelings or natural reactions to things they think are 'icky' is no better or worse than the judging that you are doing.  Yet you see yourself as righteous somehow. It's just the flip side of the coin being turned over, who's morals are right?  Yours?  You certainly seem to think so.  You are no different than those you point your finger at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I had a gay brother and he found heterosexual sex "icky".  I find homosexual sex "icky", too....I wouldn't do it.  He also thought mushrooms tasted "icky".  And, I find cooked cauliflower tastes "icky".  Plus, purple is seriously an "icky" color.
> 
> We are all such bigots, aren't we?  Violating that feelings/opinion code and all.
Click to expand...


Exactly...    Finding something 'icky' is not being bigoted...  and everyone in our society judges others one way or another for many different reasons.


----------



## Seawytch

Si modo said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. That means you're, judging me, for judging them, for being judgemental.
> 
> It's redundant.
> 
> Calling out baseless bigotry for what it is - is appropriate. It's not hypocrisy.
> 
> Hypocrisy would be additional baseless bigotry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It makes perfect sense.  I'm merely pointing out that you're not above the fray. I've never claimed to be above the fray. You are as judgmental as anyone else, so to cast stones at others for being 'judgmental' is just hyporcrisy.  Most heterosexual people would most likely think of gay sex as being 'icky', it's a biological reaction, the same as any other natural reaction.  I'm guessing that gay people think heterosexual sex is 'icky' so does that make them bigots too?  Judging people for their feelings or natural reactions to things they think are 'icky' is no better or worse than the judging that you are doing.  Yet you see yourself as righteous somehow. It's just the flip side of the coin being turned over, who's morals are right?  Yours?  You certainly seem to think so.  You are no different than those you point your finger at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I had a gay brother and he found heterosexual sex "icky".  I find homosexual sex "icky", too....I wouldn't do it.  He also thought mushrooms tasted "icky".  And, I find cooked cauliflower tastes "icky".  Plus, purple is seriously an "icky" color.
> 
> We are all such bigots, aren't we?  Violating that feelings/opinion code and all.
Click to expand...


It's when you try to legislate away your "icky" feeling that the bigotry comes in.


----------



## G.T.

Newby said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> It makes perfect sense.  I'm merely pointing out that you're not above the fray. I've never claimed to be above the fray. You are as judgmental as anyone else, so to cast stones at others for being 'judgmental' is just hyporcrisy.  Most heterosexual people would most likely think of gay sex as being 'icky', it's a biological reaction, the same as any other natural reaction.  I'm guessing that gay people think heterosexual sex is 'icky' so does that make them bigots too?  Judging people for their feelings or natural reactions to things they think are 'icky' is no better or worse than the judging that you are doing.  Yet you see yourself as righteous somehow. It's just the flip side of the coin being turned over, who's morals are right?  Yours?  You certainly seem to think so.  You are no different than those you point your finger at.
> 
> 
> 
> I had a gay brother and he found heterosexual sex "icky".  I find homosexual sex "icky", too....I wouldn't do it.  He also thought mushrooms tasted "icky".  And, I find cooked cauliflower tastes "icky".  Plus, purple is seriously an "icky" color.
> 
> We are all such bigots, aren't we?  Violating that feelings/opinion code and all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly...    Finding something 'icky' is not being bigoted...  and everyone in our society judges others one way or another for many different reasons.
Click to expand...


Yes, finding a person to be icky because of who they were born to have sexual feelings towards is blatant Evil bigotry. 

Finding the sexual act itself icky has nothing to do with it, at all. Only a genius can tell the difference? Or......what's going on there......


----------



## Si modo

G.T. said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> It makes perfect sense.  I'm merely pointing out that you're not above the fray. I've never claimed to be above the fray. You are as judgmental as anyone else, so to cast stones at others for being 'judgmental' is just hyporcrisy.  Most heterosexual people would most likely think of gay sex as being 'icky', it's a biological reaction, the same as any other natural reaction.  I'm guessing that gay people think heterosexual sex is 'icky' so does that make them bigots too?  Judging people for their feelings or natural reactions to things they think are 'icky' is no better or worse than the judging that you are doing.  Yet you see yourself as righteous somehow. It's just the flip side of the coin being turned over, who's morals are right?  Yours?  You certainly seem to think so.  You are no different than those you point your finger at.
> 
> 
> 
> I had a gay brother and he found heterosexual sex "icky".  I find homosexual sex "icky", too....I wouldn't do it.  He also thought mushrooms tasted "icky".  And, I find cooked cauliflower tastes "icky".  Plus, purple is seriously an "icky" color.
> 
> We are all such bigots, aren't we?  Violating that feelings/opinion code and all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finding the sex icky is fine, finding the people themselves icky for their preference is what we're talking about. Pretty stark difference.
Click to expand...

Yup.  But, seriously....who finds mushrooms icky?  I would have to fire someone if I discovered that about them.  Mushrooms are ambrosia...everyone knows that.


----------



## daveman

G.T. said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It must seethe to convey the distaste, or else they're not doing their job of Judgement and Bias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really not seeing you as being any less judgmental here, or is it that being judgmental right back is 'okay'?  The only non-judgmental person that ever lived on the planet was Jesus Christ.  He also said something about throwing stones at glass houses...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe in Jesus, and I am of course judging bigots for their bigotry. It is my job to hunt and face off with bullies. It's what I do. I hate bullies, so I became one to infiltrate their fortress and take it over with goodness.
Click to expand...

Does your criteria for judging bigots include the bigot's political leanings?  If not, can you show us where you've criticized leftists for their bigotry?


----------



## G.T.

Seawytch said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> It makes perfect sense.  I'm merely pointing out that you're not above the fray. I've never claimed to be above the fray. You are as judgmental as anyone else, so to cast stones at others for being 'judgmental' is just hyporcrisy.  Most heterosexual people would most likely think of gay sex as being 'icky', it's a biological reaction, the same as any other natural reaction.  I'm guessing that gay people think heterosexual sex is 'icky' so does that make them bigots too?  Judging people for their feelings or natural reactions to things they think are 'icky' is no better or worse than the judging that you are doing.  Yet you see yourself as righteous somehow. It's just the flip side of the coin being turned over, who's morals are right?  Yours?  You certainly seem to think so.  You are no different than those you point your finger at.
> 
> 
> 
> I had a gay brother and he found heterosexual sex "icky".  I find homosexual sex "icky", too....I wouldn't do it.  He also thought mushrooms tasted "icky".  And, I find cooked cauliflower tastes "icky".  Plus, purple is seriously an "icky" color.
> 
> We are all such bigots, aren't we?  Violating that feelings/opinion code and all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's when you try to legislate away your "icky" feeling that the bigotry comes in.
Click to expand...


Well, there's that....................and then there's the ridicule. faggot, blah blah blah. The ridicule and the legislative bias is being put down. The tide is turning.


----------



## Newby

G.T. said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. That means you're, judging me, for judging them, for being judgemental.
> 
> It's redundant.
> 
> Calling out baseless bigotry for what it is - is appropriate. It's not hypocrisy.
> 
> Hypocrisy would be additional baseless bigotry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It makes perfect sense.  I'm merely pointing out that you're not above the fray. I've never claimed to be above the fray. You are as judgmental as anyone else, so to cast stones at others for being 'judgmental' is just hyporcrisy.  Most heterosexual people would most likely think of gay sex as being 'icky', it's a biological reaction, the same as any other natural reaction.  I'm guessing that gay people think heterosexual sex is 'icky' so does that make them bigots too?  Judging people for their feelings or natural reactions to things they think are 'icky' is no better or worse than the judging that you are doing.  Yet you see yourself as righteous somehow. It's just the flip side of the coin being turned over, who's morals are right?  Yours?  You certainly seem to think so.  You are no different than those you point your finger at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I'm judging noone for their biological reactions.*
> 
> It's not a biological reaction to frown upon gay people in society by means of ridicule and by way of legislation. That is what I'm frowning upon. You conflated the two to make a pias point, one that doesn't exist.
> 
> *I am indeed judging people for being baselessly biased, and will continue to do so. You can call that whatever you'd like, but the rising tide will be swallowing you any time now.*
> 
> I am very different from those I'm pointing a finger at. I'm pointing a finger at evil. At baseless bullying.
> 
> You can lash out at that all you'd like. Call it hypocritical, call it whatever you want to. You're on the wrong side of town if you think that inborn bias will forever be tolerated. It wont. Our children are much smarter for this than their elders. MUCH smarter.
Click to expand...


Yes, you are judging.  Therefore you are no different than others that you point the finger at for doing the exact same thing.  You somehow seem to think the reason for the judgment makes you a better person.

As for what's in red, you are now judging me and I haven't said a word about homosexual people one way or the other in this thread.  Way to go!


----------



## Newby

Seawytch said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> It makes perfect sense.  I'm merely pointing out that you're not above the fray. I've never claimed to be above the fray. You are as judgmental as anyone else, so to cast stones at others for being 'judgmental' is just hyporcrisy.  Most heterosexual people would most likely think of gay sex as being 'icky', it's a biological reaction, the same as any other natural reaction.  I'm guessing that gay people think heterosexual sex is 'icky' so does that make them bigots too?  Judging people for their feelings or natural reactions to things they think are 'icky' is no better or worse than the judging that you are doing.  Yet you see yourself as righteous somehow. It's just the flip side of the coin being turned over, who's morals are right?  Yours?  You certainly seem to think so.  You are no different than those you point your finger at.
> 
> 
> 
> I had a gay brother and he found heterosexual sex "icky".  I find homosexual sex "icky", too....I wouldn't do it.  He also thought mushrooms tasted "icky".  And, I find cooked cauliflower tastes "icky".  Plus, purple is seriously an "icky" color.
> 
> We are all such bigots, aren't we?  Violating that feelings/opinion code and all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's when you try to legislate away your "icky" feeling that the bigotry comes in.
Click to expand...


Who's trying to legislate anything, seems like it's more the gay society that is wanting legislation changed.


----------



## G.T.

Newby said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> It makes perfect sense.  I'm merely pointing out that you're not above the fray. I've never claimed to be above the fray. You are as judgmental as anyone else, so to cast stones at others for being 'judgmental' is just hyporcrisy.  Most heterosexual people would most likely think of gay sex as being 'icky', it's a biological reaction, the same as any other natural reaction.  I'm guessing that gay people think heterosexual sex is 'icky' so does that make them bigots too?  Judging people for their feelings or natural reactions to things they think are 'icky' is no better or worse than the judging that you are doing.  Yet you see yourself as righteous somehow. It's just the flip side of the coin being turned over, who's morals are right?  Yours?  You certainly seem to think so.  You are no different than those you point your finger at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I'm judging noone for their biological reactions.*
> 
> It's not a biological reaction to frown upon gay people in society by means of ridicule and by way of legislation. That is what I'm frowning upon. You conflated the two to make a pias point, one that doesn't exist.
> 
> *I am indeed judging people for being baselessly biased, and will continue to do so. You can call that whatever you'd like, but the rising tide will be swallowing you any time now.*
> 
> I am very different from those I'm pointing a finger at. I'm pointing a finger at evil. At baseless bullying.
> 
> You can lash out at that all you'd like. Call it hypocritical, call it whatever you want to. You're on the wrong side of town if you think that inborn bias will forever be tolerated. It wont. Our children are much smarter for this than their elders. MUCH smarter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you are judging.  Therefore you are no different than others that you point the finger at for doing the exact same thing.  You somehow seem to think the reason for the judgment makes you a better person.
> 
> As for what's in red, you are now judging me and I haven't said a word about homosexual people one way or the other in this thread.  Way to go!
Click to expand...


Your opinion is great, but it's very wrong. I stand up for good, maybe you can try it sometime and tell the very people in this thread that "faggot," etc. isn't really a ...umm, "good look," coming from them. 

No? No, instead harp on the person seeking social justice because either A: you disagree, or B: you're same said bigot.


----------



## G.T.

Newby said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a gay brother and he found heterosexual sex "icky".  I find homosexual sex "icky", too....I wouldn't do it.  He also thought mushrooms tasted "icky".  And, I find cooked cauliflower tastes "icky".  Plus, purple is seriously an "icky" color.
> 
> We are all such bigots, aren't we?  Violating that feelings/opinion code and all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's when you try to legislate away your "icky" feeling that the bigotry comes in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's trying to legislate anything, seems like it's more the gay society that is wanting legislation changed.
Click to expand...


^ that's being intentionally dishonest. 

Gays becoming civilly married is illegal in the majority of the country. 

You knew that, thus, your colors are shining through brighter by the post.


----------



## Si modo

Seawytch said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> It makes perfect sense.  I'm merely pointing out that you're not above the fray. I've never claimed to be above the fray. You are as judgmental as anyone else, so to cast stones at others for being 'judgmental' is just hyporcrisy.  Most heterosexual people would most likely think of gay sex as being 'icky', it's a biological reaction, the same as any other natural reaction.  I'm guessing that gay people think heterosexual sex is 'icky' so does that make them bigots too?  Judging people for their feelings or natural reactions to things they think are 'icky' is no better or worse than the judging that you are doing.  Yet you see yourself as righteous somehow. It's just the flip side of the coin being turned over, who's morals are right?  Yours?  You certainly seem to think so.  You are no different than those you point your finger at.
> 
> 
> 
> I had a gay brother and he found heterosexual sex "icky".  I find homosexual sex "icky", too....I wouldn't do it.  He also thought mushrooms tasted "icky".  And, I find cooked cauliflower tastes "icky".  Plus, purple is seriously an "icky" color.
> 
> We are all such bigots, aren't we?  Violating that feelings/opinion code and all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's when you try to legislate away your "icky" feeling that the bigotry comes in.
Click to expand...

Who is making such legislation?


----------



## Mr. Shaman

Sunni Man said:


> I work around a couple of dykes at a company a few years ago.
> 
> Never befriended them or engaged in small talk; just company business.
> 
> If I walked past a normal female co-worker trying to lift a heavy box or piece of equipment. I would stop and help her lift it.
> 
> But if I saw one of the dykes struggling to lift something heavy. *I would just walk on by and not stop to help he/she/it.
> *
> I wasn't violating company policy by not helping; because my job description did not include lifting heavy objects.


So, what you're saying, is....you have no desire to see your company running as smoothly, as possible....that, the workplace is just somewhere to hang-out, for you, 'cause you've got nothing better, to do, with your time.

Yeah...let's *Hear It!!!* for unproductive-*"conservatives"*.....who *also* whine & cry about their jobs being sent overseas*!!!*






*Stupid Fuckin' Teabaggers*​


----------



## G.T.

Si modo said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a gay brother and he found heterosexual sex "icky".  I find homosexual sex "icky", too....I wouldn't do it.  He also thought mushrooms tasted "icky".  And, I find cooked cauliflower tastes "icky".  Plus, purple is seriously an "icky" color.
> 
> We are all such bigots, aren't we?  Violating that feelings/opinion code and all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's when you try to legislate away your "icky" feeling that the bigotry comes in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is making such legislation?
Click to expand...


oh boy

Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## daveman

G.T. said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a gay brother and he found heterosexual sex "icky".  I find homosexual sex "icky", too....I wouldn't do it.  He also thought mushrooms tasted "icky".  And, I find cooked cauliflower tastes "icky".  Plus, purple is seriously an "icky" color.
> 
> We are all such bigots, aren't we?  Violating that feelings/opinion code and all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's when you try to legislate away your "icky" feeling that the bigotry comes in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, there's that....................and then there's the ridicule. faggot, blah blah blah. The ridicule and the legislative bias is being put down. The tide is turning.
Click to expand...


Here, let me show you some leftist homophobia so you can properly condemn it:



Sallow said:


> Nothing closeted about you faggot.
> 
> You ask a straight man for a swallow..you get outted.
> 
> You are generally the first to bring up homo shit in any given thread.
> 
> Well there it is dick licker.
> 
> And beaten to a pulp? For what? Insulting your hero?
> 
> Doubtful.


----------



## Newby

daveman said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really not seeing you as being any less judgmental here, or is it that being judgmental right back is 'okay'?  The only non-judgmental person that ever lived on the planet was Jesus Christ.  He also said something about throwing stones at glass houses...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in Jesus, and I am of course judging bigots for their bigotry. It is my job to hunt and face off with bullies. It's what I do. I hate bullies, so I became one to infiltrate their fortress and take it over with goodness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does your criteria for judging bigots include the bigot's political leanings?  If not, can you show us where you've criticized leftists for their bigotry?
Click to expand...


Their form of judgment is a-okay...   What's amusing to me is that liberals never see themselves as pushing their morals or beliefs on others, it's somehow different when they do it.  And if you don't accept what they want, then you're 'intolerant' or a 'bigot'.  You gotta give them kudos, they have this labeling down to a "T".   They now come across as more righteous than any religious person I know.


----------



## Si modo

G.T. said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's when you try to legislate away your "icky" feeling that the bigotry comes in.
> 
> 
> 
> Who is making such legislation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh boy
> 
> Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

I'm against ANY legislation regarding marriage.  Marriage is just a contract between two persons and should be treated as such in the courts.


----------



## Seawytch

Si modo said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a gay brother and he found heterosexual sex "icky".  I find homosexual sex "icky", too....I wouldn't do it.  He also thought mushrooms tasted "icky".  And, I find cooked cauliflower tastes "icky".  Plus, purple is seriously an "icky" color.
> 
> We are all such bigots, aren't we?  Violating that feelings/opinion code and all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's when you try to legislate away your "icky" feeling that the bigotry comes in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is making such legislation?
Click to expand...


You can try to play stupid, but I know you aren't. A Constitutional Amendment that would keep gays and lesbians from marrying is legislating an icky feeling. DOMA was legislating icky feelings.


----------



## G.T.

Newby said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in Jesus, and I am of course judging bigots for their bigotry. It is my job to hunt and face off with bullies. It's what I do. I hate bullies, so I became one to infiltrate their fortress and take it over with goodness.
> 
> 
> 
> Does your criteria for judging bigots include the bigot's political leanings?  If not, can you show us where you've criticized leftists for their bigotry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their form of judgment is a-okay...   What's amusing to me is that liberals never see themselves as pushing their morals or beliefs on others, it's somehow different when they do it.  And if you don't accept what they want, then you're 'intolerant' or a 'bigot'.  You gotta give them kudos, they have this labeling down to a "T".   They now come across as more righteous than any religious person I know.
Click to expand...


Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....ok so this is now lib vs. con, same olds tired childish meme of the board over and over that relegates me to wanting to stick to the flame zone, which is at least entertaining. 

Kids games, partisanship is a disease.


----------



## G.T.

Si modo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is making such legislation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh boy
> 
> Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm against ANY legislation regarding marriage.  Marriage is just a contract between two persons and should be treated as such in the courts.
Click to expand...


Ok, si modo...........but you asked the question as though nobody was proposing any legislation.


----------



## Si modo

Seawytch said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's when you try to legislate away your "icky" feeling that the bigotry comes in.
> 
> 
> 
> Who is making such legislation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can try to play stupid, but I know you aren't. A Constitutional Amendment that would keep gays and lesbians from marrying is legislating an icky feeling. DOMA was legislating icky feelings.
Click to expand...

Look above.

Occam's razor solution.  Then maybe the idiot legislators can try to focus on keeping us out of an economic depression.


----------



## Newby

G.T. said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I'm judging noone for their biological reactions.*
> 
> It's not a biological reaction to frown upon gay people in society by means of ridicule and by way of legislation. That is what I'm frowning upon. You conflated the two to make a pias point, one that doesn't exist.
> 
> *I am indeed judging people for being baselessly biased, and will continue to do so. You can call that whatever you'd like, but the rising tide will be swallowing you any time now.*
> 
> I am very different from those I'm pointing a finger at. I'm pointing a finger at evil. At baseless bullying.
> 
> You can lash out at that all you'd like. Call it hypocritical, call it whatever you want to. You're on the wrong side of town if you think that inborn bias will forever be tolerated. It wont. Our children are much smarter for this than their elders. MUCH smarter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you are judging.  Therefore you are no different than others that you point the finger at for doing the exact same thing.  You somehow seem to think the reason for the judgment makes you a better person.
> 
> As for what's in red, you are now judging me and I haven't said a word about homosexual people one way or the other in this thread.  Way to go!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Your opinion is great, but it's very wrong. I stand up for good*, maybe you can try it sometime and tell the very people in this thread that "faggot," etc. isn't really a ...umm, "good look," coming from them.
> 
> No? No, instead harp on the person seeking social justice because either A: you disagree, or B: you're same said bigot.
Click to expand...


The people who are against gay marraige also feel they're 'standing up for good'.  So how are you any different?  You're as righteous as they are from my perspective.  Like I said, flip sides of the same coin.  You're the only person in this thread who's used the word 'faggot', so perhaps you should stick to realty instead of making up the fantasy 'they' people that you seem so insistant on grouping me with.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

WorldWatcher said:


> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why risk AIDS and shit around the workplace?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You normally engage in anal sex at your workplace?
Click to expand...

C'mon....show a lil' compassion. *SniperFire* just might be a run-o'-the-mill junkie.​


----------



## Si modo

G.T. said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh boy
> 
> Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> I'm against ANY legislation regarding marriage.  Marriage is just a contract between two persons and should be treated as such in the courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, si modo...........but you asked the question as though nobody was proposing any legislation.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did.  And good point.  I would also like to point out that this sort of idiotic legislation is bipartisan.

I just shake my head in disgust every time this marriage shit pops up.  It's a fucking contract...that's all it is.


----------



## Meathead

"Homophobia" simply means fear of man. It should be "Homophilophobia".


----------



## G.T.

Newby said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you are judging.  Therefore you are no different than others that you point the finger at for doing the exact same thing.  You somehow seem to think the reason for the judgment makes you a better person.
> 
> As for what's in red, you are now judging me and I haven't said a word about homosexual people one way or the other in this thread.  Way to go!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Your opinion is great, but it's very wrong. I stand up for good*, maybe you can try it sometime and tell the very people in this thread that "faggot," etc. isn't really a ...umm, "good look," coming from them.
> 
> No? No, instead harp on the person seeking social justice because either A: you disagree, or B: you're same said bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people who are against gay marraige also feel they're 'standing up for good'.  So how are you any different?  You're as righteous as they are from my perspective.  Like I said, flip sides of the same coin.  You're the only person in this thread who's used the word 'faggot', so perhaps you should stick to realty instead of making up the fantasy 'they' people that you seem so insistant on grouping me with.
Click to expand...


The difference is that they are wrong. That is the difference. And I will be on the winning side, when all is said and done. 

The kids are smarter than the bigots who try to demean people because of how they were born.


----------



## G.T.

Si modo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm against ANY legislation regarding marriage.  Marriage is just a contract between two persons and should be treated as such in the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, si modo...........but you asked the question as though nobody was proposing any legislation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I did.  And good point.  I would also like to point out that this sort of idiotic legislation is bipartisan.
> 
> I just shake my head in disgust every time this marriage shit pops up.  It's a fucking contract...that's all it is.
Click to expand...


I agree. 

If Religious institutions want to ban gay marriage, I support their right to do so while simultaneously also considering them bigots. 

But to Civilly ban it is wholly wrong to me.


----------



## Newby

G.T. said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's when you try to legislate away your "icky" feeling that the bigotry comes in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's trying to legislate anything, seems like it's more the gay society that is wanting legislation changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^ that's being intentionally dishonest.
> 
> Gays becoming civilly married is illegal in the majority of the country.
> 
> You knew that, thus, your colors are shining through brighter by the post.
Click to expand...


It's being truthful.  Gays want the legislation, you can't even be honest about that.

By the way, Mr. Judgmental, I am for civil unions for gays.  I'm for civil unions for any consenting adult that wants to get married, even multiple people, i.e. 3 men, 1 woman, etc.. Are you?


----------



## Newby

G.T. said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does your criteria for judging bigots include the bigot's political leanings?  If not, can you show us where you've criticized leftists for their bigotry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their form of judgment is a-okay...   What's amusing to me is that liberals never see themselves as pushing their morals or beliefs on others, it's somehow different when they do it.  And if you don't accept what they want, then you're 'intolerant' or a 'bigot'.  You gotta give them kudos, they have this labeling down to a "T".   They now come across as more righteous than any religious person I know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....ok so this is now lib vs. con, same olds tired childish meme of the board over and over that relegates me to wanting to stick to the flame zone, which is at least entertaining.
> 
> Kids games, partisanship is a disease.
Click to expand...


Yeah, you're above that too... I've seen it all over the place...


----------



## G.T.

Newby said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's trying to legislate anything, seems like it's more the gay society that is wanting legislation changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ that's being intentionally dishonest.
> 
> Gays becoming civilly married is illegal in the majority of the country.
> 
> You knew that, thus, your colors are shining through brighter by the post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's being truthful.  Gays want the legislation, you can't even be honest about that.
> 
> By the way, Mr. Judgmental, I am for civil unions for gays.  I'm for civil unions for any consenting adult that wants to get married, even multiple people, i.e. 3 men, 1 woman, etc.. Are you?
Click to expand...


You said "who's trying to legislate anything?"

As though nobody is out there trying to legislate against gay marriage. That's the part that was intentionally dishonest, because 1.5 seconds on google would have shown you different before posting the ignorance.


----------



## G.T.

Newby said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their form of judgment is a-okay...   What's amusing to me is that liberals never see themselves as pushing their morals or beliefs on others, it's somehow different when they do it.  And if you don't accept what they want, then you're 'intolerant' or a 'bigot'.  You gotta give them kudos, they have this labeling down to a "T".   They now come across as more righteous than any religious person I know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....ok so this is now lib vs. con, same olds tired childish meme of the board over and over that relegates me to wanting to stick to the flame zone, which is at least entertaining.
> 
> Kids games, partisanship is a disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you're above that too... I've seen it all over the place...
Click to expand...


yea, go ahead and show me where I say "republicans are bad and retarded and liberals are great" like all of these other morons do, I'll wait ringside.


----------



## Newby

G.T. said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Your opinion is great, but it's very wrong. I stand up for good*, maybe you can try it sometime and tell the very people in this thread that "faggot," etc. isn't really a ...umm, "good look," coming from them.
> 
> No? No, instead harp on the person seeking social justice because either A: you disagree, or B: you're same said bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people who are against gay marraige also feel they're 'standing up for good'.  So how are you any different?  You're as righteous as they are from my perspective.  Like I said, flip sides of the same coin.  You're the only person in this thread who's used the word 'faggot', so perhaps you should stick to realty instead of making up the fantasy 'they' people that you seem so insistant on grouping me with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The difference is that they are wrong. That is the difference. And I will be on the winning side, when all is said and done.*
> 
> The kids are smarter than the bigots who try to demean people because of how they were born.
Click to expand...


They think you are just as wrong.  Again, you're no different than they are, pushing your morals on others.  It's interesting that you see it as 'winning' though, what a sad world we live in.


----------



## Seawytch

Si modo said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is making such legislation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can try to play stupid, but I know you aren't. A Constitutional Amendment that would keep gays and lesbians from marrying is legislating an icky feeling. DOMA was legislating icky feelings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look above.
> 
> Occam's razor solution.  Then maybe the idiot legislators can try to focus on keeping us out of an economic depression.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that'd be great. Instead the House is spending close to a million dollars defending DOMA. What's Todd Akin doing in his last days? Trying to get a "right to bully" provision put in the Defense Authorization bill.


----------



## Newby

G.T. said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ that's being intentionally dishonest.
> 
> Gays becoming civilly married is illegal in the majority of the country.
> 
> You knew that, thus, your colors are shining through brighter by the post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's being truthful.  Gays want the legislation, you can't even be honest about that.
> 
> By the way, Mr. Judgmental, I am for civil unions for gays.  I'm for civil unions for any consenting adult that wants to get married, even multiple people, i.e. 3 men, 1 woman, etc.. Are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said "who's trying to legislate anything?"
> 
> As though nobody is out there trying to legislate against gay marriage. That's the part that was intentionally dishonest, because 1.5 seconds on google would have shown you different before posting the ignorance.
Click to expand...


They are doing that in reaction to gays trying to change the legislation to accommodate them first.   'Marriage' had a meaning and a definition in our society, and no one tried to legislate anything about that until gay people came along and demanded that the definition change to suit them.


----------



## G.T.

Newby said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who are against gay marraige also feel they're 'standing up for good'.  So how are you any different?  You're as righteous as they are from my perspective.  Like I said, flip sides of the same coin.  You're the only person in this thread who's used the word 'faggot', so perhaps you should stick to realty instead of making up the fantasy 'they' people that you seem so insistant on grouping me with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The difference is that they are wrong. That is the difference. And I will be on the winning side, when all is said and done.*
> 
> The kids are smarter than the bigots who try to demean people because of how they were born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They think you are just as wrong.  Again, you're no different than they are, pushing your morals on others.  It's interesting that you see it as 'winning' though, what a sad world we live in.
Click to expand...


Winning is having a Government that doesnt intentionally pit people against other people because of how they were born. If that's sad, you're on the evil side. 

They can think I'm wrong all day, and consider themselves no different than me. 

But there is one right, and one wrong.


----------



## Newby

G.T. said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....ok so this is now lib vs. con, same olds tired childish meme of the board over and over that relegates me to wanting to stick to the flame zone, which is at least entertaining.
> 
> Kids games, partisanship is a disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you're above that too... I've seen it all over the place...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yea, go ahead and show me where I say "republicans are bad and retarded and liberals are great" like all of these other morons do, I'll wait ringside.
Click to expand...


You've done it in this very thread when referring to the 'they' out there who are bigoted for their beliefs and obviously go around calling gay people 'faggots', even though you were the only one to actually use the word in this thread.


----------



## Si modo

Just a general comment:  Some states do allow gay "marriages".  But, unlike heterosexual "marriages", other states have the right not to recognize gay "marriages".  So, if the gay couple moves, their rights and obligations to each other no longer exist.

BUT, if the fucking government would get out of the "marriage" business, and just treat "marriage" for what it is - a contract between parties - then the contract would be enforceable in all states due to the commerce clause.

But, no, we have hundreds of bills and no single one solves the problem.

Plus, I find it a violation of the First Amendment to give a priest/rabbi/minister/whatever the status of government agent during marriage ceremonies.

It's wrong on so many levels that government is involved in marriage.  You want to be married?  Go to a church, but that should not be a legally binding contract.

[/end soap box]


----------



## Truthmatters

stand up for good in your own relationships and leave the rest of us to do the same in OUR relationships.


Your not the GOD of who should love who and for what reason.


----------



## G.T.

Newby said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's being truthful.  Gays want the legislation, you can't even be honest about that.
> 
> By the way, Mr. Judgmental, I am for civil unions for gays.  I'm for civil unions for any consenting adult that wants to get married, even multiple people, i.e. 3 men, 1 woman, etc.. Are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said "who's trying to legislate anything?"
> 
> As though nobody is out there trying to legislate against gay marriage. That's the part that was intentionally dishonest, because 1.5 seconds on google would have shown you different before posting the ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are doing that in reaction to gays trying to change the legislation to accommodate them first.   'Marriage' had a meaning and a definition in our society, and no one tried to legislate anything about that until gay people came along and demanded that the definition change to suit them.
Click to expand...


"Marriages" definition and meaning, as you call it, is frivolous so-as to *not include *gay couples also, as they are a factual and (should be) equal under the Law portion of our society.  

It's called society waking up. It's great. 

*And the legislation out there is not just to ban them from marriage, but to prevent their civil union. Fact. *


----------



## Si modo

Seawytch said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can try to play stupid, but I know you aren't. A Constitutional Amendment that would keep gays and lesbians from marrying is legislating an icky feeling. DOMA was legislating icky feelings.
> 
> 
> 
> Look above.
> 
> Occam's razor solution.  Then maybe the idiot legislators can try to focus on keeping us out of an economic depression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that'd be great. Instead the House is spending close to a million dollars defending DOMA. What's Todd Akin doing in his last days? Trying to get a "right to bully" provision put in the Defense Authorization bill.
Click to expand...

There are hundreds of bills slated relating to marriage, none of which solves the problem.

I like to keep things simple and uncomplicated.


----------



## G.T.

Newby said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you're above that too... I've seen it all over the place...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yea, go ahead and show me where I say "republicans are bad and retarded and liberals are great" like all of these other morons do, I'll wait ringside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've done it in this very thread when referring to the 'they' out there who are bigoted for their beliefs and obviously go around calling gay people 'faggots', even though you were the only one to actually use the word in this thread.
Click to expand...


If you can't see the bigotted comments (right off the jump) in this thread, in the form of childish insults, just because "faggot" wasn't used, then there's no help for you. Try reading some of the posts over, sniperfire will give you some great examples, so will sunniman. 

And no, I didnt refer to Republicans as this or that in this thread at all. Wrong again.


----------



## Newby

G.T. said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The difference is that they are wrong. That is the difference. And I will be on the winning side, when all is said and done.*
> 
> The kids are smarter than the bigots who try to demean people because of how they were born.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They think you are just as wrong.  Again, you're no different than they are, pushing your morals on others.  It's interesting that you see it as 'winning' though, what a sad world we live in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Winning is having a Government that doesnt intentionally pit people against other people because of how they were born. If that's sad, you're on the evil side.
> 
> They can think I'm wrong all day, and consider themselves no different than me.
> 
> But there is one right, and one wrong.
Click to expand...


Liberal government intentionally pits people against each other every day.  I'm guessing you're an Obama fan, do you critisize him for pitting blacks against whites, poor against rich?

This argument could have been over years ago when it was all about 'civil rights' and 'equality under the law'.  Civil unions could have been instituted and marriage left to the church, but that wasn't good enough.  Gay groups were insistant on changing what marriage meant and shoving it down the throats of everyone, which is when I lost respect for their so called 'cause'.  I did have empathy for them at one time, not so much anymore.  Every gay person that I've talked about with this issue individually says that civil union isn't good enough, equality under the law isn't good enough.  So then just be honest about what the true agenda is and be done with it already.  Even if you change the definition of marriage, you cannot force a religious institution to bless it, you still will not change people's minds to accept it as normal.  So perhaps there will be 'victory' and satisfaction, but because of the way they went about it, it will be a hollow one in my opinion.  Making it legal, insisting it be called marriage will still not change the hearts and minds of those that thing it's wrong, it will not force acceptance.

If it's about equality and civil rights, pass civil union legislation and be done with it.


----------



## Newby

G.T. said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said "who's trying to legislate anything?"
> 
> As though nobody is out there trying to legislate against gay marriage. That's the part that was intentionally dishonest, because 1.5 seconds on google would have shown you different before posting the ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are doing that in reaction to gays trying to change the legislation to accommodate them first.   'Marriage' had a meaning and a definition in our society, and no one tried to legislate anything about that until gay people came along and demanded that the definition change to suit them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Marriages" definition and meaning, as you call it, is frivolous so-as to *not include *gay couples also, as they are a factual and (should be) equal under the Law portion of our society.
> 
> It's called society waking up. It's great.
> 
> *And the legislation out there is not just to ban them from marriage, but to prevent their civil union. Fact. *
Click to expand...


Their civil union should not be prevented, but that's not what they want.  If that's really all they wanted, this could have been put to rest years ago.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Newby said:


> They are doing that in reaction to gays trying to change the legislation to accommodate them first.   'Marriage' had a meaning and a definition in our society, and no one tried to legislate anything about that until gay people came along and demanded that the definition change to suit them.




And Equal Treatment under the law has a very specific meaning in our society.  It means that citizens can expect equal treatment by the government unless the government can demonstrate a compelling government interest in treating like situated groups differently.

The meaning of Civil Marriage is a function of law, and polls show a majority of citizens now support equal treatment for same-sex couples and as a result those laws are changing.  First they won in the court, then they won in the hearts and minds of the people as the issue was examined via public debate, then they won in the legislatures, and now they've won at the ballot box.

Just as society once defined "voter" to be white, male, landowner, that definition has evolved so that the right to choose rests with the individual and not the government, so is society changing so that the ability to Civilly Marry is moving towards resting with the individual and not the government.  If an individual today thinks that "Voter" should mean white, male, landowner they are free to choose not to vote if they are female (Asian, or renter).  If the individual feels that Civilly Marrying someone of the same sex is wrong, they are free to not Civilly Marry someone of the same sex.


>>>>


----------



## Newby

WorldWatcher said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are doing that in reaction to gays trying to change the legislation to accommodate them first.   'Marriage' had a meaning and a definition in our society, and no one tried to legislate anything about that until gay people came along and demanded that the definition change to suit them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Equal Treatment under the law has a very specific meaning in our society.  It means that citizens can expect equal treatment by the government unless the government can demonstrate a compelling government interest in treating like situated groups differently.
> 
> The meaning of Civil Marriage is a function of law, and polls show a majority of citizens now support equal treatment for same-sex couples and as a result those laws are changing.  First they won in the court, then they won in the hearts and minds of the people as the issue was examined via public debate, then they won in the legislatures, and now they've won at the ballot box.
> 
> Just as society once defined "voter" to be white, male, landowner, that definition has evolved so that the right to choose rests with the individual and not the government, so is society changing so that the ability to Civilly Marry is moving towards resting with the individual and not the government.  If an individual today thinks that "Voter" should mean white, male, landowner they are free to choose not to vote if they are female (Asian, or renter).  If the individual feels that Civilly Marrying someone of the same sex is wrong, they are free to not Civilly Marry someone of the same sex.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Then our tax code needs drastically changed.  I can give you a million ways people are not 'treated equally under the law', and I am for changing every single one of them so that everybody is treated equally.  That means equal taxation, equal service, equal entitlements, and on and on I could go.  So if we want to open that bag of tricks, that's fine with me.


----------



## G.T.

Newby said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> They think you are just as wrong.  Again, you're no different than they are, pushing your morals on others.  It's interesting that you see it as 'winning' though, what a sad world we live in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Winning is having a Government that doesnt intentionally pit people against other people because of how they were born. If that's sad, you're on the evil side.
> 
> They can think I'm wrong all day, and consider themselves no different than me.
> 
> But there is one right, and one wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberal government intentionally pits people against each other every day.  I'm guessing you're an Obama fan, do you critisize him for pitting blacks against whites, poor against rich?
> 
> This argument could have been over years ago when it was all about 'civil rights' and 'equality under the law'.  Civil unions could have been instituted and marriage left to the church, but that wasn't good enough.  Gay groups were insistant on changing what marriage meant and shoving it down the throats of everyone, which is when I lost respect for their so called 'cause'.  I did have empathy for them at one time, not so much anymore.  Every gay person that I've talked about with this issue individually says that civil union isn't good enough, equality under the law isn't good enough.  So then just be honest about what the true agenda is and be done with it already.  Even if you change the definition of marriage, you cannot force a religious institution to bless it, you still will not change people's minds to accept it as normal.  So perhaps there will be 'victory' and satisfaction, but because of the way they went about it, it will be a hollow one in my opinion.  Making it legal, insisting it be called marriage will still not change the hearts and minds of those that thing it's wrong, it will not force acceptance.
> 
> If it's about equality and civil rights, pass civil union legislation and be done with it.
Click to expand...


1st sentence: Hyperbole. 

I'm not an Obama "fan." Point one.

Point two:

He's not pitting rich versus poor by stating the way things are. That's just called a reality check. It is a fact, not an opinion, that the Wealthy are eating up a larger share of the Nation's wealth than ever before, versus the poor and middle class which are remaining relatively stagnant. Calling POINTING THAT OUT, "class warfare" has been hyperbole all along and it appears you bought into it. I don't do news media spin, it's childish and it insults your intelligence. 

Coincidentally, under Obama corporate profits are at all time highs, and he's also hired many CEO's and rich Wallstreet people onto his Administration. Some "War" he's supposedly fighting. 


As far as your long-winded jaded paragraph about what you perceive the gay groups have been doing --------------- I'd say that you have just admitted to letting emotion cloud your judgement of what is right versus what is wrong and are no longer really capable of issuing a fair assessment. You admitted that you supported the plight for civil unions, and that just because a group did something distasteful (in your opinion) you then "change your mind" and no longer support them. That's emotion clouding judgement, morals even. 

And society will accept it as normal, it's already shifting that way so your statement that it won't is on the wrong side of the trend graphs.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Newby said:


> Liberal government intentionally pits people against each other every day.



Speaking as a Republican and not a liberal, it's not just the liberals.

For example, each Republican was basically forced by social authoritarians to pledged to support and move forward on a United States Constitutional Amendment to ban Same-sex Civil Marriages in this country.

That's just as divisive with the intention to pit people against each other as the stuff the liberals pull.

There are no clean hands from the politicians on this, the both promote divisiveness in an attempt to garner votes from what they perceive as their "base".


>>>>


----------



## Truthmatters

why do republicans seek to legislate who can love who and why?


----------



## G.T.

Newby said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are doing that in reaction to gays trying to change the legislation to accommodate them first.   'Marriage' had a meaning and a definition in our society, and no one tried to legislate anything about that until gay people came along and demanded that the definition change to suit them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Marriages" definition and meaning, as you call it, is frivolous so-as to *not include *gay couples also, as they are a factual and (should be) equal under the Law portion of our society.
> 
> It's called society waking up. It's great.
> 
> *And the legislation out there is not just to ban them from marriage, but to prevent their civil union. Fact. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their civil union should not be prevented, but that's not what they want.  If that's really all they wanted, this could have been put to rest years ago.
Click to expand...


Wrong, there are legislators that have proposed blocking civil unions. 

Can't have your own facts.


----------



## Truthmatters

WorldWatcher said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal government intentionally pits people against each other every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking as a Republican and not a liberal, it's not just the liberals.
> 
> For example, each Republican was basically forced by social authoritarians to pledged to support and move forward on a United States Constitutional Amendment to ban Same-sex Civil Marriages in this country.
> 
> That's just as divisive with the intention to pit people against each other as the stuff the liberals pull.
> 
> There are no clean hands from the politicians on this, the both promote divisiveness in an attempt to garner votes from what they perceive as their "base".
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...




could you flesh out this theory by telling what the democratic party does to devide people?


----------



## Truthmatters

G.T. said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Marriages" definition and meaning, as you call it, is frivolous so-as to *not include *gay couples also, as they are a factual and (should be) equal under the Law portion of our society.
> 
> It's called society waking up. It's great.
> 
> *And the legislation out there is not just to ban them from marriage, but to prevent their civil union. Fact. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their civil union should not be prevented, but that's not what they want.  If that's really all they wanted, this could have been put to rest years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, there are legislators that have proposed blocking civil unions.
> 
> Can't have your own facts.
Click to expand...


it doesnt stop them from doing it


----------



## G.T.

Truthmatters said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal government intentionally pits people against each other every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking as a Republican and not a liberal, it's not just the liberals.
> 
> For example, each Republican was basically forced by social authoritarians to pledged to support and move forward on a United States Constitutional Amendment to ban Same-sex Civil Marriages in this country.
> 
> That's just as divisive with the intention to pit people against each other as the stuff the liberals pull.
> 
> There are no clean hands from the politicians on this, the both promote divisiveness in an attempt to garner votes from what they perceive as their "base".
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> could you flesh out this theory by telling what the democratic party does to devide people?
Click to expand...


Dont pretend both sides don't do this, it's not a winning case.


----------



## Si modo

Truthmatters said:


> why do republicans seek to legislate who can love who and why?


Ask Clinton.  His signature is on DOMA and DADT.


----------



## Avorysuds

why is this in politics?


----------



## WorldWatcher

Newby said:


> Then our tax code needs drastically changed.



I don't disagree with you there, I'd scrap the whole monstrosity and go with a flat tax so that everyone has skin in the game.  When the 47% were to actually pay income tax, then they might be interesting in how the government spends our money. 



Newby said:


> I can give you a million ways people are not 'treated equally under the law', and I am for changing every single one of them so that everybody is treated equally.  That means equal taxation, equal service, equal entitlements, and on and on I could go.  So if we want to open that bag of tricks, that's fine with me.



The requirement isn't that everyone be treated equally, the requirement is equal treatment unless the government can demonstrate a compelling government interest as to why such unequal treatment is justified.  The first amendment then provides that if the the government is treating people unequally that they can then bring grievance against the government to force them to justify such treatment between like situated groups.

To date there has been no compelling interest for treating like situated couples differently in terms of Civil Marriage.  Those like situated couples being law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-family, consenting, adults in different-sex couples whose Civil Marriage is recognized by all 50 states and the federal government and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-family, consenting, adults in different-sex couples whose Civil Marriage is not recognized by 40 states and the federal government.


>>>>


----------



## The Rabbi

Seawytch said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I get the feeling you thought the 13th Amendment was a bad idea, much less the labor movement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fucking idiot. I am more for individual rights that any of you fucking sheep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, your boss is probalby more likely to be a homophobe. As I said, I had a co-worker who got fired because she brought her life-partner to the company Holiday party.  What makes him fire people for homophobia openly expressed is the fact people can sue for discrimination.  Same reason sexual harrassment isn't tolerated.
> 
> It isn't like the Douchebags will be decent human beings on their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it could have been proven that a person was fired merely for being gay then that employee should have sued.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is legal to fire someone simply for being gay in over half the states.
Click to expand...


It's a problem.  It ought to be legal in all states.


----------



## Papageorgio

Coloradomtnman said:


> get_involved said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion. I have the right NOT to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit that you're intolerant.  And not just intolerant of an individual, but of an entire group of people.
> 
> At least you had the balls to admit it, unlike many of your conservative compatriots.
Click to expand...


I find intolerance on both the left and the right and neither side will admit it. So I don't see your point other than to take a jab at group of people that you are not tolerant of.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Truthmatters said:


> why do republicans seek to legislate who can love who and why?



Many of us don't.

That is more a symptom of social authoritarians then it is Republicans.  While many social authoritarians are Republican, not all Republicans are social authoritarians.  And our numbers are growing, even within the Republican party.


>>>>


----------



## G.T.

WorldWatcher said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then our tax code needs drastically changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with you there, I'd scrap the whole monstrosity and go with a flat tax so that everyone has skin in the game.  When the 47% were to actually pay income tax, then they might be interesting in how the government spends our money.
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can give you a million ways people are not 'treated equally under the law', and I am for changing every single one of them so that everybody is treated equally.  That means equal taxation, equal service, equal entitlements, and on and on I could go.  So if we want to open that bag of tricks, that's fine with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The requirement isn't that everyone be treated equally, the requirement is equal treatment unless the government can demonstrate a compelling government interest as to why such unequal treatment is justified.  The first amendment then provides that if the the government is treating people unequally that they can then bring grievance against the government to force them to justify such treatment between like situated groups.
> 
> To date there has been no compelling interest for treating like situated couples differently in terms of Civil Marriage.  Those like situated couples being law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-family, consenting, adults in different-sex couples whose Civil Marriage is recognized by all 50 states and the federal government and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-family, consenting, adults in different-sex couples whose Civil Marriage is not recognized by 40 states and the federal government.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


Do you think people living off of social security should have their income Taxed?


----------



## Truthmatters

Si modo said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do republicans seek to legislate who can love who and why?
> 
> 
> 
> Ask Clinton.  His signature is on DOMA and DADT.
Click to expand...


Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Legislative history



Introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 3396 by Bob Barr on May 7, 1996
 Committee consideration by: Committee on the Judiciary (Subcommittee on the Constitution)
 Passed the House on July 12, 1996 (Yeas: 342; Nays: 67)
 Passed the Senate on September 10, 1996 (Yeas: 85; Nays: 14)
 Signed into law by President Clinton on September 21, 1996

this is why




he tried to do what the people seemed to want.


We have come along way and this stupid postion is no longer plauging the American people.


The kids have taught their parents about how wrong it was


----------



## Truthmatters

I was against keeping gays from marrying since i was old enough to understand what gay was.


----------



## mudwhistle

SniperFire said:


> eeeewwww.
> 
> 
> 
> A fag thread.



Yup. We have all of the hot-button issues beginning to surface. 

We hate gays because we don't agree with their definition of what a marriage is. 

We hate women because we won't give them free birth control. 

We must hate children now cuz we support the second amendment. 

See how it works?


Really, Obama is just a guy who farts in an elevator and gets off on the second floor leaving everyone else to deal with the smell. He doesn't give damn what his comments lead to or where the public takes it. He just sets it in motion and the media continues the storyline. 2 days from now he'll be sunning himself on a beach on Oahu. He could care less what happens. 

And it pains me to bring Obama up all of the time but I see nothing he's done here that solves anything. He's merely driving a wedge between us and in the process trying to marginalize his political opponents thru the power of a corrupt state run media.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Truthmatters said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal government intentionally pits people against each other every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking as a Republican and not a liberal, it's not just the liberals.
> 
> For example, each Republican was basically forced by social authoritarians to pledged to support and move forward on a United States Constitutional Amendment to ban Same-sex Civil Marriages in this country.
> 
> That's just as divisive with the intention to pit people against each other as the stuff the liberals pull.
> 
> There are no clean hands from the politicians on this, the both promote divisiveness in an attempt to garner votes from what they perceive as their "base".
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> could you flesh out this theory by telling what the democratic party does to devide people?
Click to expand...



One of he biggies, in my personal opinion, is class warfare.  It's the "poor" against the "rich" as a means of garnering votes, knowing of course that there are many more "poor" voters then there are "rich" voters.


>>>>


----------



## Sunni Man

WorldWatcher said:


> That is more a symptom of social authoritarians then it is Republicans.  While many social authoritarians are Republican, not all Republicans are social authoritarians.  And our numbers are growing, even within the Republican party.


These so called republicans are referred to as RINO'S


----------



## Si modo

Truthmatters said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do republicans seek to legislate who can love who and why?
> 
> 
> 
> Ask Clinton.  His signature is on DOMA and DADT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Legislative history
> 
> 
> 
> Introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 3396 by Bob Barr on May 7, 1996
> Committee consideration by: Committee on the Judiciary (Subcommittee on the Constitution)
> Passed the House on July 12, 1996 (Yeas: 342; Nays: 67)
> Passed the Senate on September 10, 1996 (Yeas: 85; Nays: 14)
> Signed into law by President Clinton on September 21, 1996
> 
> this is why
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he tried to do what the people seemed to want.
> 
> 
> We have come along way and this stupid postion is no longer plauging the American people.
> 
> 
> The kids have taught their parents about how wrong it was
Click to expand...

So, you think Bill Clinton is a Republican?


----------



## WorldWatcher

G.T. said:


> Do you think people living off of social security should have their income Taxed?



IMHO, if I were designing the program, I'd reduce Social Security benefits to account for the "tax" portion and then make the remainder "tax free" - I see no logic in the government cutting you a check and then you having to turn around and having to pay it back as taxes.

Now, that applies only to social security and I see it as a cost saving measure because you thereby reduce the overhead and administration both for the Social Security Administration (who has to take the taxes out) and the IRS who has to process the return at the end of the year.  Eliminate the back and forth and there will be some cost savings.

That of course would not apply to other sources of income that retires would have.


*************************

Personally I'd change the very definition of "income" so that it wasn't just wages/salaries but would include all sources (such as investments) and then apply equal taxation to all sources.  There wouldn't be separate "income" rates and "capital gains rates", it's all income and should be counted as such.


>>>>


----------



## Capstone

WorldWatcher said:


> [...] While many social authoritarians are Republican, not all Republicans are social authoritarians.  And our numbers are growing, even within the Republican party.



I look forward to mocking the antisocial authoritarianism of the _new_ GOP.


----------



## Colin

Sunni Man said:


> No other species has members of it's group engaged in packing each others fudge.



Never heard of a stool pigeon?


----------



## hazlnut

Avorysuds said:


> why is this in politics?



Because idiot Social Cons have brought their homophobic bigotry to DC.

If they would either come out of the closet or learn some real Christian tolerance, then we'd be okay.


----------



## Newby

G.T. said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Winning is having a Government that doesnt intentionally pit people against other people because of how they were born. If that's sad, you're on the evil side.
> 
> They can think I'm wrong all day, and consider themselves no different than me.
> 
> But there is one right, and one wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal government intentionally pits people against each other every day.  I'm guessing you're an Obama fan, do you critisize him for pitting blacks against whites, poor against rich?
> 
> This argument could have been over years ago when it was all about 'civil rights' and 'equality under the law'.  Civil unions could have been instituted and marriage left to the church, but that wasn't good enough.  Gay groups were insistant on changing what marriage meant and shoving it down the throats of everyone, which is when I lost respect for their so called 'cause'.  I did have empathy for them at one time, not so much anymore.  Every gay person that I've talked about with this issue individually says that civil union isn't good enough, equality under the law isn't good enough.  So then just be honest about what the true agenda is and be done with it already.  Even if you change the definition of marriage, you cannot force a religious institution to bless it, you still will not change people's minds to accept it as normal.  So perhaps there will be 'victory' and satisfaction, but because of the way they went about it, it will be a hollow one in my opinion.  Making it legal, insisting it be called marriage will still not change the hearts and minds of those that thing it's wrong, it will not force acceptance.
> 
> If it's about equality and civil rights, pass civil union legislation and be done with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1st sentence: Hyperbole.
> 
> I'm not an Obama "fan." Point one.
> 
> Point two:
> 
> He's not pitting rich versus poor by stating the way things are. That's just called a reality check. It is a fact, not an opinion, that the Wealthy are eating up a larger share of the Nation's wealth than ever before, versus the poor and middle class which are remaining relatively stagnant. Calling POINTING THAT OUT, "class warfare" has been hyperbole all along and it appears you bought into it. I don't do news media spin, it's childish and it insults your intelligence.
> 
> Coincidentally, under Obama corporate profits are at all time highs, and he's also hired many CEO's and rich Wallstreet people onto his Administration. Some "War" he's supposedly fighting.
Click to expand...


He absolutely is waging a verbal class war and his little minions fall for it hook, line and sinker.  What he does versus what he says are two different things.  He's one of the biggest hypocrits on the planet.  I don't need the media to tell me anything, they're right up there with him pushing it out there, telling the unwashed masses that what their neighbors have came at their expense and that they're owed something for it somehow.  It's disgusting.






> As far as your long-winded jaded paragraph about what you perceive the gay groups have been doing --------------- I'd say that you have just admitted to letting emotion cloud your judgement of what is right versus what is wrong and are no longer really capable of issuing a fair assessment. You admitted that you supported the plight for civil unions, and that just because a group did something distasteful (in your opinion) you then "change your mind" and no longer support them. That's emotion clouding judgement, morals even.
> 
> And society will accept it as normal, it's already shifting that way so your statement that it won't is on the wrong side of the trend graphs.



There's nothing emotional or personal about it, I have no emotional buy in one way or the other on this topic, but I would guess that you do.  I still think they should have the legal civil union, but that's not good enough, I've been told that by gay people repeatedly.  So when they're serious and honest about what they want, then I would change my mind about what their true agenda is.  I'm just not seeing it.

It's not normal for two people of the same sex to be attracted to each other, it's statistically an anomoly and goes against what biology and nature intended. Do I think people should be treated differently or with bigotry because of it?  No, I don't.  But I'm not going to insist that it's normal either.  You're the emotional person in this discussion, not me.


----------



## Katzndogz

There are a lot of "natural" behaviors shared by animals.   In no species of animal is such behavior normal.      Obviously if homosexuality were normal behavior in a particular species, that species would never have survived.    What is postulated is that homosexual behavior is natural so therefore it is normal.   That's not at all the case.  It is abnormal no matter what the species.

Further, in no species of animal other than human do they engage in anal intercourse.   In mating season and no available mate, many species will engage in masturbation, but no anal intercourse.

Perhaps the most well known case of homosexuality among animals were the two male penguins who nested together and even gathered stones to sit upon as if they were eggs.   As it turned out, as soon as a female became available to one of the penguins he nested and mated with her leaving the other penguin.   Soon thereafter, the remaining penguin found a mate also.   Homosexual behavior wasn't normal or natural but merely situational.   

Situational homosexuality might be both normal and natural.   Many animals will engage in homosexual behavior (not including intercourse) when otherwise deprived of a mate.   Not unlike prisoners who are confined among those of the same sex without access to the opposite sex.   Homosexual behavior among prisoners is natural, but not normal since once the individuals are no longer confined they no longer engage in homosexual behavior.   In many species of animal a male that attempts to engage in homosexual behavior with another male might be killed for his harassment.   This is both a natural and a normal animal behavior, it is not acceptable among humans.   Should it be?   If we are going to make the claim that since animals do it and it is natural, is this something that should be natural to humans too.    Animals are particularly intolerant.  Differences are not accepted.  They are banished from the group and must either find a new group or learn to live on their own as the rogue lion or lone wolf.  This is both normal and natural behavior in dealing with animals that might be born into the pack or pride but exhibits some difference that makes them unacceptable.   

Do you even understand the difference between the terms normal and natural?


----------



## Newby

mudwhistle said:


> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> eeeewwww.
> 
> 
> 
> A fag thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. We have all of the hot-button issues beginning to surface.
> 
> We hate gays because we don't agree with their definition of what a marriage is.
> 
> We hate women because we won't give them free birth control.
> 
> We must hate children now cuz we support the second amendment.
> 
> See how it works?
> 
> 
> Really, Obama is just a guy who farts in an elevator and gets off on the second floor leaving everyone else to deal with the smell. He doesn't give damn what his comments lead to or where the public takes it. He just sets it in motion and the media continues the storyline. 2 days from now he'll be sunning himself on a beach on Oahu. He could care less what happens.
> 
> And it pains me to bring Obama up all of the time but I see nothing he's done here that solves anything. He's merely driving a wedge between us and in the process trying to marginalize his political opponents thru the power of a corrupt state run media.
Click to expand...


  excellent post..


----------



## G.T.

Newby said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal government intentionally pits people against each other every day.  I'm guessing you're an Obama fan, do you critisize him for pitting blacks against whites, poor against rich?
> 
> This argument could have been over years ago when it was all about 'civil rights' and 'equality under the law'.  Civil unions could have been instituted and marriage left to the church, but that wasn't good enough.  Gay groups were insistant on changing what marriage meant and shoving it down the throats of everyone, which is when I lost respect for their so called 'cause'.  I did have empathy for them at one time, not so much anymore.  Every gay person that I've talked about with this issue individually says that civil union isn't good enough, equality under the law isn't good enough.  So then just be honest about what the true agenda is and be done with it already.  Even if you change the definition of marriage, you cannot force a religious institution to bless it, you still will not change people's minds to accept it as normal.  So perhaps there will be 'victory' and satisfaction, but because of the way they went about it, it will be a hollow one in my opinion.  Making it legal, insisting it be called marriage will still not change the hearts and minds of those that thing it's wrong, it will not force acceptance.
> 
> If it's about equality and civil rights, pass civil union legislation and be done with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1st sentence: Hyperbole.
> 
> I'm not an Obama "fan." Point one.
> 
> Point two:
> 
> He's not pitting rich versus poor by stating the way things are. That's just called a reality check. It is a fact, not an opinion, that the Wealthy are eating up a larger share of the Nation's wealth than ever before, versus the poor and middle class which are remaining relatively stagnant. Calling POINTING THAT OUT, "class warfare" has been hyperbole all along and it appears you bought into it. I don't do news media spin, it's childish and it insults your intelligence.
> 
> Coincidentally, under Obama corporate profits are at all time highs, and he's also hired many CEO's and rich Wallstreet people onto his Administration. Some "War" he's supposedly fighting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He absolutely is waging a verbal class war and his little minions fall for it hook, line and sinker.  What he does versus what he says are two different things.  He's one of the biggest hypocrits on the planet.  I don't need the media to tell me anything, they're right up there with him pushing it out there, telling the unwashed masses that what their neighbors have came at their expense and that they're owed something for it somehow.  It's disgusting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as your long-winded jaded paragraph about what you perceive the gay groups have been doing --------------- I'd say that you have just admitted to letting emotion cloud your judgement of what is right versus what is wrong and are no longer really capable of issuing a fair assessment. You admitted that you supported the plight for civil unions, and that just because a group did something distasteful (in your opinion) you then "change your mind" and no longer support them. That's emotion clouding judgement, morals even.
> 
> And society will accept it as normal, it's already shifting that way so your statement that it won't is on the wrong side of the trend graphs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's nothing emotional or personal about it, I have no emotional buy in one way or the other on this topic, but I would guess that you do.  I still think they should have the legal civil union, but that's not good enough, I've been told that by gay people repeatedly.  So when they're serious and honest about what they want, then I would change my mind about what their true agenda is.  I'm just not seeing it.
> 
> It's not normal for two people of the same sex to be attracted to each other, it's statistically an anomoly and goes against what biology and nature intended. Do I think people should be treated differently or with bigotry because of it?  No, I don't.  But I'm not going to insist that it's normal either.  You're the emotional person in this discussion, not me.
Click to expand...


You just said in your last paragraph save the last sentence everything I've been saying already, all along. They shouldnt be treated different or with bigotry. Those were my thoughts that you jumped on. Way to kill some time, but keep it real - thats about all you did. 

Not appreciated.


----------



## ba1614

I think it's a disease, put whatever name on it you will.


----------



## Truthmatters

ba1614 said:


> I think it's a disease, put whatever name on it you will.



and why?

because you hate science and dont like facts


----------



## hazlnut

get_involved said:


> If you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion. I have the right NOT to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.



Homophobia is a clinical term that applies to people who hold intolerant views/opinions against homosexuality.  They have an irrational fear/anxiety of homosexuality.  Their prejudice comes from their own insecurities, not from something rational or logical.

Do you have an "opinion" about left-handed people?

Do you think by being taught tolerance of left-handed people, your children may start writing with their left hand?

Many irrational fears and beliefs come from religious mythologies and stories.  It's important to put those in proper historical context.

For instance, following some of the tribal laws and traditions found in the bible would be seen as barbaric and also get you arrested in charged for murder.


----------



## Newby

G.T. said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1st sentence: Hyperbole.
> 
> I'm not an Obama "fan." Point one.
> 
> Point two:
> 
> He's not pitting rich versus poor by stating the way things are. That's just called a reality check. It is a fact, not an opinion, that the Wealthy are eating up a larger share of the Nation's wealth than ever before, versus the poor and middle class which are remaining relatively stagnant. Calling POINTING THAT OUT, "class warfare" has been hyperbole all along and it appears you bought into it. I don't do news media spin, it's childish and it insults your intelligence.
> 
> Coincidentally, under Obama corporate profits are at all time highs, and he's also hired many CEO's and rich Wallstreet people onto his Administration. Some "War" he's supposedly fighting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He absolutely is waging a verbal class war and his little minions fall for it hook, line and sinker.  What he does versus what he says are two different things.  He's one of the biggest hypocrits on the planet.  I don't need the media to tell me anything, they're right up there with him pushing it out there, telling the unwashed masses that what their neighbors have came at their expense and that they're owed something for it somehow.  It's disgusting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as your long-winded jaded paragraph about what you perceive the gay groups have been doing --------------- I'd say that you have just admitted to letting emotion cloud your judgement of what is right versus what is wrong and are no longer really capable of issuing a fair assessment. You admitted that you supported the plight for civil unions, and that just because a group did something distasteful (in your opinion) you then "change your mind" and no longer support them. That's emotion clouding judgement, morals even.
> 
> And society will accept it as normal, it's already shifting that way so your statement that it won't is on the wrong side of the trend graphs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's nothing emotional or personal about it, I have no emotional buy in one way or the other on this topic, but I would guess that you do.  I still think they should have the legal civil union, but that's not good enough, I've been told that by gay people repeatedly.  So when they're serious and honest about what they want, then I would change my mind about what their true agenda is.  I'm just not seeing it.
> 
> It's not normal for two people of the same sex to be attracted to each other, it's statistically an anomoly and goes against what biology and nature intended. Do I think people should be treated differently or with bigotry because of it?  No, I don't.  But I'm not going to insist that it's normal either.  You're the emotional person in this discussion, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just said in your last paragraph save the last sentence everything I've been saying already, all along. They shouldnt be treated different or with bigotry. Those were my thoughts that you jumped on. Way to kill some time, but keep it real - thats about all you did.
> 
> Not appreciated.
Click to expand...


No, you've said much more than that, but whatever makes you happy.  I don't call people who find homosexuality distateful bigots or jusge them for how they feel.


----------



## mudwhistle

WorldWatcher said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think people living off of social security should have their income Taxed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO, if I were designing the program, I'd reduce Social Security benefits to account for the "tax" portion and then make the remainder "tax free" - I see no logic in the government cutting you a check and then you having to turn around and having to pay it back as taxes.
> 
> Now, that applies only to social security and I see it as a cost saving measure because you thereby reduce the overhead and administration both for the Social Security Administration (who has to take the taxes out) and the IRS who has to process the return at the end of the year.  Eliminate the back and forth and there will be some cost savings.
> 
> That of course would not apply to other sources of income that retires would have.
> 
> 
> *************************
> 
> Personally I'd change the very definition of "income" so that it wasn't just wages/salaries but would include all sources (such as investments) and then apply equal taxation to all sources.  There wouldn't be separate "income" rates and "capital gains rates", it's all income and should be counted as such.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


I thought it was a bit strange when I got my first military paycheck and saw they were taking out taxes. They tax tax money. Only time they don't is when you're in a war zone that has been declared tax-free. Somalia never was but Kuwait still is to this day far as I know. 

This just proves that politics is silly. Every law seems to be in reaction to a perceived public need. Vote-buying by definition.


----------



## Sunni Man

Homosexuality is a form of mental illness...........


----------



## Si modo

hazlnut said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> 
> why is this in politics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because idiot Social Cons have brought their homophobic bigotry to DC.
> 
> ....
Click to expand...

Like Bill Clinton with DOMA and DADT.


----------



## mjollnir

Sunni Man said:


> Homosexuality is a form of mental illness...........



How long have you been in treatment?


----------



## Papageorgio

JoeB131 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> You can be a bigot on your own time no one is stopping you. When you are in the workplace you are on someone else's property and when you are on the clock your employer has every right to set conduct standards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I get the feeling you thought the 13th Amendment was a bad idea, much less the labor movement?
> 
> Fact is, your boss is probalby more likely to be a homophobe. As I said, I had a co-worker who got fired because she brought her life-partner to the company Holiday party.  What makes him fire people for homophobia openly expressed is the fact people can sue for discrimination.  Same reason sexual harrassment isn't tolerated.
> 
> It isn't like the Douchebags will be decent human beings on their own.
Click to expand...


I doubt you ever were a decent human being, your intolerance to others makes you the douchebag, you talk about.


----------



## hazlnut

Si modo said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> 
> why is this in politics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because idiot Social Cons have brought their homophobic bigotry to DC.
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like Bill Clinton with DOMA and DADT.
Click to expand...


Didn't you get my PM?

Your irrelevant and ignorant posts only bring ridicule and embarrassment upon yourself.


----------



## Newby

hazlnut said:


> get_involved said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion. I have the right NOT to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homophobia is a clinical term that applies to people who hold intolerant views/opinions against homosexuality.  They have an irrational fear/anxiety of homosexuality.  Their prejudice comes from their own insecurities, not from something rational or logical.
> 
> Do you have an "opinion" about left-handed people?
> 
> Do you think by being taught tolerance of left-handed people, your children may start writing with their left hand?
> 
> *Many irrational fears and beliefs come from religious *mythologies and stories.  It's important to put those in proper historical context.
> 
> For instance, following some of the tribal laws and traditions found in the bible would be seen as barbaric and also get you arrested in charged for murder.
Click to expand...


And in my opinion, this is really what it's all about, attacking religion in any way possible.


----------



## Truthmatters

WorldWatcher said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking as a Republican and not a liberal, it's not just the liberals.
> 
> For example, each Republican was basically forced by social authoritarians to pledged to support and move forward on a United States Constitutional Amendment to ban Same-sex Civil Marriages in this country.
> 
> That's just as divisive with the intention to pit people against each other as the stuff the liberals pull.
> 
> There are no clean hands from the politicians on this, the both promote divisiveness in an attempt to garner votes from what they perceive as their "base".
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> could you flesh out this theory by telling what the democratic party does to devide people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One of he biggies, in my personal opinion, is class warfare.  It's the "poor" against the "rich" as a means of garnering votes, knowing of course that there are many more "poor" voters then there are "rich" voters.
> 
> 
> >>>>
Click to expand...


OK that is one you claim.

remember you said they do it all the time.

ON WHAT ELSE?

oh BTW have you seen any information on the wealth dispoarity in this country?

dude Its the rich who have screwed this country up (banks fucking us out of our homes, income shrinking, CEO mad because master dergee holders in the US dont want to work for 10 and hour and importing them from other countries who will and more and more).


the people doing the dividing are the wealthy dividing us from a future.


----------



## Newby

Si modo said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> 
> why is this in politics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because idiot Social Cons have brought their homophobic bigotry to DC.
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like Bill Clinton with DOMA and DADT.
Click to expand...


----------



## Truthmatters

Si modo said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask Clinton.  His signature is on DOMA and DADT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Legislative history
> 
> 
> 
> Introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 3396 by Bob Barr on May 7, 1996
> Committee consideration by: Committee on the Judiciary (Subcommittee on the Constitution)
> Passed the House on July 12, 1996 (Yeas: 342; Nays: 67)
> Passed the Senate on September 10, 1996 (Yeas: 85; Nays: 14)
> Signed into law by President Clinton on September 21, 1996
> 
> this is why
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he tried to do what the people seemed to want.
> 
> 
> We have come along way and this stupid postion is no longer plauging the American people.
> 
> 
> The kids have taught their parents about how wrong it was
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you think Bill Clinton is a Republican?
Click to expand...


I think he did what the American people were telling him to do at the time.

You know HIS JOB


----------



## Mr. Shaman

Sunni Man said:


> Homosexuality is a form of mental illness...........


Thinking, that way, makes it.....



> ....*more exciting*....​



....for you, does it*??*


​


----------



## Truthmatters

tea party fools what it there way NO matter  what the majority want


----------



## WorldWatcher

Truthmatters said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal government intentionally pits people against each other every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking as a Republican and not a liberal, it's not just the liberals.
> 
> For example, each Republican was basically forced by social authoritarians to pledged to support and move forward on a United States Constitutional Amendment to ban Same-sex Civil Marriages in this country.
> 
> That's just as divisive with the intention to pit people against each other as the stuff the liberals pull.
> 
> There are no clean hands from the politicians on this, the both promote divisiveness in an attempt to garner votes from what they perceive as their "base".
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> could you flesh out this theory by telling what the democratic party does to devide people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One of he biggies, in my personal opinion, is class warfare.  It's the "poor" against the "rich" as a means of garnering votes, knowing of course that there are many more "poor" voters then there are "rich" voters.
> 
> 
> >>>>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK that is one you claim.
> 
> remember you said they do it all the time.
> 
> ON WHAT ELSE?
> 
> oh BTW have you seen any information on the wealth dispoarity in this country?
> 
> dude Its the rich who have screwed this country up (banks fucking us out of our homes, income shrinking, CEO mad because master dergee holders in the US dont want to work for 10 and hour and importing them from other countries who will and more and more).
> 
> 
> the people doing the dividing are the wealthy dividing us from a future.
Click to expand...



Look above to see what I actually wrote, you will not find "all the time" in it.  You asked for an example and I provided one.

I said BOTH parties do it, just on different issues.


>>>>


----------



## Sunni Man

hazlnut said:


> Homophobia is a clinical term that applies to people who hold intolerant views/opinions against homosexuality.


Incorrect Poindexter; so called homophobia is Not a clinical term; and is Not list as such by the American Psychological Association.


----------



## Papageorgio

Newby said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> get_involved said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion. I have the right NOT to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homophobia is a clinical term that applies to people who hold intolerant views/opinions against homosexuality.  They have an irrational fear/anxiety of homosexuality.  Their prejudice comes from their own insecurities, not from something rational or logical.
> 
> Do you have an "opinion" about left-handed people?
> 
> Do you think by being taught tolerance of left-handed people, your children may start writing with their left hand?
> 
> *Many irrational fears and beliefs come from religious *mythologies and stories.  It's important to put those in proper historical context.
> 
> For instance, following some of the tribal laws and traditions found in the bible would be seen as barbaric and also get you arrested in charged for murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in my opinion, this is really what it's all about, attacking religion in any way possible.
Click to expand...


Another form of intolerance and bigotry, funny how they don't see it in themselves, they just justify their own bigoted beliefs.


----------



## Papageorgio

hazlnut said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because idiot Social Cons have brought their homophobic bigotry to DC.
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> Like Bill Clinton with DOMA and DADT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't you get my PM?
> 
> Your irrelevant and ignorant posts only bring ridicule and embarrassment upon yourself.
Click to expand...


Leftist intolerance by belittling those with opposing views?


----------



## varelse

Naturalistic fallacy - RationalWiki


----------



## Si modo

hazlnut said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because idiot Social Cons have brought their homophobic bigotry to DC.
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> Like Bill Clinton with DOMA and DADT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't you get my PM?
> 
> Your irrelevant and ignorant posts only bring ridicule and embarrassment upon yourself.
Click to expand...

Bill Clinton signed both DOMA and DADT.

I'm sorry that fact doesn't fit with your insanity.


----------



## GoneBezerk

You still can't force us to like you sucking cocks and having cocks jammed in your asshole. 

Oh yes....homos are as dumb as animals that eat their own shit, thanks for stating that with your little sign. Did you buy the supplies at Wal Mart????



hazlnut said:


>


----------



## ba1614

Truthmatters said:


> ba1614 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's a disease, put whatever name on it you will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and why?
> 
> because you hate science and dont like facts
Click to expand...


 The fact is that I think it's mental defect, you are free to think whatever the fuck you want.


----------



## Truthmatters

ba1614 said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ba1614 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's a disease, put whatever name on it you will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and why?
> 
> because you hate science and dont like facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that I think it's mental defect, you are free to think whatever the fuck you want.
Click to expand...


I think you confuse thinking with being a fact adverse asshole.

You see thinking involves actaully looking at all the evidence and coming to a logical conclusion.


you merely OBEY the false information you were taught as a child on the subject.

your being a fact adverse asshole an NOT thinking


----------



## SniperFire

Truthmatters said:


> ba1614 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> and why?
> 
> because you hate science and dont like facts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that I think it's mental defect, you are free to think whatever the fuck you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you confuse thinking with being a fact adverse asshole.
> 
> You see thinking involves actaully looking at all the evidence and coming to a logical conclusion.
> 
> 
> you merely OBEY the false information you were taught as a child on the subject.
> 
> your being a fact adverse asshole an NOT thinking
Click to expand...


They don't call it queer for nothing.


----------



## ba1614

Truthmatters said:


> ba1614 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> and why?
> 
> because you hate science and dont like facts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that I think it's mental defect, you are free to think whatever the fuck you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you confuse thinking with being a fact adverse asshole.
> 
> You see thinking involves actaully looking at all the evidence and coming to a logical conclusion.
> 
> 
> you merely OBEY the false information you were taught as a child on the subject.
> 
> your being a fact adverse asshole an NOT thinking
Click to expand...


 Fact adverse? I find the desire to pack it in another mans ass disgusting, and that is as factual as you will ever get.

 If you don't then enjoy, I don't give a fuck.


----------



## WillowTree

Coloradomtnman said:


> get_involved said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion. I have the right NOT to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit that you're intolerant.  And not just intolerant of an individual, but of an entire group of people.
> 
> At least you had the balls to admit it, unlike many of your conservative compatriots.
Click to expand...


He didn't say a word about tolerance boobbie


----------



## Si modo

Truthmatters said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Legislative history
> 
> 
> 
> Introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 3396 by Bob Barr on May 7, 1996
> Committee consideration by: Committee on the Judiciary (Subcommittee on the Constitution)
> Passed the House on July 12, 1996 (Yeas: 342; Nays: 67)
> Passed the Senate on September 10, 1996 (Yeas: 85; Nays: 14)
> Signed into law by President Clinton on September 21, 1996
> 
> this is why
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he tried to do what the people seemed to want.
> 
> 
> We have come along way and this stupid postion is no longer plauging the American people.
> 
> 
> The kids have taught their parents about how wrong it was
> 
> 
> 
> So, you think Bill Clinton is a Republican?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think he did what the American people were telling him to do at the time.
> 
> You know HIS JOB
Click to expand...

  So, when a Dem signs an act that discriminates against LGBTs, he's doing his job.  But, when a Republican does the same, he's being a bigot.


----------



## Truthmatters

Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Legislative history



Introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 3396 by Bob Barr on May 7, 1996
Committee consideration by: Committee on the Judiciary (Subcommittee on the Constitution)
Passed the House on July 12, 1996 (Yeas: 342; Nays: 67)
Passed the Senate on September 10, 1996 (Yeas: 85; Nays: 14)
Signed into law by President Clinton on September 21, 1996

this is why


Its what the country obviously wanted him to do.

Unlike how your guys just CRAMM shit down the people throaats because they have temporary power


----------



## GoneBezerk

According to liberals....you're a homophobe, "intolerant" if you don't support:

- gay bath houses that help spread HIV through unprotected sex with random strangers
- gay men in thongs parading down main street during gay pride parades
- gay couples adopting some heterosexual kid and forcing them into their lifestyle
- gay marriage being equal to normal marriage between a man and woman
- gay men trying to work in the "Boy" Scouts
- the gay lifestyle being pushed on kids in school through the curriculum


----------



## WillowTree

G.T. said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It must seethe to convey the distaste, or else they're not doing their job of Judgement and Bias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really not seeing you as being any less judgmental here, or is it that being judgmental right back is 'okay'?  The only non-judgmental person that ever lived on the planet was Jesus Christ.  He also said something about throwing stones at glass houses...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe in Jesus, and I am of course judging bigots for their bigotry. It is my job to hunt and face off with bullies. It's what I do. I hate bullies, so I became one to infiltrate their fortress and take it over with goodness.
Click to expand...


What do you mean you don't. Believe in Jesus? That's like saying I don't.  Believe in MLK


----------



## Katzndogz

If homosexuality were normal, then whatever species practiced homosexuality as normal behavior would have become extinct long ago.


----------



## daveman

Newby said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in Jesus, and I am of course judging bigots for their bigotry. It is my job to hunt and face off with bullies. It's what I do. I hate bullies, so I became one to infiltrate their fortress and take it over with goodness.
> 
> 
> 
> Does your criteria for judging bigots include the bigot's political leanings?  If not, can you show us where you've criticized leftists for their bigotry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their form of judgment is a-okay...   What's amusing to me is that liberals never see themselves as pushing their morals or beliefs on others, it's somehow different when they do it.  And if you don't accept what they want, then you're 'intolerant' or a 'bigot'.  You gotta give them kudos, they have this labeling down to a "T".   They now come across as more righteous than any religious person I know.
Click to expand...


You're a racist.

Right, USMB lefties?  You apply these spurious labels when you can't rationally defend your ideas.  This is inarguable.


----------



## WorldWatcher

Katzndogz said:


> If homosexuality were normal, then whatever species practiced homosexuality as normal behavior would have become extinct long ago.



You are confusing "normal" in the statistical sense with "natural" as in occurs in nature.

Normal in a statistical sense implies, IIRC from my statistics class, falling within 2 standard deviations from the average or "norm", that doesn't mean there are no outliers above and below the standard, it's a measure of population density within a given range.

You are correct, any species which has 100% homosexuality as applied to the population would become extinct, however singe homosexuality occurs outside the standards - then the population continues.



Interesting though, human are probably the first species on the plant to have developed to the point were that wouldn't necessarily be the case anymore.  Homosexual does not mean infertile - gay men have active sperm, lesbians have viable eggs.  Through technology - or even just the plane 'ol turkey baster - we have the ability to produce children even if 100% of the population were homosexual.


>>>>


----------



## G.T.

WillowTree said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really not seeing you as being any less judgmental here, or is it that being judgmental right back is 'okay'?  The only non-judgmental person that ever lived on the planet was Jesus Christ.  He also said something about throwing stones at glass houses...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in Jesus, and I am of course judging bigots for their bigotry. It is my job to hunt and face off with bullies. It's what I do. I hate bullies, so I became one to infiltrate their fortress and take it over with goodness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean you don't. Believe in Jesus? That's like saying I don't.  Believe in MLK
Click to expand...


No, MLK is on Video. 

It's not like saying that, at all.


----------



## daveman

G.T. said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> yea, go ahead and show me where I say "republicans are bad and retarded and liberals are great" like all of these other morons do, I'll wait ringside.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've done it in this very thread when referring to the 'they' out there who are bigoted for their beliefs and obviously go around calling gay people 'faggots', even though you were the only one to actually use the word in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can't see the bigotted comments (right off the jump) in this thread, in the form of childish insults, just because "faggot" wasn't used, then there's no help for you. Try reading some of the posts over, sniperfire will give you some great examples, so will sunniman.
> 
> And no, I didnt refer to Republicans as this or that in this thread at all. Wrong again.
Click to expand...


Here's a bigoted comment:


daveman said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's when you try to legislate away your "icky" feeling that the bigotry comes in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there's that....................and then there's the ridicule. faggot, blah blah blah. The ridicule and the legislative bias is being put down. The tide is turning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here, let me show you some leftist homophobia so you can properly condemn it:
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing closeted about you faggot.
> 
> You ask a straight man for a swallow..you get outted.
> 
> You are generally the first to bring up homo shit in any given thread.
> 
> Well there it is dick licker.
> 
> And beaten to a pulp? For what? Insulting your hero?
> 
> Doubtful.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Now's the perfect time for you to respond to this post that you ignored earlier (along with the one I just quoted):


daveman said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really not seeing you as being any less judgmental here, or is it that being judgmental right back is 'okay'?  The only non-judgmental person that ever lived on the planet was Jesus Christ.  He also said something about throwing stones at glass houses...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in Jesus, and I am of course judging bigots for their bigotry. It is my job to hunt and face off with bullies. It's what I do. I hate bullies, so I became one to infiltrate their fortress and take it over with goodness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does your criteria for judging bigots include the bigot's political leanings?  If not, can you show us where you've criticized leftists for their bigotry?
Click to expand...


----------



## G.T.

Daveman,

I dont respond to you because you're incessantly a douche to people. If you don't like it, I dunno.....cry?


----------



## daveman

daveman said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really not seeing you as being any less judgmental here, or is it that being judgmental right back is 'okay'?  The only non-judgmental person that ever lived on the planet was Jesus Christ.  He also said something about throwing stones at glass houses...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in Jesus, and I am of course judging bigots for their bigotry. It is my job to hunt and face off with bullies. It's what I do. I hate bullies, so I became one to infiltrate their fortress and take it over with goodness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does your criteria for judging bigots include the bigot's political leanings?  If not, can you show us where you've criticized leftists for their bigotry?
Click to expand...




daveman said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's when you try to legislate away your "icky" feeling that the bigotry comes in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there's that....................and then there's the ridicule. faggot, blah blah blah. The ridicule and the legislative bias is being put down. The tide is turning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here, let me show you some leftist homophobia so you can properly condemn it:
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing closeted about you faggot.
> 
> You ask a straight man for a swallow..you get outted.
> 
> You are generally the first to bring up homo shit in any given thread.
> 
> Well there it is dick licker.
> 
> And beaten to a pulp? For what? Insulting your hero?
> 
> Doubtful.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




G.T. said:


> Daveman,
> 
> I dont respond to you because you're incessantly a douche to people. If you don't like it, I dunno.....cry?



Oh, look:  Another spurious label because you can't rationally defend your hypocrisy.

We get it.  Your fellow lefties can do no wrong.  You're not the first idiot to operate with that thought defect.  

But it's amusing you think you have any credibility remaining.


----------



## hazlnut

Katzndogz said:


> If homosexuality were normal, then whatever species practiced homosexuality as normal behavior would have become extinct long ago.



Because if 10% of the species population is not likely to procreate, then.... well, the other 90% is still fuckin' like rabbits, so....


Don't you feel stupid?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Truthmatters said:


> Unlike how your guys just CRAMM shit down the people throaats because they have temporary power



You mean like Obammycare?


----------



## WorldWatcher

Skull Pilot said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike how your guys just CRAMM shit down the people throaats because they have temporary power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like Obammycare?
Click to expand...



And Republican's in Michigan attached an appropriation to the Right-To-Work to prevent the people from having the option of overturning it by referendum.

Both side do it when they think they are in the "right".


>>>>


----------



## hazlnut

Si modo said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you think Bill Clinton is a Republican?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think he did what the American people were telling him to do at the time.
> 
> You know HIS JOB
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, when a Dem signs an act that discriminates against LGBTs, he's doing his job.  But, when a Republican does the same, he's being a bigot.
Click to expand...


LOL -- flash forward 20 years to today....

Since behavioral scientists have come to the consensus that homosexuality is a hard-wired personality trait, what DEM has purposed an anti-gay bill?

Even tricky Dicky Cheney knows the truth, because his own daughter is a homosexual.

Sexual Orientation is NOT a choice.

Bigotry and homophobia IS a CHOICE.

That's the point of this thread.

Thank you for playing, but you're done in this thread.


----------



## Sunni Man

I really do wish that scientists would find a "homo gene".

If they did, I would be all for gay marriage and totally support the LGBT community.

And would be for all of them to be in long term homo relationships.

Mainly, because homos don't generally reproduce. 

Thus the "homo gene" would eventually be isolated from the gene pool, and gays would basically go extinct.

This would be a Win = Win situation; for both the gays, and the normal heterosexual people.


----------



## RightNorLeft

Bigot Homophobe just words used to try and intimidate anyone that disagrees with the gay agenda.
If your heterosexual you are not entitled to any opinion that homosexuals dont approve or they label you a bigot and a homophobe..well shit, im stuck having to live with a couple of labels that mean squat to me, Woes is me how will I ever survive it...<smirk>
  Im sick and tired of gays and their supporters  trying to bogart me...I garner no hatred for anyone and I was for much of what they were striving for...but their sarcasm and overbearing treatment of others has hardened me to all of it.
  Many non gay...gay cheerleaders strike me as total phonies...you know the type...the Some of  best friends are black as they call you a racist type of phony


----------



## mjollnir

Sunni Man said:


> I really do wish that scientists would find a "homo gene".
> 
> If they did, I would be all for gay marriage and totally support the LGBT community.
> 
> And would be for all of them to be in long term homo relationships.
> 
> Mainly, because homos don't generally reproduce.
> 
> Thus the "homo gene" would eventually be isolated from the gene pool, and gays would basically go extinct.
> 
> This would be a Win = Win situation; for both the gays, and the normal heterosexual people.



** Facepalm **

"Isolated from the gene pool"?  Really?

Homosexuals can only come from heterosexuals if it's genetic, you panting turd.

Don't try and talk about things you don't understand.   You just look like more of an idiot than you already do.


----------



## Sunni Man

Since _NO_ "homo gene" has ever been found or isolated by scientists.

That only leaves:

1) choice 

2) mental illness

3) combination of both 1 & 2


----------



## Skull Pilot

Sunni Man said:


> I really do wish that scientists would find a "homo gene".
> 
> If they did, I would be all for gay marriage and totally support the LGBT community.
> 
> And would be for all of them to be in long term homo relationships.
> 
> Mainly, because homos don't generally reproduce.
> 
> Thus the "homo gene" would eventually be isolated from the gene pool, and gays would basically go extinct.
> 
> This would be a Win = Win situation; for both the gays, and the normal heterosexual people.



Why do you care if it's a choice or genetic.  Whether or not someone is born gay or chooses to be gay has absolutely nothing to do with you.

For Christ's sake it's none of your fucking business anyway.

The simple fact is that all human behavior exists on a continuum and homosexuality is just part of that continuum.


----------



## mjollnir

Sunni Man said:


> Since _NO_ "homo gene" has ever been found or isolated by scientists.
> 
> That only leaves:
> 
> 1) choice
> 
> 2) mental illness
> 
> 3) combination of both 1 & 2



* Facepalm #2 *

And now you resort to a False Dilemma.

Thinking isn't your strong suit.  Please stop hurting yourself.


----------



## Sunni Man

^^^^^^ I see that you can't/won't address my question. 

So you must resort to personal attacks.

Great strategy..........


----------



## mjollnir

Sunni Man said:


> ^^^^^^ I see that you can't/won't address my question.
> 
> So you must resort to personal attacks.
> 
> Great strategy..........



The tripe that you posted that I responded to didn't contain any question.

Please be less stupid.


----------



## mudwhistle

I read the other day they isolated the gay receptors or chromosomes. 

Lesbians get it from Dad and Gay men get it from Mom.


----------



## Sunni Man

mudwhistle said:


> I read the other day they isolated the gay receptors or chromosomes.
> 
> Lesbians get it from Dad and Gay men get it from Mom.


----------



## G.T.

Sunni Man said:


> ^^^^^^ I see that you can't/won't address my question.
> 
> So you must resort to personal attacks.
> 
> Great strategy..........



Do you know what false dilemma means? He did answer your question. You'll know, once you look up false dilemma, and then take another look at your post.


----------



## Sunni Man

G.T. said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^ I see that you can't/won't address my question.
> 
> So you must resort to personal attacks.
> 
> Great strategy..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what false dilemma means? He did answer your question. You'll know, once you look up false dilemma, and then take another look at your post.
Click to expand...

If that's the best he can do; then that's the best he can do.

At least he tried............


----------



## G.T.

Sunni Man said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^ I see that you can't/won't address my question.
> 
> So you must resort to personal attacks.
> 
> Great strategy..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what false dilemma means? He did answer your question. You'll know, once you look up false dilemma, and then take another look at your post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's the best he can do; then that's the best he can do.
> 
> At least he tried............
Click to expand...


He got you bro. He got you.


----------



## Caroljo

mjollnir said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since _NO_ "homo gene" has ever been found or isolated by scientists.
> 
> That only leaves:
> 
> 1) choice
> 
> 2) mental illness
> 
> 3) combination of both 1 & 2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Facepalm #2 *
> 
> And now you resort to a False Dilemma.
> 
> Thinking isn't your strong suit.  Please stop hurting yourself.
Click to expand...


If there's no "gene" that makes a person gay....then what else would it be but choice? Or is it that you just feel like being an ass?  Besides, genes do skip generations!  Just because your parents weren't "gay", doesn't mean you wouldn't be....IF there was a gene.  But since they haven't found one (and I'm sure people have been trying to!!) then what else is it but a choice??


----------



## Caroljo

No he didn't.....it's either a gene or choice.  Prove there's a gene and you've proven your point.


----------



## mjollnir

Caroljo said:


> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since _NO_ "homo gene" has ever been found or isolated by scientists.
> 
> That only leaves:
> 
> 1) choice
> 
> 2) mental illness
> 
> 3) combination of both 1 & 2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Facepalm #2 *
> 
> And now you resort to a False Dilemma.
> 
> Thinking isn't your strong suit.  Please stop hurting yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's no "gene" that makes a person gay....then what else would it be but choice? Or is it that you just feel like being an ass?  Besides, genes do skip generations!  Just because your parents weren't "gay", doesn't mean you wouldn't be....IF there was a gene.  But since they haven't found one (and I'm sure people have been trying to!!) then what else is it but a choice??
Click to expand...


Go back and read what I actually posted.  Make sure to note my usage of the word 'if'.

It indicates something subjunctive and/or conditional.

Glad I could clear that up for you.


----------



## Caroljo

mudwhistle said:


> I read the other day they isolated the gay receptors or chromosomes.
> 
> Lesbians get it from Dad and Gay men get it from Mom.


----------



## RosieS

Sunni Man said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read the other day they isolated the gay receptors or chromosomes.
> 
> Lesbians get it from Dad and Gay men get it from Mom.
Click to expand...


K.

Epigenetics Is A Critical Factor In Homosexuality

Regards from Rosie


----------



## Si modo

hazlnut said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he did what the American people were telling him to do at the time.
> 
> You know HIS JOB
> 
> 
> 
> So, when a Dem signs an act that discriminates against LGBTs, he's doing his job.  But, when a Republican does the same, he's being a bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL -- flash forward 20 years to today....
> 
> Since behavioral scientists have come to the consensus that homosexuality is a hard-wired personality trait, what DEM has purposed an anti-gay bill?
> 
> Even tricky Dicky Cheney knows the truth, because his own daughter is a homosexual.
> 
> Sexual Orientation is NOT a choice.
> 
> Bigotry and homophobia IS a CHOICE.
> 
> That's the point of this thread.
> 
> Thank you for playing, but you're done in this thread.
Click to expand...

Homosexuality not being a lifestyle choice was already known when Bill Clinton signed DOMA and DADT.


----------



## Sunni Man

RosieS said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read the other day they isolated the gay receptors or chromosomes.
> 
> Lesbians get it from Dad and Gay men get it from Mom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> K.
> 
> Epigenetics Is A Critical Factor In Homosexuality
Click to expand...

The whole study and article is full of: "studies suggest, could be, plausible, seem to be, suggesting, etc."

And also includes this little gem;  "Although to date, _no gene for homosexuality has been found._ Therefore, studies continue to search for a genetic connection."


----------



## nitroz

get_involved said:


> If you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion. I have the right NOT to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.



Then you are just a dick.


----------



## JoeB131

Skull Pilot said:


> [
> 
> Yeah sure.  I believe that as much as I believe you were fired for being sick and not coming to work drunk.



Haven't taken a sick day in five years, but keep talking shit out of your mouth, it's all you're good for.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

hazlnut said:


>



There is no evidence that any species but humans are homosexual.

Unless, that is, you think dogs humping legs is proof that inter species sex is a product of natural selection.


----------



## RosieS

Sunni Man said:


> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K.
> 
> Epigenetics Is A Critical Factor In Homosexuality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The whole study and article is full of: "studies suggest, could be, plausible, seem to be, suggesting, etc."
> 
> And also includes this little gem;  "Although to date, _no gene for homosexuality has been found._ Therefore, studies continue to search for a genetic connection."
Click to expand...


That is the way scientific studies are referenced. If you are searching for a definitive " this gene is the cause" that is not gonna happen. There won't be a specific heterosexuality gene, either.

I read a recent article about advances in treating cystic fibrosis in which a pill has been developed to block the action of a genetic defect. Everyone they treated with the pill who has that defect is doing better. Improvement for 100%. But the article insists it is not a cure and more research needs to be done to ensure this new pill is safe and effective. Plus it doesn't work on the majority of CF sufferers that have a differing mutation causing their CF.

The human body and especially the brain is too complex for simplistic platitudes and science doesn't do that.

Regards from Rosie


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RosieS said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> 
> K.
> 
> Epigenetics Is A Critical Factor In Homosexuality
> 
> 
> 
> The whole study and article is full of: "studies suggest, could be, plausible, seem to be, suggesting, etc."
> 
> And also includes this little gem;  "Although to date, _no gene for homosexuality has been found._ Therefore, studies continue to search for a genetic connection."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the way scientific studies are referenced. If you are searching for a definitive " this gene is the cause" that is not gonna happen. There won't be a specific heterosexuality gene, either.
> 
> I read a recent article about advances in treating cystic fibrosis in which a pill has been developed to block the action of a genetic defect. Everyone they treated with the pill who has that defect is doing better. Improvement for 100%. But the article insists it is not a cure and more research needs to be done to ensure this new pill is safe and effective. Plus it doesn't work on the majority of CF sufferers that have a differing mutation causing their CF.
> 
> The human body and especially the brain is too complex for simplistic platitudes and science doesn't do that.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
Click to expand...


Here is a simplistic platitude that you will disagree with, science has conclusively proven that homosexuality is not genetic.


----------



## RosieS

Quantum Windbag said:


> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole study and article is full of: "studies suggest, could be, plausible, seem to be, suggesting, etc."
> 
> And also includes this little gem;  "Although to date, _no gene for homosexuality has been found._ Therefore, studies continue to search for a genetic connection."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the way scientific studies are referenced. If you are searching for a definitive " this gene is the cause" that is not gonna happen. There won't be a specific heterosexuality gene, either.
> 
> I read a recent article about advances in treating cystic fibrosis in which a pill has been developed to block the action of a genetic defect. Everyone they treated with the pill who has that defect is doing better. Improvement for 100%. But the article insists it is not a cure and more research needs to be done to ensure this new pill is safe and effective. Plus it doesn't work on the majority of CF sufferers that have a differing mutation causing their CF.
> 
> The human body and especially the brain is too complex for simplistic platitudes and science doesn't do that.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is a simplistic platitude that you will disagree with, science has conclusively proven
> that homosexuality is not genetic.
Click to expand...


Science is saying that if certain epigenetic markers may be passed on rather than erased; then this could be a cause of homosexuality.

If the preponderance of scientific evidences shows that epigenetic markers could cause homosexuality; then the scientific research community could
conclude that the cause of homosexuality is probably genetic.

Science advances - this is an undeniably true simplistic platitude.  Regards from Rosie


----------



## JoeB131

Quantum Windbag said:


> Here is a simplistic platitude that you will disagree with, science has conclusively proven that homosexuality is not genetic.



Actually, science has not proven anything conclusively on that score.   

Gay Men in Twin Study - NYTimes.com

Of course, the real problem is, neither side wants to go down the road of studying this too far. 

The Homophobes would never want to admit it's genetic, and gay folks themselves wouldn't want to find the gay gene and have those good christian parents suddenly forget why they hate abortion so much.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RosieS said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the way scientific studies are referenced. If you are searching for a definitive " this gene is the cause" that is not gonna happen. There won't be a specific heterosexuality gene, either.
> 
> I read a recent article about advances in treating cystic fibrosis in which a pill has been developed to block the action of a genetic defect. Everyone they treated with the pill who has that defect is doing better. Improvement for 100%. But the article insists it is not a cure and more research needs to be done to ensure this new pill is safe and effective. Plus it doesn't work on the majority of CF sufferers that have a differing mutation causing their CF.
> 
> The human body and especially the brain is too complex for simplistic platitudes and science doesn't do that.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a simplistic platitude that you will disagree with, science has conclusively proven
> that homosexuality is not genetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science is saying that if certain epigenetic markers may be passed on rather than erased; then this could be a cause of homosexuality.
> 
> If the preponderance of scientific evidences shows that epigenetic markers could cause homosexuality; then the scientific research community could
> conclude that the cause of homosexuality is probably genetic.
> 
> Science advances - this is an undeniably true simplistic platitude.  Regards from Rosie
Click to expand...


Some scientist are speculating that epigenetic markers might have something to do with homosexuality. If they are correct, then what is actually happening is that foreign genetic material from the father is interfering with the development of an embryo by blocking the hormones it needs to develop into a normal child. If this is true people like you will be screaming about how right wingers are trying to find a cure for homosexuality. Maybe you should take the time to understand what you are talking about before you declare yourself an expert.

Despite your misuse of the word platitude, there is no proof anywhere that sexual orientation is genetic. In fact, twin studies have actually proven that it isn't, even if people that put politics above science refuse to admit it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JoeB131 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a simplistic platitude that you will disagree with, science has conclusively proven that homosexuality is not genetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, science has not proven anything conclusively on that score.
> 
> Gay Men in Twin Study - NYTimes.com
> 
> Of course, the real problem is, neither side wants to go down the road of studying this too far.
> 
> The Homophobes would never want to admit it's genetic, and gay folks themselves wouldn't want to find the gay gene and have those good christian parents suddenly forget why they hate abortion so much.
Click to expand...


I find it laughable that you point to evidence that proves homosexuality is not genetic in order to claim it is. Without even delving into the faults with the study cited in the article, the fact that only 52% of monoamniotic both have the same sexual orientation is actually proof that it is not genetic. The simple fact is that, if it is genetic, they both would have the same sexual orientation.


----------



## MaryL

HOW does not liking gays VALIDATE them? Homophobia? Pfft.  I am disgusted with their sexuality, and  I won't hide it. In the name of freedom, nobody should feel they have to hide their DISLIKES, either. Or are some of you afraid of freedom? I am so tired of this pro-gay tidal wave. It's getting ridiculous.


----------



## daveman

hazlnut said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he did what the American people were telling him to do at the time.
> 
> You know HIS JOB
> 
> 
> 
> So, when a Dem signs an act that discriminates against LGBTs, he's doing his job.  But, when a Republican does the same, he's being a bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL -- flash forward 20 years to today....
> 
> Since behavioral scientists have come to the consensus that homosexuality is a hard-wired personality trait, what DEM has purposed an anti-gay bill?
> 
> Even tricky Dicky Cheney knows the truth, because his own daughter is a homosexual.
> 
> Sexual Orientation is NOT a choice.
> 
> Bigotry and homophobia IS a CHOICE.
> 
> That's the point of this thread.
> 
> Thank you for playing, but you're done in this thread.
Click to expand...


But your bigotry against conservatives is good and righteous and holy?


----------



## JoeB131

Quantum Windbag said:


> I find it laughable that you point to evidence that proves homosexuality is not genetic in order to claim it is. Without even delving into the faults with the study cited in the article, the fact that only 52% of monoamniotic both have the same sexual orientation is actually proof that it is not genetic. The simple fact is that, if it is genetic, they both would have the same sexual orientation.



I think that it proves that there's a genetic predisposition.  I suspect it's probably really 100%, but we have people like you who make people pretend to be straight when they aren't.  

Like Rush Limbaugh...errrr. Jeff Christy.


----------



## Sunni Man

JoeB131 said:


> I think that it proves that there's a genetic predisposition.  I suspect it's probably really 100%


There has been pseudo science research over the last couple of centuries claiming genetic predisposition for such things as rapists, pedophiles, murderers, thieves, and other criminal behavior.

Now the homos want to use this bogus scientific quackery to justify and validate their aberrant lifestyle.


----------



## JoeB131

Sunni Man said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that it proves that there's a genetic predisposition.  I suspect it's probably really 100%
> 
> 
> 
> There has been pseudo science research over the last couple of centuries claiming genetic predisposition for such things as rapists, pedophiles, murderers, thieves, and other criminal behavior.
> 
> Now the homos want to use this bogus scientific quackery to justify and validate their aberrant lifestyle.
Click to expand...


Why is it you homophobes feel the need to compare homosexuality to other things.  

Other than you finding it icky and your Imaginary Friend in the Sky thinking it's bad, you've yet to give me one good reason against it...  

You need to get over yourself, seriously.


----------



## Sunni Man

Homos claim that being gay isn't a "choice".

That just leaves: 1) genetics  2) mental illness

But psychiatrists say that it isn't a mental illness.

And no so called gay gene has been discovered.

That just leaves "Choice"


----------



## JoeB131

Sunni Man said:


> Homos claim that being gay isn't a "choice".
> 
> That just leaves: 1) genetics  2) mental illness
> 
> But psychiatrists say that it isn't a mental illness.
> 
> And no so called gay gene has been discovered.
> 
> That just leaves "Choice"



The gene that causes cancer hasn't been discovered yet, either.  

Are you claiming cancer is a "choice"?


----------



## Newby

JoeB131 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homos claim that being gay isn't a "choice".
> 
> That just leaves: 1) genetics  2) mental illness
> 
> But psychiatrists say that it isn't a mental illness.
> 
> And no so called gay gene has been discovered.
> 
> That just leaves "Choice"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gene that causes cancer hasn't been discovered yet, either.
> 
> Are you claiming cancer is a "choice"?
Click to expand...


Cancer is a disease, so is that what you're saying homosexuality is now?


----------



## Sunni Man

JoeB131 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homos claim that being gay isn't a "choice".
> 
> That just leaves: 1) genetics  2) mental illness
> 
> But psychiatrists say that it isn't a mental illness.
> 
> And no so called gay gene has been discovered.
> 
> That just leaves "Choice"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gene that causes cancer hasn't been discovered yet, either.
> 
> Are you claiming cancer is a "choice"?
Click to expand...

Nice try.......but cancer is from a mutated gene; not a passed down gene.


----------



## JoeB131

Sunni Man said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homos claim that being gay isn't a "choice".
> 
> That just leaves: 1) genetics  2) mental illness
> 
> But psychiatrists say that it isn't a mental illness.
> 
> And no so called gay gene has been discovered.
> 
> That just leaves "Choice"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gene that causes cancer hasn't been discovered yet, either.
> 
> Are you claiming cancer is a "choice"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice try.......but cancer is from a mutated gene; not a passed down gene.
Click to expand...


No, there are people who smoke until they are 90 and never get cancer, and folks who get cancer in their 50's, whose father had it and grandfather had it... 

But they haven't found the genetic cause- yet.


----------



## JoeB131

Newby said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homos claim that being gay isn't a "choice".
> 
> That just leaves: 1) genetics  2) mental illness
> 
> But psychiatrists say that it isn't a mental illness.
> 
> And no so called gay gene has been discovered.
> 
> That just leaves "Choice"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gene that causes cancer hasn't been discovered yet, either.
> 
> Are you claiming cancer is a "choice"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cancer is a disease, so is that what you're saying homosexuality is now?
Click to expand...


I'm always a little concerned when someone with a totally not-gay Avi like yours starts calling homosexuality a "disease".   

I worry about what we are going to find in your crawlspace...


----------



## Newby

JoeB131 said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gene that causes cancer hasn't been discovered yet, either.
> 
> Are you claiming cancer is a "choice"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cancer is a disease, so is that what you're saying homosexuality is now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm always a little concerned when someone with a totally not-gay Avi like yours starts calling homosexuality a "disease".
> 
> I worry about what we are going to find in your crawlspace...
Click to expand...


Nice try there Joe, but I didn't call it a disease, I was actually saying that you are calling it a disease by comparing it to cancer.  Is that what you are saying it is?  A disease?

And Joe, I'm a female, my avatar is quite appropriate and Troy is not neven close to being gay.


----------



## Sunni Man

Actually, I hope that science finds there is a aberrant or mutated gay gene.

That way homosexuality can then be classified as a disease and medical scientists can start searching for a cure.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JoeB131 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it laughable that you point to evidence that proves homosexuality is not genetic in order to claim it is. Without even delving into the faults with the study cited in the article, the fact that only 52% of monoamniotic both have the same sexual orientation is actually proof that it is not genetic. The simple fact is that, if it is genetic, they both would have the same sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that it proves that there's a genetic predisposition.  I suspect it's probably really 100%, but we have people like you who make people pretend to be straight when they aren't.
> 
> Like Rush Limbaugh...errrr. Jeff Christy.
Click to expand...


You know less about genetics than you do politics, but I am willing to educate you on why you should shut the fuck up. Let us assume, only for the sake of proving how stupid you are, that you are correct. If there is a predisposition to sexual preference in genes than that fact alone is proof positive that the entire thing is actually a choice. The evidence clearly indicates that people are able to overcome that predisposition.

If, on the other hand, sexual preference is not genetic, you are still free to argue it is not a choice.

Your option.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JoeB131 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homos claim that being gay isn't a "choice".
> 
> That just leaves: 1) genetics  2) mental illness
> 
> But psychiatrists say that it isn't a mental illness.
> 
> And no so called gay gene has been discovered.
> 
> That just leaves "Choice"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gene that causes cancer hasn't been discovered yet, either.
> 
> Are you claiming cancer is a "choice"?
Click to expand...


Are you saying cancer is not caused by smoking, among other things?


----------



## JoeB131

Newby said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cancer is a disease, so is that what you're saying homosexuality is now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm always a little concerned when someone with a totally not-gay Avi like yours starts calling homosexuality a "disease".
> 
> I worry about what we are going to find in your crawlspace...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try there Joe, but I didn't call it a disease, I was actually saying that you are calling it a disease by comparing it to cancer.  Is that what you are saying it is?  A disease?
> 
> And Joe, I'm a female, my avatar is quite appropriate and Troy is not neven close to being gay.
Click to expand...


Dude, that picture looks totally gay. Honestly.  

But that's not my point, really.  

The argument is that the gene that causes something hasn't been identified yet proves that somethign isn't genetic... when in fact, we only know enough about genetics to get ourselves in trouble.


----------



## JoeB131

Quantum Windbag said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homos claim that being gay isn't a "choice".
> 
> That just leaves: 1) genetics  2) mental illness
> 
> But psychiatrists say that it isn't a mental illness.
> 
> And no so called gay gene has been discovered.
> 
> That just leaves "Choice"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gene that causes cancer hasn't been discovered yet, either.
> 
> Are you claiming cancer is a "choice"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying cancer is not caused by smoking, among other things?
Click to expand...


I'm saying that can be a contributing cause.  

But there are guys who smoked and live to their 90's.  

There are people like my dad who smoked and died of lung cancer in their 50's.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

Why is it that two women engaging in sexual behavior with one another doesn't have the same visceral reaction in most observers as with two men? Hell, most red-blooded American heterosexual men I know LOVE a little girl-on-girl action. 

Just wonderin'.


----------



## Toro

Quantum Windbag said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it laughable that you point to evidence that proves homosexuality is not genetic in order to claim it is. Without even delving into the faults with the study cited in the article, the fact that only 52% of monoamniotic both have the same sexual orientation is actually proof that it is not genetic. The simple fact is that, if it is genetic, they both would have the same sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that it proves that there's a genetic predisposition.  I suspect it's probably really 100%, but we have people like you who make people pretend to be straight when they aren't.
> 
> Like Rush Limbaugh...errrr. Jeff Christy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know less about genetics than you do politics, but I am willing to educate you on why you should shut the fuck up. Let us assume, only for the sake of proving how stupid you are, that you are correct. If there is a predisposition to sexual preference in genes than that fact alone is proof positive that the entire thing is actually a choice. The evidence clearly indicates that people are able to overcome that predisposition.
> 
> If, on the other hand, sexual preference is not genetic, you are still free to argue it is not a choice.
> 
> Your option.
Click to expand...


If homosexuality is a choice, become aroused thinking about a man.

Walk the talk.

Otherwise, admit this argument wrong.


----------



## JoeB131

Quantum Windbag said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it laughable that you point to evidence that proves homosexuality is not genetic in order to claim it is. Without even delving into the faults with the study cited in the article, the fact that only 52% of monoamniotic both have the same sexual orientation is actually proof that it is not genetic. The simple fact is that, if it is genetic, they both would have the same sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that it proves that there's a genetic predisposition.  I suspect it's probably really 100%, but we have people like you who make people pretend to be straight when they aren't.
> 
> Like Rush Limbaugh...errrr. Jeff Christy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know less about genetics than you do politics, but I am willing to educate you on why you should shut the fuck up. Let us assume, only for the sake of proving how stupid you are, that you are correct. If there is a predisposition to sexual preference in genes than that fact alone is proof positive that the entire thing is actually a choice. The evidence clearly indicates that people are able to overcome that predisposition.
> 
> If, on the other hand, sexual preference is not genetic, you are still free to argue it is not a choice.
> 
> Your option.
Click to expand...


Guy, you support a crazy man form Texas who only served in the Congress because the people in his home town didn't want him practicing medicine....  Your politics are the politics of batshit.  

If there is a predisposition, that's genetics.  Yes, there are gay folks who pretend to be straight and are miserable their whole lives.  There are straight guys who rape other men in prison as a form of dominance, because, hey, that's all that's available and it's that kind of place. 

That said, why should anyone try to be something because of what YOU want?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JoeB131 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gene that causes cancer hasn't been discovered yet, either.
> 
> Are you claiming cancer is a "choice"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying cancer is not caused by smoking, among other things?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying that can be a contributing cause.
> 
> But there are guys who smoked and live to their 90's.
> 
> There are people like my dad who smoked and died of lung cancer in their 50's.
Click to expand...


The AMA disagrees with you.

Unless you can bring in scientific evidence that disproves decades of scientific studies, you are talking out of your ass.

For the record, the fact that some people do not get cancer even if they smoke anymore than than some people not getting the flu is not proof that the flu is not caused by germs.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Toro said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that it proves that there's a genetic predisposition.  I suspect it's probably really 100%, but we have people like you who make people pretend to be straight when they aren't.
> 
> Like Rush Limbaugh...errrr. Jeff Christy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know less about genetics than you do politics, but I am willing to educate you on why you should shut the fuck up. Let us assume, only for the sake of proving how stupid you are, that you are correct. If there is a predisposition to sexual preference in genes than that fact alone is proof positive that the entire thing is actually a choice. The evidence clearly indicates that people are able to overcome that predisposition.
> 
> If, on the other hand, sexual preference is not genetic, you are still free to argue it is not a choice.
> 
> Your option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If homosexuality is a choice, become aroused thinking about a man.
> 
> Walk the talk.
> 
> Otherwise, admit this argument wrong.
Click to expand...


Funny, I am pretty sure I just pointed out that Joe is the one trying to argue that homosexuality is a choice.

That said, I can easily point out that the fact that some people do not get aroused by the same sex is not actually proof it is not a choice. If it worked that way, the fact that some people would never vote for a Republican no matter what would conclusively prove that political affiliation is not a choice.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JoeB131 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that it proves that there's a genetic predisposition.  I suspect it's probably really 100%, but we have people like you who make people pretend to be straight when they aren't.
> 
> Like Rush Limbaugh...errrr. Jeff Christy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know less about genetics than you do politics, but I am willing to educate you on why you should shut the fuck up. Let us assume, only for the sake of proving how stupid you are, that you are correct. If there is a predisposition to sexual preference in genes than that fact alone is proof positive that the entire thing is actually a choice. The evidence clearly indicates that people are able to overcome that predisposition.
> 
> If, on the other hand, sexual preference is not genetic, you are still free to argue it is not a choice.
> 
> Your option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, you support a crazy man form Texas who only served in the Congress because the people in his home town didn't want him practicing medicine....  Your politics are the politics of batshit.
> 
> If there is a predisposition, that's genetics.  Yes, there are gay folks who pretend to be straight and are miserable their whole lives.  There are straight guys who rape other men in prison as a form of dominance, because, hey, that's all that's available and it's that kind of place.
> 
> That said, why should anyone try to be something because of what YOU want?
Click to expand...


I do? Where did you get that from? The only politician I ever came out in support of on this board is from New Mexico, smokes weed, and has never practiced medicine in his life.

Once again, if there is a predisposition, but people turn out to be something else, what causes that? They have to make a choice.


----------



## Toro

Quantum Windbag said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know less about genetics than you do politics, but I am willing to educate you on why you should shut the fuck up. Let us assume, only for the sake of proving how stupid you are, that you are correct. If there is a predisposition to sexual preference in genes than that fact alone is proof positive that the entire thing is actually a choice. The evidence clearly indicates that people are able to overcome that predisposition.
> 
> If, on the other hand, sexual preference is not genetic, you are still free to argue it is not a choice.
> 
> Your option.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If homosexuality is a choice, become aroused thinking about a man.
> 
> Walk the talk.
> 
> Otherwise, admit this argument wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, I am pretty sure I just pointed out that Joe is the one trying to argue that homosexuality is a choice.
> 
> That said, I can easily point out that the fact that some people do not get aroused by the same sex is not actually proof it is not a choice. If it worked that way, the fact that some people would never vote for a Republican no matter what would conclusively prove that political affiliation is not a choice.
Click to expand...


I apologize for the graphic description, but I don't know how to describe it otherwise.

Sexual impulse is hardwired and is not choice.  What you act upon is a choice.  What you are responding to is not.  Sexual impulse is not a cognitive response any more than your heart beating is a cognitive response.  

This is why I ask you (or anyone who argues sexuality is a choice) to become aroused thinking about someone of your sex.  If you can't do it, it's not a choice.  It's not a choice like choosing between putting jam or honey on your toast, or deciding whether or not to go to the mall today.  If sexual impulses were a choice, then you should be able to "choose" to become sexually aroused by a man if you are a heterosexual male.  I can't anymore than I can a 90 year-old woman, a goat, or a toaster oven.  If sexuality were a choice, you should be able to choose to become sexually aroused by a whole number of things.  But since sexuality isn't a cognitive process, you can't.  It's hardwired.


----------



## Mad Scientist

hazlnut said:


>


Religiphobes who try to lower Man to the same level of Animals need to be ignored.


----------



## daveman

Newby said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cancer is a disease, so is that what you're saying homosexuality is now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm always a little concerned when someone with a totally not-gay Avi like yours starts calling homosexuality a "disease".
> 
> I worry about what we are going to find in your crawlspace...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try there Joe, but I didn't call it a disease, I was actually saying that you are calling it a disease by comparing it to cancer.  Is that what you are saying it is?  A disease?
> 
> And Joe, I'm a female, my avatar is quite appropriate and Troy is not neven close to being gay.
Click to expand...

Maybe he thinks your avvie is gay not due to your reaction to it -- but to his...?


----------



## varelse

Sunni Man said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homos claim that being gay isn't a "choice".
> 
> That just leaves: 1) genetics  2) mental illness
> 
> But psychiatrists say that it isn't a mental illness.
> 
> And no so called gay gene has been discovered.
> 
> That just leaves "Choice"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gene that causes cancer hasn't been discovered yet, either.
> 
> Are you claiming cancer is a "choice"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice try.......but cancer is from a mutated gene; not a passed down gene.
Click to expand...

cancer is a failure of the mechanisms of apoptosis (mostly), and can be caused by many things. Genes aren't there to cause disease. Also, all genes are mutated genes and 'abnormal' genes resulting in greater risk of cancer or other illness can be and are inherited.


----------



## varelse

Quantum Windbag said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homos claim that being gay isn't a "choice".
> 
> That just leaves: 1) genetics  2) mental illness
> 
> But psychiatrists say that it isn't a mental illness.
> 
> And no so called gay gene has been discovered.
> 
> That just leaves "Choice"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gene that causes cancer hasn't been discovered yet, either.
> 
> Are you claiming cancer is a "choice"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying cancer is not caused by smoking, among other things?
Click to expand...

'smoking causes cancer' is technically not a true statement. Doctors can never say what causes any given case of cancer and can only say thse who smoke (or who share other risk factors) are  at higher riak for cancer (that is, they are more likely to develop cancer)


----------



## varelse

Quantum Windbag said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying cancer is not caused by smoking, among other things?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying that can be a contributing cause.
> 
> But there are guys who smoked and live to their 90's.
> 
> There are people like my dad who smoked and died of lung cancer in their 50's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The AMA disagrees with you.
Click to expand...


cite the ama saying nobody smokes for all their life without developing cancer or that nobody smokes and gets cancer by their 50's.

you appear to be in way above your educational- or literacy- level


----------



## MDiver

There is no such thing as Homophobia.  There is Homorepulsion or Homodisgust, but no actual horrendous fear of a person who has sex with another of the same sex.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

MDiver said:


> There is no such thing as Homophobia.  There is Homorepulsion or Homodisgust, but no actual horrendous fear of a person who has sex with another of the same sex.



Except in prison.


----------



## Seawytch

MDiver said:


> There is no such thing as Homophobia.  There is Homorepulsion or Homodisgust, but no actual horrendous fear of a person who has sex with another of the same sex.



Oh, but there is. Homophobia is described as "fear or revulsion" of gays and lesbians. The "fear" part comes in the form if those individuals that fear their own gay feelings.


----------



## Si modo

Seawytch said:


> MDiver said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as Homophobia.  There is Homorepulsion or Homodisgust, but no actual horrendous fear of a person who has sex with another of the same sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, but there is. Homophobia is described as "fear or revulsion" of gays and lesbians. The "fear" part comes in the form if those individuals that fear their own gay feelings.
Click to expand...

Homophobia is a stupid word for the LGBTs to use as it means fear of humans.



But, wow...it's sounds good, so fuck accuracy.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Toro said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> If homosexuality is a choice, become aroused thinking about a man.
> 
> Walk the talk.
> 
> Otherwise, admit this argument wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I am pretty sure I just pointed out that Joe is the one trying to argue that homosexuality is a choice.
> 
> That said, I can easily point out that the fact that some people do not get aroused by the same sex is not actually proof it is not a choice. If it worked that way, the fact that some people would never vote for a Republican no matter what would conclusively prove that political affiliation is not a choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I apologize for the graphic description, but I don't know how to describe it otherwise.
> 
> Sexual impulse is hardwired and is not choice.  What you act upon is a choice.  What you are responding to is not.  Sexual impulse is not a cognitive response any more than your heart beating is a cognitive response.
> 
> This is why I ask you (or anyone who argues sexuality is a choice) to become aroused thinking about someone of your sex.  If you can't do it, it's not a choice.  It's not a choice like choosing between putting jam or honey on your toast, or deciding whether or not to go to the mall today.  If sexual impulses were a choice, then you should be able to "choose" to become sexually aroused by a man if you are a heterosexual male.  I can't anymore than I can a 90 year-old woman, a goat, or a toaster oven.  If sexuality were a choice, you should be able to choose to become sexually aroused by a whole number of things.  But since sexuality isn't a cognitive process, you can't.  It's hardwired.
Click to expand...


Feel free to believe that, just be aware that there is no real evidence that that is actually true. No one anywhere has ever demonstrated that free will does not exist, which would be the only way you could argue that sexual preference is not a choice. Perhaps bisexuality is simply a learned taste, like drinking coffee or alcohol.

By the way, who said I can't do it? Are you making assumptions about me based on your preconceived ideas and personal experience?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

varelse said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gene that causes cancer hasn't been discovered yet, either.
> 
> Are you claiming cancer is a "choice"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying cancer is not caused by smoking, among other things?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 'smoking causes cancer' is technically not a true statement. Doctors can never say what causes any given case of cancer and can only say thse who smoke (or who share other risk factors) are  at higher riak for cancer (that is, they are more likely to develop cancer)
Click to expand...


Doctors cannot say that UV exposure causes skin cancer? Seriously?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

varelse said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying that can be a contributing cause.
> 
> But there are guys who smoked and live to their 90's.
> 
> There are people like my dad who smoked and died of lung cancer in their 50's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The AMA disagrees with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> cite the ama saying nobody smokes for all their life without developing cancer or that nobody smokes and gets cancer by their 50's.
> 
> you appear to be in way above your educational- or literacy- level
Click to expand...


Funny, I don't recall saying that. I am attacking the idiotic claim that smoking does not cause lung cancer. The CDC flat out states that smoking causes 90% of all lung cancer. If you have a problem with that, take it up with them.

CDC - Lung Cancer Risk Factors


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

Quantum Windbag said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I am pretty sure I just pointed out that Joe is the one trying to argue that homosexuality is a choice.
> 
> That said, I can easily point out that the fact that some people do not get aroused by the same sex is not actually proof it is not a choice. If it worked that way, the fact that some people would never vote for a Republican no matter what would conclusively prove that political affiliation is not a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I apologize for the graphic description, but I don't know how to describe it otherwise.
> 
> Sexual impulse is hardwired and is not choice.  What you act upon is a choice.  What you are responding to is not.  Sexual impulse is not a cognitive response any more than your heart beating is a cognitive response.
> 
> This is why I ask you (or anyone who argues sexuality is a choice) to become aroused thinking about someone of your sex.  If you can't do it, it's not a choice.  It's not a choice like choosing between putting jam or honey on your toast, or deciding whether or not to go to the mall today.  If sexual impulses were a choice, then you should be able to "choose" to become sexually aroused by a man if you are a heterosexual male.  I can't anymore than I can a 90 year-old woman, a goat, or a toaster oven.  If sexuality were a choice, you should be able to choose to become sexually aroused by a whole number of things.  But since sexuality isn't a cognitive process, you can't.  It's hardwired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to believe that, just be aware that there is no real evidence that that is actually true. No one anywhere has ever demonstrated that free will does not exist, which would be the only way you could argue that sexual preference is not a choice. Perhaps bisexuality is simply a learned taste, like drinking coffee or alcohol.
> 
> By the way, who said I can't do it? Are you making assumptions about me based on your preconceived ideas and personal experience?
Click to expand...


Does that mean that you could conceivably make a choice to go out on a date with me, Quantum? We could go out for _coffee_ or a drink of _alcohol_. What do ya say, big boy?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Jimmy_Jam said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I apologize for the graphic description, but I don't know how to describe it otherwise.
> 
> Sexual impulse is hardwired and is not choice.  What you act upon is a choice.  What you are responding to is not.  Sexual impulse is not a cognitive response any more than your heart beating is a cognitive response.
> 
> This is why I ask you (or anyone who argues sexuality is a choice) to become aroused thinking about someone of your sex.  If you can't do it, it's not a choice.  It's not a choice like choosing between putting jam or honey on your toast, or deciding whether or not to go to the mall today.  If sexual impulses were a choice, then you should be able to "choose" to become sexually aroused by a man if you are a heterosexual male.  I can't anymore than I can a 90 year-old woman, a goat, or a toaster oven.  If sexuality were a choice, you should be able to choose to become sexually aroused by a whole number of things.  But since sexuality isn't a cognitive process, you can't.  It's hardwired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to believe that, just be aware that there is no real evidence that that is actually true. No one anywhere has ever demonstrated that free will does not exist, which would be the only way you could argue that sexual preference is not a choice. Perhaps bisexuality is simply a learned taste, like drinking coffee or alcohol.
> 
> By the way, who said I can't do it? Are you making assumptions about me based on your preconceived ideas and personal experience?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that mean that you could conceivably make a choice to go out on a date with me, Quantum? We could go out for _coffee_ or a drink of _alcohol_. What do ya say, big boy?
Click to expand...


I do not like alcohol, and I have enough complications in my life with the two girlfriends I have at the moment.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

Quantum Windbag said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to believe that, just be aware that there is no real evidence that that is actually true. No one anywhere has ever demonstrated that free will does not exist, which would be the only way you could argue that sexual preference is not a choice. Perhaps bisexuality is simply a learned taste, like drinking coffee or alcohol.
> 
> By the way, who said I can't do it? Are you making assumptions about me based on your preconceived ideas and personal experience?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean that you could conceivably make a choice to go out on a date with me, Quantum? We could go out for _coffee_ or a drink of _alcohol_. What do ya say, big boy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not like alcohol, and I have enough complications in my life with the two girlfriends I have at the moment.
Click to expand...


Maybe that's why you need a boyfriend, snookums.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Only people who are not secure in their own sexuality are disturbed by homophobia or heterophobia.


----------



## Seawytch

Si modo said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MDiver said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as Homophobia.  There is Homorepulsion or Homodisgust, but no actual horrendous fear of a person who has sex with another of the same sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, but there is. Homophobia is described as "fear or revulsion" of gays and lesbians. The "fear" part comes in the form if those individuals that fear their own gay feelings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Homophobia is a stupid word for the LGBTs to use as it means fear of humans.
> 
> 
> 
> But, wow...it's sounds good, so fuck accuracy.
Click to expand...


Um, no it doesn't. Anthrophobia is the fear of humans. 

But, wow, you thought you were being clever, so fuck accuracy.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

JakeStarkey said:


> Only people who are not secure in their own sexuality are disturbed by homophobia or heterophobia.



Maybe. I was just excited at the prospect that I might have had a shot with Quantum. I mean, he was sending out all the signals. Maybe he's just playing hard-to-get now.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Don't be shy.  Let him know how you feel.


----------



## Samson

eots said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> same could be said for cannibalism...just sayin
Click to expand...


Not really.

But I'm still not convinced that because male monkeys and orangatunges like to pack fudge, then it is acceptably natural behaviour for humans.


----------



## Samson

Jimmy_Jam said:


> MDiver said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as Homophobia.  There is Homorepulsion or Homodisgust, but no actual horrendous fear of a person who has sex with another of the same sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except in prison.
Click to expand...




Having never been, I'll defer to your expert opinion.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

Samson said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MDiver said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as Homophobia.  There is Homorepulsion or Homodisgust, but no actual horrendous fear of a person who has sex with another of the same sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except in prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having never been, I'll defer to your expert opinion.
Click to expand...


Nice. 

I'm fucking with Quantum. I would like to think he knows it. 

But you gotta admit, what better way to prove to the liberals that homosexuality is a choice than for two heterosexual men to make the ultimate sacrifice, ay? What do you say, Quantum? You up for it, buttercup?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Noomi said:


> get_involved said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion. I have the right NOT to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well its not called homo-opinion, is it? Its called homophobia for a reason.
Click to expand...


Because the left is a bunch of lying sacks of shit who use buzzwords to demonize their opponents in place of reasoned argument?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coloradomtnman said:


> get_involved said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion. I have the right NOT to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit that you're intolerant.  And not just intolerant of an individual, but of an entire group of people.
> 
> At least you had the balls to admit it, unlike many of your conservative compatriots.
Click to expand...


Most conservatives have no problem "admitting" anything of the sort, because we don't subscribe to the belief that "If the Left has decided it's bad, it must be".  The left enshrines "tolerance" as it's holiest virtue?  Whoop-de-fucking-doo, remind me to pencil in some time in my calendar next month to utterly not give a rat's ass.

I have no tolerance for a lot of things, and have no problem whatsoever saying so.  Right up at the top of the list would be "stupid people" and "leftists who think they're setting standards for me".


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yup, CeCilie1200 has just branded herself as one of the people for whom she has no "tolerance".


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> get_involved said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion. I have the right NOT to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit that you're intolerant.  And not just intolerant of an individual, but of an entire group of people.
> 
> At least you had the balls to admit it, unlike many of your conservative compatriots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most conservatives have no problem "admitting" anything of the sort, because we don't subscribe to the belief that "If the Left has decided it's bad, it must be".  The left enshrines "tolerance" as it's holiest virtue?  Whoop-de-fucking-doo, remind me to pencil in some time in my calendar next month to utterly not give a rat's ass.
> 
> I have no tolerance for a lot of things, and have no problem whatsoever saying so.  Right up at the top of the list would be "stupid people" and "leftists who think they're setting standards for me".
Click to expand...


Actually, I consider conservatives' honesty about that one of _their_ better
 virtues. That doesn't mean I agree with everything they say, but I appreciate their greater tendency toward consistency than I see in most on the left.

And no, I don't expect you to care much what I think. I just like looking at your avatar.


----------



## Cecilie1200

G.T. said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being a bigot against others for how they were born because society taught you/brainwashed you, that it was icky is wrong.
> 
> The kind who do such things are being washed away, into the black holes of history and being swarmed by the rising tide of acceptance. In the end when their purge is complete, I will be smiling ear to ear and asking them "what's that, now? I can't hear you."
> 
> There's no argument to be had, the choice is clear. Being good is usually innate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just find it amusing that you judge others for being judgmental, dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. That means you're, judging me, for judging them, for being judgemental.
> 
> It's redundant.
> 
> Calling out baseless bigotry for what it is - is appropriate. It's not hypocrisy.
> 
> Hypocrisy would be additional baseless bigotry.
Click to expand...


It's only hypocrisy to judge if you're running around, spouting off about how wrong it is to be judgemental.

There's no hypocrisy in being judgemental if you don't think judgementalism is a bad thing.

Call out anything you want.  Just don't imagine that anyone gives a tin shit what you do and don't approve of.


----------



## daveman

Cecilie1200 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> get_involved said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion. I have the right NOT to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well its not called homo-opinion, is it? Its called homophobia for a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the left is a bunch of lying sacks of shit who use buzzwords to demonize their opponents in place of reasoned argument?
Click to expand...

You're a racist.


----------



## Toro

Quantum Windbag said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I am pretty sure I just pointed out that Joe is the one trying to argue that homosexuality is a choice.
> 
> That said, I can easily point out that the fact that some people do not get aroused by the same sex is not actually proof it is not a choice. If it worked that way, the fact that some people would never vote for a Republican no matter what would conclusively prove that political affiliation is not a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I apologize for the graphic description, but I don't know how to describe it otherwise.
> 
> Sexual impulse is hardwired and is not choice.  What you act upon is a choice.  What you are responding to is not.  Sexual impulse is not a cognitive response any more than your heart beating is a cognitive response.
> 
> This is why I ask you (or anyone who argues sexuality is a choice) to become aroused thinking about someone of your sex.  If you can't do it, it's not a choice.  It's not a choice like choosing between putting jam or honey on your toast, or deciding whether or not to go to the mall today.  If sexual impulses were a choice, then you should be able to "choose" to become sexually aroused by a man if you are a heterosexual male.  I can't anymore than I can a 90 year-old woman, a goat, or a toaster oven.  If sexuality were a choice, you should be able to choose to become sexually aroused by a whole number of things.  But since sexuality isn't a cognitive process, you can't.  It's hardwired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to believe that, just be aware that there is no real evidence that that is actually true. No one anywhere has ever demonstrated that free will does not exist, which would be the only way you could argue that sexual preference is not a choice. Perhaps bisexuality is simply a learned taste, like drinking coffee or alcohol.
> 
> By the way, who said I can't do it? Are you making assumptions about me based on your preconceived ideas and personal experience?
Click to expand...


So you can then?  Because whenever I've asked that question before to a heterosexual male, the answer I never get is "OK, I will arouse myself thinking about a naked man."  It's always deflection and non sequiters.  And not only that, if sexuality isn't hardwired, people should be able be able to logically and cognitively become sexually aroused at anything and everything.  But of course, they can't.

That we don't have definitive proof doesn't mean its not true.  It certainly means we haven't been able to verify it.

Your argument about freewill misses the point.  There is a difference between action and how we are hardwired.  Simply because we are hardwired doesn't mean we have to act on it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Jimmy_Jam said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit that you're intolerant.  And not just intolerant of an individual, but of an entire group of people.
> 
> At least you had the balls to admit it, unlike many of your conservative compatriots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most conservatives have no problem "admitting" anything of the sort, because we don't subscribe to the belief that "If the Left has decided it's bad, it must be".  The left enshrines "tolerance" as it's holiest virtue?  Whoop-de-fucking-doo, remind me to pencil in some time in my calendar next month to utterly not give a rat's ass.
> 
> I have no tolerance for a lot of things, and have no problem whatsoever saying so.  Right up at the top of the list would be "stupid people" and "leftists who think they're setting standards for me".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I consider conservatives' honesty about that one of _their_ better
> virtues. That doesn't mean I agree with everything they say, but I appreciate their greater tendency toward consistency than I see in most on the left.
> 
> And no, I don't expect you to care much what I think. I just like looking at your avatar.
Click to expand...


I aim to please.  

Well, actually, I couldn't care less if people are pleased or not, but if I manage it by accident, it's all good.


----------



## mjollnir

Cecilie1200 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> get_involved said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion. I have the right NOT to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well its not called homo-opinion, is it? Its called homophobia for a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the left is a bunch of lying sacks of shit who use buzzwords to demonize their opponents in place of reasoned argument?
Click to expand...


The ironic thing is that you wouldn't know a reasoned argument if it were fucking you up the ass.

But practically every time you post, reasoned arguments do fuck you up the ass.

To paraphrase the old joke:  you can't be coming here for the hunting.


----------



## Cecilie1200

daveman said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well its not called homo-opinion, is it? Its called homophobia for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the left is a bunch of lying sacks of shit who use buzzwords to demonize their opponents in place of reasoned argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a racist.
Click to expand...


  That always makes me giggle, no matter how many times I hear it.  If you could see the family pictures surrounding my desk, you'd know why.

If there is any leftist buzzword LESS likely to provoke defensiveness in me (or any reaction other than mirth), I have no idea what it could be.


----------



## Cecilie1200

mjollnir said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well its not called homo-opinion, is it? Its called homophobia for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the left is a bunch of lying sacks of shit who use buzzwords to demonize their opponents in place of reasoned argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ironic thing is that you wouldn't know a reasoned argument if it were fucking you up the ass.
> 
> But practically every time you post, reasoned arguments do fuck you up the ass.
> 
> To paraphrase the old joke:  you can't be coming here for the hunting.
Click to expand...


Coming from you, that means . . . less than nothing.  

All I hear is that you're obsessed with my ass.  I suppose the Constitution guarantees you the right to fantasize about whatever you like, but I hope you aren't expecting me to be interested.


----------



## mjollnir

Cecilie1200 said:


> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the left is a bunch of lying sacks of shit who use buzzwords to demonize their opponents in place of reasoned argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ironic thing is that you wouldn't know a reasoned argument if it were fucking you up the ass.
> 
> But practically every time you post, reasoned arguments do fuck you up the ass.
> 
> To paraphrase the old joke:  you can't be coming here for the hunting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coming from you, that means . . . less than nothing.
> 
> All I hear is that you're obsessed with my ass.  I suppose the Constitution guarantees you the right to fantasize about whatever you like, but I hope you aren't expecting me to be interested.
Click to expand...


Lulz.

Your ass?

No, ma'am.  I've got a vivid imagination, but even with that I couldn't conceive of anything of that size.


----------



## daveman

Cecilie1200 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the left is a bunch of lying sacks of shit who use buzzwords to demonize their opponents in place of reasoned argument?
> 
> 
> 
> You're a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That always makes me giggle, no matter how many times I hear it.  If you could see the family pictures surrounding my desk, you'd know why.
> 
> If there is any leftist buzzword LESS likely to provoke defensiveness in me (or any reaction other than mirth), I have no idea what it could be.
Click to expand...

And they absolutely HATE it when you tell them their most effective weapon (since they don't have facts and logic) is utterly ineffective.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Let's just deal with this juvenile, didn't-put-a-second's-thought-into-it argument once and for all, shall we?  I'm really tired of hearing it spewed at me as though it's meaningful (like most leftist arguments, come to think of it).

Human beings are animals.  What this means - ALL that this means - is that the field of biological science places us, in the taxonomical sense, in the animal kingdom.  (Taxonomy, for the leftists among us who spent most of high school smoking and jacking off behind the boys' gym, is the classification of organisms in an ordered system.)

Being in the same kingdom with another species means very little in terms of having anything common with that species.  The qualifications to be found in the animal kingdom are that the organism be multi-cellular, heterotrophic (requiring complex organic compounds of nitrogen and carbon (as that obtained from plant or animal matter) for metabolic synthesis), eukaryotic (refers to the structure of the cells; look it up), digest food outside their cells, and then absorb the nutrients.

We share the "distinction" of belonging to the animal kingdom with over 1 million known species, including protozoa, sea sponges, worms, starfish, snails, etc.  As you can see, assuming that because one is an "animal", one can be correctly expected to share the same characteristics, instincts, and behaviors as other animals is ludicrous on the face of it, and reveals a childishness of thought that no self-respected adult should EVER wish to display.

If this has still not been made clear to some of you (because I certainly do not assume comprehension on the parts of many of the flatliners who populate this board), then consider how many species of animal display parental killing and eating of offspring.  (The sad thing is how many of you are pro-abortion psychopaths who won't see this as horrible.)  Consider further that earthworms are also animals, and CANNOT be homosexual.  The reason:  they're hermaphrodites.  Humans, on the other hand, only very rarely present as hermaphrodites, and even more rarely present as hermaphrodites with functional reproductive capacity.  In earthworms, hermaphroditism is the norm.  In humans, it's an aberrant mutation.

I could go on and on about the various, EXTREME differences between us and other animals, but I think the point has been made to anyone with two brain cells positioned close enough in his head to rub together.

So if you want to defend the "normality" of homosexual behavior, then you're going to have to look to something other than "other animals do it".  We are not other animals, and have almost nothing in common with the vast majority of organisms that enjoy that taxonomic classification.


----------



## Cecilie1200

mjollnir said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ironic thing is that you wouldn't know a reasoned argument if it were fucking you up the ass.
> 
> But practically every time you post, reasoned arguments do fuck you up the ass.
> 
> To paraphrase the old joke:  you can't be coming here for the hunting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coming from you, that means . . . less than nothing.
> 
> All I hear is that you're obsessed with my ass.  I suppose the Constitution guarantees you the right to fantasize about whatever you like, but I hope you aren't expecting me to be interested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lulz.
> 
> Your ass?
> 
> No, ma'am.  I've got a vivid imagination, but even with that I couldn't conceive of anything of that size.
Click to expand...


Ooh, "you're fat!"  Rolling out the big-gun insults right off the bat, huh?

Just a thought:  perhaps you could hire a high-schooler to write your material from now on.  I know they cost more than middle-schoolers, but you really do get a more creative class of attack.


----------



## Cecilie1200

daveman said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That always makes me giggle, no matter how many times I hear it.  If you could see the family pictures surrounding my desk, you'd know why.
> 
> If there is any leftist buzzword LESS likely to provoke defensiveness in me (or any reaction other than mirth), I have no idea what it could be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they absolutely HATE it when you tell them their most effective weapon (since they don't have facts and logic) is utterly ineffective.
Click to expand...


ALL of their weapons are ineffective on me, because all of their weapons are dependent on emotional "thinking", which I refuse to engage in, and dependent moreover on giving a damn what leftists think of you.  I consider it a badge of honor to have them hate me.  The worst insult I can think of is to have one of those evil, brainless fuckwits APPROVE of me.


----------



## mjollnir

Cecilie1200 said:


> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coming from you, that means . . . less than nothing.
> 
> All I hear is that you're obsessed with my ass.  I suppose the Constitution guarantees you the right to fantasize about whatever you like, but I hope you aren't expecting me to be interested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lulz.
> 
> Your ass?
> 
> No, ma'am.  I've got a vivid imagination, but even with that I couldn't conceive of anything of that size.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ooh, "you're fat!"  Rolling out the big-gun insults right off the bat, huh?
> 
> Just a thought:  perhaps you could hire a high-schooler to write your material from now on.  I know they cost more than middle-schoolers, but you really do get a more creative class of attack.
Click to expand...


No, it's not 'right off the bat', or that's what I would have led with.

Do let's have you keep up and not look so stupid.

There's a good dog.


----------



## varelse

Quantum Windbag said:


> varelse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying cancer is not caused by smoking, among other things?
> 
> 
> 
> 'smoking causes cancer' is technically not a true statement. Doctors can never say what causes any given case of cancer and can only say thse who smoke (or who share other risk factors) are  at higher riak for cancer (that is, they are more likely to develop cancer)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doctors cannot say that UV exposure causes skin cancer? Seriously?
Click to expand...


UV exposure increases (statistically) the odds of exposed cells becoming cancerous- it increases one's risk/odds of developing cancer.The eact 'cause' of any given case of cancer can not be proven or stated with any certanty.

So no, they can't, but they do out of laziness and because people like you [stupid people] areincapable of grasping the distinction or understanding how such things work


----------



## Cecilie1200

_"You can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies." - Oscar Wilde_

One of the reasons I so decry the leftist dumbing-down of the population is because it's simply impossible now to acquire enemies of sufficient caliber.  Seriously, how is one to keep one's edge when, "Well, you have a fat ass!" is the best opposition available?  

At least KosherGirl got, "Die of fire AIDS!"  It was pathetic, but at least it was HUMOROUS.  I'm jealous.  I simply cannot work with this inferior material.  Oh, for a nemesis who presents more of a challenge than merely not laughing myself into a hernia, or dying of boredom.


----------



## Cecilie1200

_"Please be less of whore. Please?" - Mjollnir_

And the quality of material continues to degrade.  First "You're fat!", and now the most rudimentary of juvenile misogyny.  The intellect weeps.

Allow me to counter with a paraphrase from Edmond Rostand (and no, I won't tell you who that is; look it up):  _There are many things you might have said, had you some tinge of letters or wit to color your discourse.  But wit?  Not so, you never had an atom.  And of letters, you need but three to write you down:  A, S, S.  Ass._

If you MUST go for the simplistic insult, at least do it with panache.


----------



## mjollnir

Cecilie1200 said:


> _"You can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies." - Oscar Wilde_
> 
> One of the reasons I so decry the leftist dumbing-down of the population is because it's simply impossible now to acquire enemies of sufficient caliber.  Seriously, how is one to keep one's edge when, "Well, you have a fat ass!" is the best opposition available?
> 
> At least KosherGirl got, "Die of fire AIDS!"  It was pathetic, but at least it was HUMOROUS.  I'm jealous.  I simply cannot work with this inferior material.  Oh, for a nemesis who presents more of a challenge than merely not laughing myself into a hernia, or dying of boredom.



There is no art in turning a goddess into a witch, a virgin into a whore, but the opposite operation, to give dignity to what has been scorned, to make the degraded desirable,  that calls for art or for character.

It's been good owning you.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

Cecilie1200 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That always makes me giggle, no matter how many times I hear it.  If you could see the family pictures surrounding my desk, you'd know why.
> 
> If there is any leftist buzzword LESS likely to provoke defensiveness in me (or any reaction other than mirth), I have no idea what it could be.
> 
> 
> 
> And they absolutely HATE it when you tell them their most effective weapon (since they don't have facts and logic) is utterly ineffective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ALL of their weapons are ineffective on me, because all of their weapons are dependent on emotional "thinking", which I refuse to engage in, and dependent moreover on giving a damn what leftists think of you.  I consider it a badge of honor to have them hate me.  The worst insult I can think of is to have one of those evil, brainless fuckwits APPROVE of me.
Click to expand...


Most extremists feed off their emotions.

I know that leftists lie, they're just a little more subtle at it than the extreme righties.

To illustrate, one of the things that drives me absolutely nuts about my fellow Republicans is their tendency to fall for fantasy-based chain letters. I receive tons of them. 

The left and the right both create their "scare" emails using factual distortions and in some cases outright fabrications, but I see far more of them from the right. Anybody who takes 15 minutes to investigate the factual basis of them can debunk them easily enough, but that doesn't stop the people who create them. 

Just go to snopes and enter the word "Obama" and you'll see pages and pages of items that were debunked from fantastic chain letters. I'm in no way a defender of Obama, but when I see the number of distorted truths and outright lies that have been circulated on this one man alone though these idiotic chain letters, my head spins. I can't even keep up. Every one of them feeds off of the emotions of who are basically good-hearted patriotic Americans, but who unfortunately fall for them more often than not. I'm sorry, but I don't care what side of the political fence one rests, I think you will agree that lying is not acceptable. 

Why am I condemning this in the right and not the left, you may ask? Simple. I happen to believe in the intellectual value of Devil's Advocate. This was a practice developed by the Vatican to challenge the one's assertions, and by those that agreed with the assertion. The intent of this device was, and is, to strengthen the advocates of whatever the assertion is. While I am not a Christian, I definitely recognize the genius of this development. 

I don't care to strengthen the left. I would much rather strengthen the right. You have challenged me before for being too "moderate." Well, I am more moderate than yourself, this is true. But one thing you can take to the bank is that my tendency to challenge my fellow Republicans is out of love, I can assure you, even if most of them hate my guts, or at least find me extremely annoying, or even "stupid" as some of them like to call me.

It's all good. I don't mind.


----------



## daveman

Cecilie1200 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That always makes me giggle, no matter how many times I hear it.  If you could see the family pictures surrounding my desk, you'd know why.
> 
> If there is any leftist buzzword LESS likely to provoke defensiveness in me (or any reaction other than mirth), I have no idea what it could be.
> 
> 
> 
> And they absolutely HATE it when you tell them their most effective weapon (since they don't have facts and logic) is utterly ineffective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ALL of their weapons are ineffective on me, because all of their weapons are dependent on emotional "thinking", which I refuse to engage in, and dependent moreover on giving a damn what leftists think of you.  I consider it a badge of honor to have them hate me.  The worst insult I can think of is to have one of those evil, brainless fuckwits APPROVE of me.
Click to expand...


----------



## mjollnir

Cecilie1200 said:


> _"Please be less of whore. Please?" - Mjollnir_
> 
> And the quality of material continues to degrade.  First "You're fat!", and now the most rudimentary of juvenile misogyny.  The intellect weeps.
> 
> Allow me to counter with a paraphrase from Edmond Rostand (and no, I won't tell you who that is; look it up):  _There are many things you might have said, had you some tinge of letters or wit to color your discourse.  But wit?  Not so, you never had an atom.  And of letters, you need but three to write you down:  A, S, S.  Ass._
> 
> If you MUST go for the simplistic insult, at least do it with panache.



Panache?  Really?  Oh, how rich.

Panache for a simple guttersnipe is like maple syrup on dogshit.

Oh, wait.  You are dogshit.

Genius!


----------



## daveman

mjollnir said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"You can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies." - Oscar Wilde_
> 
> One of the reasons I so decry the leftist dumbing-down of the population is because it's simply impossible now to acquire enemies of sufficient caliber.  Seriously, how is one to keep one's edge when, "Well, you have a fat ass!" is the best opposition available?
> 
> At least KosherGirl got, "Die of fire AIDS!"  It was pathetic, but at least it was HUMOROUS.  I'm jealous.  I simply cannot work with this inferior material.  Oh, for a nemesis who presents more of a challenge than merely not laughing myself into a hernia, or dying of boredom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no art in turning a goddess into a witch, a virgin into a whore, but the opposite operation, to give dignity to what has been scorned, to make the degraded desirable,  that calls for art or for character.
> 
> It's been good owning you.
Click to expand...

If you have to point out that you owned someone...


...you didn't.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sane Americas like me are happy that the daveman's and Cecilie1200's despise us.

They are not worthy to be Americans, but this is a great country, so they belong anyway.

And they will do what the sane majority demands they do: and that's the way it is.


----------



## mjollnir

daveman said:


> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"You can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies." - Oscar Wilde_
> 
> One of the reasons I so decry the leftist dumbing-down of the population is because it's simply impossible now to acquire enemies of sufficient caliber.  Seriously, how is one to keep one's edge when, "Well, you have a fat ass!" is the best opposition available?
> 
> At least KosherGirl got, "Die of fire AIDS!"  It was pathetic, but at least it was HUMOROUS.  I'm jealous.  I simply cannot work with this inferior material.  Oh, for a nemesis who presents more of a challenge than merely not laughing myself into a hernia, or dying of boredom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no art in turning a goddess into a witch, a virgin into a whore, but the opposite operation, to give dignity to what has been scorned, to make the degraded desirable,  that calls for art or for character.
> 
> It's been good owning you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you have to point out that you owned someone...
> 
> ...you didn't.
Click to expand...


Dream big, little girl, dream big!


----------



## Luissa

eots said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> same could be said for cannibalism...just sayin
Click to expand...


Actually it cannot, but nice try.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

varelse said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> varelse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'smoking causes cancer' is technically not a true statement. Doctors can never say what causes any given case of cancer and can only say thse who smoke (or who share other risk factors) are  at higher riak for cancer (that is, they are more likely to develop cancer)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doctors cannot say that UV exposure causes skin cancer? Seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> UV exposure increases (statistically) the odds of exposed cells becoming cancerous- it increases one's risk/odds of developing cancer.The eact 'cause' of any given case of cancer can not be proven or stated with any certanty.
> 
> So no, they can't, but they do out of laziness and because people like you [stupid people] areincapable of grasping the distinction or understanding how such things work
Click to expand...


You sound like those people that say evolution is just a theory.


----------



## Cecilie1200

mjollnir said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"You can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies." - Oscar Wilde_
> 
> One of the reasons I so decry the leftist dumbing-down of the population is because it's simply impossible now to acquire enemies of sufficient caliber.  Seriously, how is one to keep one's edge when, "Well, you have a fat ass!" is the best opposition available?
> 
> At least KosherGirl got, "Die of fire AIDS!"  It was pathetic, but at least it was HUMOROUS.  I'm jealous.  I simply cannot work with this inferior material.  Oh, for a nemesis who presents more of a challenge than merely not laughing myself into a hernia, or dying of boredom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no art in turning a goddess into a witch, a virgin into a whore, but the opposite operation, to give dignity to what has been scorned, to make the degraded desirable,  that calls for art or for character.
> 
> It's been good owning you.
Click to expand...




"Owning me."  It's not as funny as "fire AIDS", but at least it gave me a momentary chuckle.  Especially the quote that was supposed to provide rhetorical flourish, and ended up agreeing with me.  That never fails to amuse.

Run along, little one.  Perhaps you'll find another baboon who thinks flashing your ass is the height of debate brilliance.  The humans want to talk now.


----------



## JakeStarkey

And Ceci continues to demonstrate trouble with syntax and diction.  Hey.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Jimmy_Jam said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they absolutely HATE it when you tell them their most effective weapon (since they don't have facts and logic) is utterly ineffective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALL of their weapons are ineffective on me, because all of their weapons are dependent on emotional "thinking", which I refuse to engage in, and dependent moreover on giving a damn what leftists think of you.  I consider it a badge of honor to have them hate me.  The worst insult I can think of is to have one of those evil, brainless fuckwits APPROVE of me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most extremists feed off their emotions.
> 
> I know that leftists lie, they're just a little more subtle at it than the extreme righties.
> 
> To illustrate, one of the things that drives me absolutely nuts about my fellow Republicans is their tendency to fall for fantasy-based chain letters. I receive tons of them.
> 
> The left and the right both create their "scare" emails using factual distortions and in some cases outright fabrications, but I see far more of them from the right. Anybody who takes 15 minutes to investigate the factual basis of them can debunk them easily enough, but that doesn't stop the people who create them.
> 
> Just go to snopes and enter the word "Obama" and you'll see pages and pages of items that were debunked from fantastic chain letters. I'm in no way a defender of Obama, but when I see the number of distorted truths and outright lies that have been circulated on this one man alone though these idiotic chain letters, my head spins. I can't even keep up. Every one of them feeds off of the emotions of who are basically good-hearted patriotic Americans, but who unfortunately fall for them more often than not. I'm sorry, but I don't care what side of the political fence one rests, I think you will agree that lying is not acceptable.
> 
> Why am I condemning this in the right and not the left, you may ask? Simple. I happen to believe in the intellectual value of Devil's Advocate. This was a practice developed by the Vatican to challenge the one's assertions, and by those that agreed with the assertion. The intent of this device was, and is, to strengthen the advocates of whatever the assertion is. While I am not a Christian, I definitely recognize the genius of this development.
> 
> I don't care to strengthen the left. I would much rather strengthen the right. You have challenged me before for being too "moderate." Well, I am more moderate than yourself, this is true. But one thing you can take to the bank is that my tendency to challenge my fellow Republicans is out of love, I can assure you, even if most of them hate my guts, or at least find me extremely annoying, or even "stupid" as some of them like to call me.
> 
> It's all good. I don't mind.
Click to expand...


I'm afraid I must disagree.

Leftists are not the least bit subtle about their lying.  They are blatant, and even on occasion brag about it.  There is, after all, no reason for them to be subtle.  Conservatives don't believe a word they say, anyway, and their base is offended by the very idea of engaging their brains and thinking, so subtlety would be wasted on them.

And I have no idea why you're speaking to me about "Republicans", as though political party has anything to do with what I said.  You will notice, if you let go of the belief that "party" is interchangeable with "philosophy", that I rarely talk about Republicans and Democrats.  I am virtually always talking about conservatives and leftists (fraudulently labeling themselves "liberals"), because it is philosophy, belief, and worldview that interest me, not political affiliations.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Luissa said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> same could be said for cannibalism...just sayin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it cannot, but nice try.
Click to expand...


You're correct.  Cannibalism exists in MORE than 450 species of the animal kingdom.


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> Sane Americas like me are happy that the daveman's and Cecilie1200's despise us.
> 
> They are not worthy to be Americans, but this is a great country, so they belong anyway.
> 
> And they will do what the sane majority demands they do: and that's the way it is.


I don't despise you, boy.

I pity you that you have to lie to make yourself feel better.  

Sad, really.


----------



## daveman

mjollnir said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no art in turning a goddess into a witch, a virgin into a whore, but the opposite operation, to give dignity to what has been scorned, to make the degraded desirable,  that calls for art or for character.
> 
> It's been good owning you.
> 
> 
> 
> If you have to point out that you owned someone...
> 
> ...you didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dream big, little girl, dream big!
Click to expand...

You are indeed, Tack Hammer.


----------



## Cecilie1200

daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sane Americas like me are happy that the daveman's and Cecilie1200's despise us.
> 
> They are not worthy to be Americans, but this is a great country, so they belong anyway.
> 
> And they will do what the sane majority demands they do: and that's the way it is.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't despise you, boy.
> 
> I pity you that you have to lie to make yourself feel better.
> 
> Sad, really.
Click to expand...


Despising him would require me to take enough notice of his existence to care about it.  If that's what he believes, then once again, he's far too ambitious for his capabilities.


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> And Ceci continues to demonstrate trouble with syntax and diction.  Hey.



Just because you can't understand her doesn't mean the problem lies with her.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

Cecilie1200 said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALL of their weapons are ineffective on me, because all of their weapons are dependent on emotional "thinking", which I refuse to engage in, and dependent moreover on giving a damn what leftists think of you.  I consider it a badge of honor to have them hate me.  The worst insult I can think of is to have one of those evil, brainless fuckwits APPROVE of me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most extremists feed off their emotions.
> 
> I know that leftists lie, they're just a little more subtle at it than the extreme righties.
> 
> To illustrate, one of the things that drives me absolutely nuts about my fellow Republicans is their tendency to fall for fantasy-based chain letters. I receive tons of them.
> 
> The left and the right both create their "scare" emails using factual distortions and in some cases outright fabrications, but I see far more of them from the right. Anybody who takes 15 minutes to investigate the factual basis of them can debunk them easily enough, but that doesn't stop the people who create them.
> 
> Just go to snopes and enter the word "Obama" and you'll see pages and pages of items that were debunked from fantastic chain letters. I'm in no way a defender of Obama, but when I see the number of distorted truths and outright lies that have been circulated on this one man alone though these idiotic chain letters, my head spins. I can't even keep up. Every one of them feeds off of the emotions of who are basically good-hearted patriotic Americans, but who unfortunately fall for them more often than not. I'm sorry, but I don't care what side of the political fence one rests, I think you will agree that lying is not acceptable.
> 
> Why am I condemning this in the right and not the left, you may ask? Simple. I happen to believe in the intellectual value of Devil's Advocate. This was a practice developed by the Vatican to challenge the one's assertions, and by those that agreed with the assertion. The intent of this device was, and is, to strengthen the advocates of whatever the assertion is. While I am not a Christian, I definitely recognize the genius of this development.
> 
> I don't care to strengthen the left. I would much rather strengthen the right. You have challenged me before for being too "moderate." Well, I am more moderate than yourself, this is true. But one thing you can take to the bank is that my tendency to challenge my fellow Republicans is out of love, I can assure you, even if most of them hate my guts, or at least find me extremely annoying, or even "stupid" as some of them like to call me.
> 
> It's all good. I don't mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I must disagree.
> 
> Leftists are not the least bit subtle about their lying.  They are blatant, and even on occasion brag about it.  There is, after all, no reason for them to be subtle.  Conservatives don't believe a word they say, anyway, and their base is offended by the very idea of engaging their brains and thinking, so subtlety would be wasted on them.
> 
> And I have no idea why you're speaking to me about "Republicans", as though political party has anything to do with what I said.  You will notice, if you let go of the belief that "party" is interchangeable with "philosophy", that I rarely talk about Republicans and Democrats.  I am virtually always talking about conservatives and leftists (fraudulently labeling themselves "liberals"), because it is philosophy, belief, and worldview that interest me, not political affiliations.
Click to expand...


I understand. That interests me too. 

However, that Republicans tend to the right is true, even if there is a current trend for "conservatives" to differentiate themselves. I'm glad, because I wouldn't mind seeing the wingnuts leave the party. That would be fine with me. 

While philosophy and world views interest me, I am more concerned with the world actually being able to function, and I don't see extremists being capable of making that happen. They have their place, however, and it is an important one. If you see me as a wishy-washy moderate, it causes me no pain.

Anyway. Gotta run. I am unlikely to be on much if at all for several days. A joyous Yuletide season to one and all.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yet, the Mistress of Fractured English notices me.  

Hey, she is what she is, and she has every right to be a dork.



Cecilie1200 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sane Americas like me are happy that the daveman's and Cecilie1200's despise us.
> 
> They are not worthy to be Americans, but this is a great country, so they belong anyway.
> 
> And they will do what the sane majority demands they do: and that's the way it is.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't despise you, boy.
> 
> I pity you that you have to lie to make yourself feel better.
> 
> Sad, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despising him would require me to take enough notice of his existence to care about it.  If that's what he believes, then once again, he's far too ambitious for his capabilities.
Click to expand...


----------



## Cecilie1200

daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Ceci continues to demonstrate trouble with syntax and diction.  Hey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you can't understand her doesn't mean the problem lies with her.
Click to expand...


Jake wouldn't recognize syntax and diction if they crawled up his ass and died next to the remains of his gerbil.

And you may consider that particular mental image to be my Christmas present to the world.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Jimmy_Jam said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most extremists feed off their emotions.
> 
> I know that leftists lie, they're just a little more subtle at it than the extreme righties.
> 
> To illustrate, one of the things that drives me absolutely nuts about my fellow Republicans is their tendency to fall for fantasy-based chain letters. I receive tons of them.
> 
> The left and the right both create their "scare" emails using factual distortions and in some cases outright fabrications, but I see far more of them from the right. Anybody who takes 15 minutes to investigate the factual basis of them can debunk them easily enough, but that doesn't stop the people who create them.
> 
> Just go to snopes and enter the word "Obama" and you'll see pages and pages of items that were debunked from fantastic chain letters. I'm in no way a defender of Obama, but when I see the number of distorted truths and outright lies that have been circulated on this one man alone though these idiotic chain letters, my head spins. I can't even keep up. Every one of them feeds off of the emotions of who are basically good-hearted patriotic Americans, but who unfortunately fall for them more often than not. I'm sorry, but I don't care what side of the political fence one rests, I think you will agree that lying is not acceptable.
> 
> Why am I condemning this in the right and not the left, you may ask? Simple. I happen to believe in the intellectual value of Devil's Advocate. This was a practice developed by the Vatican to challenge the one's assertions, and by those that agreed with the assertion. The intent of this device was, and is, to strengthen the advocates of whatever the assertion is. While I am not a Christian, I definitely recognize the genius of this development.
> 
> I don't care to strengthen the left. I would much rather strengthen the right. You have challenged me before for being too "moderate." Well, I am more moderate than yourself, this is true. But one thing you can take to the bank is that my tendency to challenge my fellow Republicans is out of love, I can assure you, even if most of them hate my guts, or at least find me extremely annoying, or even "stupid" as some of them like to call me.
> 
> It's all good. I don't mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I must disagree.
> 
> Leftists are not the least bit subtle about their lying.  They are blatant, and even on occasion brag about it.  There is, after all, no reason for them to be subtle.  Conservatives don't believe a word they say, anyway, and their base is offended by the very idea of engaging their brains and thinking, so subtlety would be wasted on them.
> 
> And I have no idea why you're speaking to me about "Republicans", as though political party has anything to do with what I said.  You will notice, if you let go of the belief that "party" is interchangeable with "philosophy", that I rarely talk about Republicans and Democrats.  I am virtually always talking about conservatives and leftists (fraudulently labeling themselves "liberals"), because it is philosophy, belief, and worldview that interest me, not political affiliations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand. That interests me too.
> 
> However, that Republicans tend to the right is true, even if there is a current trend for "conservatives" to differentiate themselves. I'm glad, because I wouldn't mind seeing the wingnuts leave the party. That would be fine with me.
> 
> While philosophy and world views interest me, I am more concerned with the world actually being able to function, and I don't see extremists being capable of making that happen. They have their place, however, and it is an important one. If you see me as a wishy-washy moderate, it causes me no pain.
> 
> Anyway. Gotta run. I am unlikely to be on much if at all for several days. A joyous Yuletide season to one and all.
Click to expand...


Again, I disagree.  I think Democrats in power tend far to the left, but Republicans in power largely muddle around somewhere in the general vicinity of the middle, looking confused and hoping no one will notice them.  They remind me of kids in the back of the classroom who clearly didn't do last night's reading, and are hoping the teacher doesn't call on them.

I can't honestly say that I had thought about you enough to "see" you as anything, really.

Meanwhile, if you're going to comment on my posts, you would do well to not conflate party with philosophy, because I'm quite precise in my word choices, and if I didn't say "Republican/Democrat", there IS a reason.

A merry Christmas to you, and/or whatever holiday is your choice.


----------



## daveman

Cecilie1200 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Ceci continues to demonstrate trouble with syntax and diction.  Hey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you can't understand her doesn't mean the problem lies with her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jake wouldn't recognize syntax and diction if they crawled up his ass and died next to the remains of his gerbil.
> 
> And you may consider that particular mental image to be my Christmas present to the world.
Click to expand...

  Could I have a gift receipt?  I'd like to return it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yet, the Mistress of Fractured English puddles on herself. 

Hey, she is what she is, and she has every right to be a dork and a sexual pervert.



Cecilie1200 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Ceci continues to demonstrate trouble with syntax and diction.  Hey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you can't understand her doesn't mean the problem lies with her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jake wouldn't recognize syntax and diction if they crawled up his ass and died next to the remains of his gerbil.  And you may consider that particular mental image to be my Christmas present to the world.
Click to expand...


----------



## Cecilie1200

daveman said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you can't understand her doesn't mean the problem lies with her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake wouldn't recognize syntax and diction if they crawled up his ass and died next to the remains of his gerbil.
> 
> And you may consider that particular mental image to be my Christmas present to the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could I have a gift receipt?  I'd like to return it.
Click to expand...


No exchanges, no refunds.  But I can make you a good deal on a referral to a therapist to try to wipe the image from your mind.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The goofs just cannot leave the perversion and images of such alone.


----------



## daveman

Cecilie1200 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jake wouldn't recognize syntax and diction if they crawled up his ass and died next to the remains of his gerbil.
> 
> And you may consider that particular mental image to be my Christmas present to the world.
> 
> 
> 
> Could I have a gift receipt?  I'd like to return it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No exchanges, no refunds.  But I can make you a good deal on a referral to a therapist to try to wipe the image from your mind.
Click to expand...

Prolly be cheaper to get blasted on Bailey's & coffee -- and much more fun.


----------



## JakeStarkey

As the two clowns mumble and stumble and bumble grammatically along.

They have made my evening!



daveman said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could I have a gift receipt?  I'd like to return it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No exchanges, no refunds.  But I can make you a good deal on a referral to a therapist to try to wipe the image from your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prolly be cheaper to get blasted on Bailey's & coffee -- and much more fun.
Click to expand...


----------



## Cecilie1200

daveman said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could I have a gift receipt?  I'd like to return it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No exchanges, no refunds.  But I can make you a good deal on a referral to a therapist to try to wipe the image from your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prolly be cheaper to get blasted on Bailey's & coffee -- and much more fun.
Click to expand...


Good point.  And now you have an excuse.

Merry Christmas, and you're welcome.


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> As the two clowns mumble and stumble and bumble grammatically along.


Sentence fragment.


----------



## daveman

Cecilie1200 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No exchanges, no refunds.  But I can make you a good deal on a referral to a therapist to try to wipe the image from your mind.
> 
> 
> 
> Prolly be cheaper to get blasted on Bailey's & coffee -- and much more fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good point.  And now you have an excuse.
> 
> Merry Christmas, and you're welcome.
Click to expand...

Merry Christmas!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Jimmy_Jam said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they absolutely HATE it when you tell them their most effective weapon (since they don't have facts and logic) is utterly ineffective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALL of their weapons are ineffective on me, because all of their weapons are dependent on emotional "thinking", which I refuse to engage in, and dependent moreover on giving a damn what leftists think of you.  I consider it a badge of honor to have them hate me.  The worst insult I can think of is to have one of those evil, brainless fuckwits APPROVE of me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most extremists feed off their emotions.
> 
> I know that leftists lie, they're just a little more subtle at it than the extreme righties.
> 
> To illustrate, one of the things that drives me absolutely nuts about my fellow Republicans is their tendency to fall for fantasy-based chain letters. I receive tons of them.
> 
> The left and the right both create their "scare" emails using factual distortions and in some cases outright fabrications, but I see far more of them from the right. Anybody who takes 15 minutes to investigate the factual basis of them can debunk them easily enough, but that doesn't stop the people who create them.
> 
> Just go to snopes and enter the word "Obama" and you'll see pages and pages of items that were debunked from fantastic chain letters. I'm in no way a defender of Obama, but when I see the number of distorted truths and outright lies that have been circulated on this one man alone though these idiotic chain letters, my head spins. I can't even keep up. Every one of them feeds off of the emotions of who are basically good-hearted patriotic Americans, but who unfortunately fall for them more often than not. I'm sorry, but I don't care what side of the political fence one rests, I think you will agree that lying is not acceptable.
> 
> Why am I condemning this in the right and not the left, you may ask? Simple. I happen to believe in the intellectual value of Devil's Advocate. This was a practice developed by the Vatican to challenge the one's assertions, and by those that agreed with the assertion. The intent of this device was, and is, to strengthen the advocates of whatever the assertion is. While I am not a Christian, I definitely recognize the genius of this development.
> 
> I don't care to strengthen the left. *I would much rather strengthen the right.* You have challenged me before for being too "moderate." Well, I am more moderate than yourself, this is true. But one thing you can take to the bank is that my tendency to challenge my fellow Republicans is out of love, I can assure you, even if most of them hate my guts, or at least find me extremely annoying, or even "stupid" as some of them like to call me.
> 
> It's all good. I don't mind.
Click to expand...


If you have any hope of accomplishing this you must first work to redefine the right. 

The first step toward this goal is to return conservatism to its more pragmatic, facts-based roots, and away from blind partisanism and dogma, both from a fiscal and social standpoint. 

As long as the right continues to adhere to the nonsense espoused by the TPM and Christian fundamentalists, conservatism can never be strengthened.


----------



## 50_RiaL

Chucky Hagel, possible Obama pick for  sod is a big-time homophobe


----------



## YoungRepublican

eots said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> same could be said for cannibalism...just sayin
Click to expand...


Well thats not true at all. around 140 species have that trait actually.


----------



## Cecilie1200

YoungRepublican said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> same could be said for cannibalism...just sayin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well thats not true at all. around 140 species have that trait actually.
Click to expand...


Which one, homosexuality or cannibalism?

Not that it makes a damned bit of difference to normal human behavior, of course.


----------



## YoungRepublican

Cecilie1200 said:


> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> same could be said for cannibalism...just sayin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well thats not true at all. around 140 species have that trait actually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which one, homosexuality or cannibalism?
> 
> Not that it makes a damned bit of difference to normal human behavior, of course.
Click to expand...


Canabalism, but they are a little different. One is eating another human being and a  heinous crime, the other is just two dudes that love each other keeping the population in check. these dudes dont get a free pass, If I have to be miserable they have the same right as me lol


----------



## Cecilie1200

YoungRepublican said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well thats not true at all. around 140 species have that trait actually.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one, homosexuality or cannibalism?
> 
> Not that it makes a damned bit of difference to normal human behavior, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Canabalism, but they are a little different. One is eating another human being and a  heinous crime, the other is just two dudes that love each other keeping the population in check. these dudes dont get a free pass, If I have to be miserable they have the same right as me lol
Click to expand...


Um, no, dear.  There are THOUSANDS of species in the animal kingdom which exhibit the behavior of cannibalism in one form or another.

You need a dictionary.

Cannibalism is defined as "the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of the same kind", and as I said, thousands of different animal species do this under various circumstances.

I'm not even vaguely interested in your personal maunderings on life, love, and homosexuality, so let's keep this factual and scientific as much as possible, okay?


----------



## jtpr312

I don't know of one species of animal that engages in oral or anal intercourse, so it sorta puts a lie to the sodomites crap about "animals engage in homosexual beahvior so it's only natural for us too".


----------



## JakeStarkey

So pathetic.  

_You may have noticed that newspaper and magazine journalists often *use a dependent clause as a separate sentence when it follows clearly from the preceding main clause,. . . . This is a conventional journalistic practice, often used for emphasis.*_*Purdue OWL: Sentence Fragments





daveman said:





JakeStarkey said:



			As the two clowns mumble and stumble and bumble grammatically along.
		
Click to expand...

Sentence fragment.  

Click to expand...

*


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> So pathetic.
> 
> _You may have noticed that newspaper and magazine journalists often *use a dependent clause as a separate sentence when it follows clearly from the preceding main clause,. . . . This is a conventional journalistic practice, often used for emphasis.*_*Purdue OWL: Sentence Fragments
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the two clowns mumble and stumble and bumble grammatically along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sentence fragment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *


*

When it is used for emphasis there have to be other sentences surrounding it to support the fragment. when it stands by itself it is simple an indication of idiocy.

Idiot.*


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> So pathetic.
> 
> _You may have noticed that newspaper and magazine journalists often *use a dependent clause as a separate sentence when it follows clearly from the preceding main clause,. . . . This is a conventional journalistic practice, often used for emphasis.*_*Purdue OWL: Sentence Fragments
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the two clowns mumble and stumble and bumble grammatically along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sentence fragment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *


*
You're not a journalist, kid.  You're a 20-year-old brat with a semester of Poli Sci 101 and a warped view of reality.*


----------



## JakeStarkey

daveman is the 20 year old brat.  I am a senior citizen just settled into retirement this last month.

And I just kicked daveman's ass on his sentence fragment post.  Use Purdue's OWL system, daveman, to improve your writing.  It needs some improvement.


----------



## YoungRepublican

Cecilie1200 said:


> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which one, homosexuality or cannibalism?
> 
> Not that it makes a damned bit of difference to normal human behavior, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canabalism, but they are a little different. One is eating another human being and a  heinous crime, the other is just two dudes that love each other keeping the population in check. these dudes dont get a free pass, If I have to be miserable they have the same right as me lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, no, dear.  There are THOUSANDS of species in the animal kingdom which exhibit the behavior of cannibalism in one form or another.
> 
> You need a dictionary.
> 
> Cannibalism is defined as "the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of the same kind", and as I said, thousands of different animal species do this under various circumstances.
> 
> I'm not even vaguely interested in your personal maunderings on life, love, and homosexuality, so let's keep this factual and scientific as much as possible, okay?
Click to expand...


Ladywildlife's Canniblaism in Animals Page
Do you want more research or should I just continue to throw out stupid numbers like you? If I could ask you to keep your opinions as scientific as possible. I also have no desire to listen to your various forms of hate speech.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

YoungRepublican said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canabalism, but they are a little different. One is eating another human being and a  heinous crime, the other is just two dudes that love each other keeping the population in check. these dudes dont get a free pass, If I have to be miserable they have the same right as me lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no, dear.  There are THOUSANDS of species in the animal kingdom which exhibit the behavior of cannibalism in one form or another.
> 
> You need a dictionary.
> 
> Cannibalism is defined as "the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of the same kind", and as I said, thousands of different animal species do this under various circumstances.
> 
> I'm not even vaguely interested in your personal maunderings on life, love, and homosexuality, so let's keep this factual and scientific as much as possible, okay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ladywildlife's Canniblaism in Animals Page
> Do you want more research or should I just continue to throw out stupid numbers like you? If I could ask you to keep your opinions as scientific as possible. I also have no desire to listen to your various forms of hate speech.
Click to expand...


Please, keep throwing out numbers. There are at least 1500 different species that resort to cannibalism under different circumstances, not 140.

Cannibalism (zoology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Cecilie1200

YoungRepublican said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canabalism, but they are a little different. One is eating another human being and a  heinous crime, the other is just two dudes that love each other keeping the population in check. these dudes dont get a free pass, If I have to be miserable they have the same right as me lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no, dear.  There are THOUSANDS of species in the animal kingdom which exhibit the behavior of cannibalism in one form or another.
> 
> You need a dictionary.
> 
> Cannibalism is defined as "the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of the same kind", and as I said, thousands of different animal species do this under various circumstances.
> 
> I'm not even vaguely interested in your personal maunderings on life, love, and homosexuality, so let's keep this factual and scientific as much as possible, okay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ladywildlife's Canniblaism in Animals Page
> Do you want more research or should I just continue to throw out stupid numbers like you? If I could ask you to keep your opinions as scientific as possible. I also have no desire to listen to your various forms of hate speech.
Click to expand...


Research?!  What are you, twelve, that you think throwing up some anonymous broad's web page constitutes "research"?

Try THIS instead, Junior:

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

(You'll have to actually go to the article and read it, because it doesn't allow for cut-and-paste.)

And that's an old article.  The number is now accepted to be much higher.

This, of course, is the work on the subject most cited on academic websites, as well as many encyclopedic sites, so if you don't want to buy it, feel free to just look for the quotes all over the Internet.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Cannibalism-Ecology-Evolution-Among-Diverse/dp/B003WL3W7W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1356660268&sr=8-1&keywords=Cannibalism%3A+Ecology+and+Evolution+of+Cannibalism+among+Diverse+Taxa]Amazon.com: Cannibalism, Ecology and Evolution Among Diverse Taxa: Mark A., Crespi, Bernard J., Editors Elgar: Books[/ame]

Now run along, Junior.  I hear your X-Box calling you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

In Some Species, Eating Your Own Is Good Sense - NYTimes.com

In Some Species, Eating Your Own Is Good Sense
By CAROL KAESUK YOON
Published: September 29, 1992

CANNIBALISM, at least among animals, may not be as bad as it sounds. Biologists once considered the eating of an individual's own species a behavioral mistake made by animals that were unnaturally overcrowded or hungry. But after new analyses, scientists have begun to see the consumption of one's fellow beings as a shrewd strategy for survival.

In fact, among some species, cannibalism is so common that it has molded some of the animal world's most elaborate social behaviors, including courtship and parental care.

In a new book, "Cannibalism, Ecology and Evolution Among Diverse Taxa" (Oxford University Press), described as the first comprehensive study of cannibalism, scientists argue that when animals eat their own species they are not just looking for another meal but also seeking to destroy competitors in the struggle to survive and reproduce.

"We humans think it's terrible for a species to eat its own kind," said Dr. Martha Crump, a behavioral biologist studying cannibalism among tadpoles. "But I think that in many situations, cannibalism is a very natural and reasonable thing to do. If food is limited and members of your species are the only thing around, why starve?"


----------



## YoungRepublican

Cecilie1200 said:


> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no, dear.  There are THOUSANDS of species in the animal kingdom which exhibit the behavior of cannibalism in one form or another.
> 
> You need a dictionary.
> 
> Cannibalism is defined as "the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of the same kind", and as I said, thousands of different animal species do this under various circumstances.
> 
> I'm not even vaguely interested in your personal maunderings on life, love, and homosexuality, so let's keep this factual and scientific as much as possible, okay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ladywildlife's Canniblaism in Animals Page
> Do you want more research or should I just continue to throw out stupid numbers like you? If I could ask you to keep your opinions as scientific as possible. I also have no desire to listen to your various forms of hate speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Research?!  What are you, twelve, that you think throwing up some anonymous broad's web page constitutes "research"?
> 
> Try THIS instead, Junior:
> 
> JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
> 
> (You'll have to actually go to the article and read it, because it doesn't allow for cut-and-paste.)
> 
> And that's an old article.  The number is now accepted to be much higher.
> 
> This, of course, is the work on the subject most cited on academic websites, as well as many encyclopedic sites, so if you don't want to buy it, feel free to just look for the quotes all over the Internet.
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Cannibalism-Ecology-Evolution-Among-Diverse/dp/B003WL3W7W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1356660268&sr=8-1&keywords=Cannibalism%3A+Ecology+and+Evolution+of+Cannibalism+among+Diverse+Taxa]Amazon.com: Cannibalism, Ecology and Evolution Among Diverse Taxa: Mark A., Crespi, Bernard J., Editors Elgar: Books[/ame]
> 
> Now run along, Junior.  I hear your X-Box calling you.
Click to expand...


My school allots me every EBSCO, Academic Search Premier, the whole nine and I could find a thing to support your claim. The fact that you are comparing homosexuality to cannibalism alone just shows me who should be running along. Keep insulting though, I&#8217;m sure that does wonders for your self esteem.. What&#8217;s the issue? Weight? Looks?  Usually when people resort to insults like that its a pretty good indicator of an overwhelming insecurity. those coupled with your disdain for the gays..well its just about written all over you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

LGS is messed up for sure, but not include family remarks, please.

Only the sick minded social values ultra right link homosexuality and cannibalism and bestiality and such.

Shows just how the level of emotional sickness is among some of them.


----------



## YoungRepublican

JakeStarkey said:


> LGS is messed up for sure, but not include family remarks, please.
> 
> Only the sick minded social values ultra right link homosexuality and cannibalism and bestiality and such.
> 
> Shows just how the level of emotional sickness is among some of them.



I edited it. These people just make me so damn mad and then they have the gaul to think that they are the face of the GOP and we should be proud to have them in the ranks. I just dont understand where it comes from.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The gall comes from a sense of libertarian and ultra right entitlement and superiority, in that they know better than everyone else because of intelligence or religious belief or whatever.

Such are smucks.


----------



## RightNorLeft

YoungRepublican said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> LGS is messed up for sure, but not include family remarks, please.
> 
> Only the sick minded social values ultra right link homosexuality and cannibalism and bestiality and such.
> 
> Shows just how the level of emotional sickness is among some of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I edited it. These people just make me so damn mad and then they have the gaul to think that they are the face of the GOP and we should be proud to have them in the ranks. I just dont understand where it comes from.
Click to expand...



  Its the extremist nutcases in the GOP that chased  many of us out and made us independents. Same as the left wing frenziests who pushed mainstream democrats to independent.
  If both parties keep catering to the special interest loons at the extremes of both of them the voting power will grow in the independent ranks, until the parties will HAVE to cater to the normal mainstream americans.


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman is the 20 year old brat.  I am a senior citizen just settled into retirement this last month.
> 
> And I just kicked daveman's ass on his sentence fragment post.  Use Purdue's OWL system, daveman, to improve your writing.  It needs some improvement.


You live a rich fantasy life, kid.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Says the fantasy boy.


----------



## Cecilie1200

YoungRepublican said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ladywildlife's Canniblaism in Animals Page
> Do you want more research or should I just continue to throw out stupid numbers like you? If I could ask you to keep your opinions as scientific as possible. I also have no desire to listen to your various forms of hate speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Research?!  What are you, twelve, that you think throwing up some anonymous broad's web page constitutes "research"?
> 
> Try THIS instead, Junior:
> 
> JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
> 
> (You'll have to actually go to the article and read it, because it doesn't allow for cut-and-paste.)
> 
> And that's an old article.  The number is now accepted to be much higher.
> 
> This, of course, is the work on the subject most cited on academic websites, as well as many encyclopedic sites, so if you don't want to buy it, feel free to just look for the quotes all over the Internet.
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Cannibalism-Ecology-Evolution-Among-Diverse/dp/B003WL3W7W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1356660268&sr=8-1&keywords=Cannibalism%3A+Ecology+and+Evolution+of+Cannibalism+among+Diverse+Taxa]Amazon.com: Cannibalism, Ecology and Evolution Among Diverse Taxa: Mark A., Crespi, Bernard J., Editors Elgar: Books[/ame]
> 
> Now run along, Junior.  I hear your X-Box calling you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My school allots me every EBSCO, Academic Search Premier, the whole nine and I could find a thing to support your claim. The fact that you are comparing homosexuality to cannibalism alone just shows me who should be running along. Keep insulting though, I&#8217;m sure that does wonders for your self esteem.. What&#8217;s the issue? Weight? Looks?  Usually when people resort to insults like that its a pretty good indicator of an overwhelming insecurity. those coupled with your disdain for the gays..well its just about written all over you.
Click to expand...


Hoo, boy.  Go annoy some adults *XXXXXXX*, little one.  No one else is interested, or compelled to pretend they are.

"I don't like what you're saying, so YOU'RE FAT!"  We have enough of that puerile nonsense from people who are nominally grown-ups without being stuck babysitting you.

Scram, kid, and tell *XXXXXXX* I'm going to start charging them.


----------



## YoungRepublican

Cecilie1200 said:


> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Research?!  What are you, twelve, that you think throwing up some anonymous broad's web page constitutes "research"?
> 
> Try THIS instead, Junior:
> 
> JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
> 
> (You'll have to actually go to the article and read it, because it doesn't allow for cut-and-paste.)
> 
> And that's an old article.  The number is now accepted to be much higher.
> 
> This, of course, is the work on the subject most cited on academic websites, as well as many encyclopedic sites, so if you don't want to buy it, feel free to just look for the quotes all over the Internet.
> 
> Amazon.com: Cannibalism, Ecology and Evolution Among Diverse Taxa: Mark A., Crespi, Bernard J., Editors Elgar: Books
> 
> Now run along, Junior.  I hear your X-Box calling you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My school allots me every EBSCO, Academic Search Premier, the whole nine and I could find a thing to support your claim. The fact that you are comparing homosexuality to cannibalism alone just shows me who should be running along. Keep insulting though, Im sure that does wonders for your self esteem.. Whats the issue? Weight? Looks?  Usually when people resort to insults like that its a pretty good indicator of an overwhelming insecurity. those coupled with your disdain for the gays..well its just about written all over you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hoo, boy.  Go annoy some adults *XXXXXXX*, little one.  No one else is interested, or compelled to pretend they are.
> 
> "I don't like what you're saying, so YOU'RE FAT!"  We have enough of that puerile nonsense from people who are nominally grown-ups without being stuck babysitting you.
> 
> Scram, kid, and tell *XXXXXXX* I'm going to start charging them.
Click to expand...


I was just pointing out the fact that insults like those are usually a direct link to ones own insecurity. Ya see, when people have this odd fascination with banning gay marriage I automatically dismiss all of those opinions as immature, which they are. Youre right, I dont like what you are saying because its counter-productive. You want to argue gay marriage, please, lets, but no need to resort to insults to try to prove a point.


----------



## ShackledNation

JakeStarkey said:


> The gall comes from a sense of libertarian and ultra right entitlement and superiority, in that they know better than everyone else because of intelligence or religious belief or whatever.
> 
> Such are smucks.


Libertarians are not against homosexuals in any way, and are not against people of the same sex getting married if that is what they choose. Please do not group libertarianism with "the ultra right" as it makes no sense whatsoever.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

ShackledNation said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gall comes from a sense of libertarian and ultra right entitlement and superiority, in that they know better than everyone else because of intelligence or religious belief or whatever.
> 
> Such are smucks.
> 
> 
> 
> Libertarians are not against homosexuals in any way, and are not against people of the same sex getting married if that is what they choose. Please do not group libertarianism with "the ultra right" as it makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...


Jake is so far left he thinks Barney Frank is extreme right wing, ignore his labels unless your intent is to mock him.


----------



## JakeStarkey

"they know better than everyone else because of intelligence or religious belief or whatever" is qualified by x or y or z.  I said nothing about homosexuality in any way below.  You have created a straw man argument that does not pertain here.

If you are libertarian or ultra right, you do not know better, but in fact, far less than the rest of the population.



ShackledNation said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gall comes from a sense of libertarian and ultra right entitlement and superiority, in that they know better than everyone else because of intelligence or religious belief or whatever.
> 
> Such are smucks.
> 
> 
> 
> Libertarians are not against homosexuals in any way, and are not against people of the same sex getting married if that is what they choose. Please do not group libertarianism with "the ultra right" as it makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...


----------



## ShackledNation

JakeStarkey said:


> "they know better than everyone else because of intelligence or religious belief or whatever" is qualified by x or y or z.  I said nothing about homosexuality in any way below.  You have created a straw man argument that does not pertain here.
> 
> If you are libertarian or ultra right, you do not know better, but in fact, far less than the rest of the population.
> 
> 
> 
> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gall comes from a sense of libertarian and ultra right entitlement and superiority, in that they know better than everyone else because of intelligence or religious belief or whatever.
> 
> Such are smucks.
> 
> 
> 
> Libertarians are not against homosexuals in any way, and are not against people of the same sex getting married if that is what they choose. Please do not group libertarianism with "the ultra right" as it makes no sense whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Just read the post above yours, which you were responding to. "The gall" referred to linked homosexuality and bestiality/cannibalism, which suggests a position against homosexuality. You said that gall comes from libertarians, it simply does not. You group libertarians with the extreme right, when they are quite the opposite.

Either way, your statement is false.


----------



## Cecilie1200

YoungRepublican said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> 
> My school allots me every EBSCO, Academic Search Premier, the whole nine and I could find a thing to support your claim. The fact that you are comparing homosexuality to cannibalism alone just shows me who should be running along. Keep insulting though, Im sure that does wonders for your self esteem.. Whats the issue? Weight? Looks?  Usually when people resort to insults like that its a pretty good indicator of an overwhelming insecurity. those coupled with your disdain for the gays..well its just about written all over you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hoo, boy.  Go annoy some adults *XXXXXXX*, little one.  No one else is interested, or compelled to pretend they are.
> 
> "I don't like what you're saying, so YOU'RE FAT!"  We have enough of that puerile nonsense from people who are nominally grown-ups without being stuck babysitting you.
> 
> Scram, kid, and tell *XXXXXXX* I'm going to start charging them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was just pointing out the fact that insults like those are usually a direct link to ones own insecurity. Ya see, when people have this odd fascination with banning gay marriage I automatically dismiss all of those opinions as immature, which they are. Youre right, I dont like what you are saying because its counter-productive. You want to argue gay marriage, please, lets, but no need to resort to insults to try to prove a point.
Click to expand...


Junior, you can point out any freaking thing you want.  It won't matter, because I don't take instruction from arrogant little teenaged asswipes who just discovered the world around them last week and now think they're frigging experts who are going to lecture their elders about how they aren't handling things right.  Maybe when your testicles have dropped and your voice has changed and you've gotten your first real job, you might have something to say to me, but that's still a good decade in the future.  So sit up straight, drink all your milk, and pipe down while the grown-ups are talking.


----------



## YoungRepublican

Cecilie1200 said:


> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hoo, boy.  Go annoy some adults *XXXXXXX*, little one.  No one else is interested, or compelled to pretend they are.
> 
> "I don't like what you're saying, so YOU'RE FAT!"  We have enough of that puerile nonsense from people who are nominally grown-ups without being stuck babysitting you.
> 
> Scram, kid, and tell *XXXXXXX* I'm going to start charging them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was just pointing out the fact that insults like those are usually a direct link to ones own insecurity. Ya see, when people have this odd fascination with banning gay marriage I automatically dismiss all of those opinions as immature, which they are. Youre right, I dont like what you are saying because its counter-productive. You want to argue gay marriage, please, lets, but no need to resort to insults to try to prove a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Junior, you can point out any freaking thing you want.  It won't matter, because I don't take instruction from arrogant little teenaged asswipes who just discovered the world around them last week and now think they're frigging experts who are going to lecture their elders about how they aren't handling things right.  Maybe when your testicles have dropped and your voice has changed and you've gotten your first real job, you might have something to say to me, but that's still a good decade in the future.  So sit up straight, drink all your milk, and pipe down while the grown-ups are talking.
Click to expand...


Haha yes my age discounts me because I am new to the world. Hers a news flash for you lady.. You are the modern equivalent to the opposition of the civil rights movement and thats how youll be remembered. An out of touch idiot who went to their graves as an intolerant fool. The problem with the internet is that it gives people like you a voice, 20 years ago the only place you would have been able to spew your hate speech is at your local church. My age doesnt appear to be the problem in this discussion, its yours. It is your generation that is doing the harm and it will be remembered that way, believe that lady.


----------



## Cecilie1200

*XXXXXXX* perhaps we could get back to the topic:

What does the normal behavior of other species mean to normal human behavior?  Anything?  Nothing?

As has been pointed out and not even vaguely refuted or even dealt with, many other things that humans would never consider doing - or are incapable of doing, in some instances - are completely normal to other species.  Cannibalism is the big one that's been mentioned, but I myself also mentioned that many other species in the animal kingdom exhibit hermaphroditism as a normal genetic trait, while in humans it only appears rarely as an anomalous mutation.

So whenever you leftists want to stop dancing around the jailbait like a bunch of dogs around a bitch in heat, stop demanding that we can't discuss ANY other characteristics of the animal kingdom EXCEPT the one that you've designated as "proving" homosexuality is normal, and actually deal with this point, I will await your posts with great anticipation.

But I won't hold my breath, since I know what a bunch of uneducated chickenshits you all really are.


----------



## YoungRepublican

Cecilie1200 said:


> If we could move right along past Jake the Grungy Perv sniffing around the junior-high student who wouldn't know a real source if it slapped him, perhaps we could get back to the topic:
> 
> What does the normal behavior of other species mean to normal human behavior?  Anything?  Nothing?
> 
> As has been pointed out and not even vaguely refuted or even dealt with, many other things that humans would never consider doing - or are incapable of doing, in some instances - are completely normal to other species.  Cannibalism is the big one that's been mentioned, but I myself also mentioned that many other species in the animal kingdom exhibit hermaphroditism as a normal genetic trait, while in humans it only appears rarely as an anomalous mutation.
> 
> So whenever you leftists want to stop dancing around the jailbait like a bunch of dogs around a bitch in heat, stop demanding that we can't discuss ANY other characteristics of the animal kingdom EXCEPT the one that you've designated as "proving" homosexuality is normal, and actually deal with this point, I will await your posts with great anticipation.
> 
> But I won't hold my breath, since I know what a bunch of uneducated chickenshits you all really are.



Haha Junior high..Im a college senior on his way to Law school.. Which Colege/Grad school did you attend? No one needs to adress your claims that cannobalism is even remotely close to homosexuality because its an asinine comment. Jeez the stupidity is everywhere


----------



## Ernie S.

Noomi said:


> get_involved said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion. I have the right NOT to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well its not called homo-opinion, is it? Its called homophobia for a reason.
Click to expand...


It's called homophobia because it's meant to be a pejorative. It makes people sound meaner than if you'd called them "people who think homosexuals are perverts"

People who think marriage is between one man and one woman are not afraid of homosexuals.


----------



## Sunni Man

Homophobia means to have an irrational fear of homosexuals.

I doubt that any normal man is fearful of a limp wristed gay with an effeminate lisp.

A better term would be something like disgust-phobia or pervert-phobia.


----------



## Cecilie1200

YoungRepublican said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was just pointing out the fact that insults like those are usually a direct link to ones own insecurity. Ya see, when people have this odd fascination with banning gay marriage I automatically dismiss all of those opinions as immature, which they are. Youre right, I dont like what you are saying because its counter-productive. You want to argue gay marriage, please, lets, but no need to resort to insults to try to prove a point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Junior, you can point out any freaking thing you want.  It won't matter, because I don't take instruction from arrogant little teenaged asswipes who just discovered the world around them last week and now think they're frigging experts who are going to lecture their elders about how they aren't handling things right.  Maybe when your testicles have dropped and your voice has changed and you've gotten your first real job, you might have something to say to me, but that's still a good decade in the future.  So sit up straight, drink all your milk, and pipe down while the grown-ups are talking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha yes my age discounts me because I am new to the world. Hers a news flash for you lady.. You are the modern equivalent to the opposition of the civil rights movement and that&#8217;s how youll be remembered. An out of touch idiot who went to their graves as an intolerant fool. The problem with the internet is that it gives people like you a voice, 20 years ago the only place you would have been able to spew your hate speech is at your local church. My age doesn&#8217;t appear to be the problem in this discussion, its yours. It is your generation that is doing the harm and it will be remembered that way, believe that lady.
Click to expand...


Yes, little boy, your age DOES discount you.  I also don't ask the political opinions of my 4-year-old, and I like him a whole fuckload more than I do you.

While we're on the subject, though, it's not JUST your age that disqualifies you from deserving any of my respect or consideration.  It's also your utter paucity of information and education, and the laughable arrogance with which you still insist on presenting yourself despite that.

Let me ask you a question, Junior.  Who is "LadyWildlife"?  Do you know?  You cited her to me as a source of information, and called looking up her one-page Web post "research", so SURELY you know who she is, and what her claim to expertise is.  Let's hear it, and then perhaps I will view you as something other than a pissant little boy who needs to be sent to his room without supper.

Or you can sit around gassing about how I'm "spewing hate speech" for pointing out what an immature, obnoxious little ignoramus you are, and in just a few more posts, the only person who will even be listening to you will be Jake. *XXXXXXX*

Take your pick, juvenile, because up to this point, you haven't said a frigging thing that would make me miss you for a nanosecond after slapping your diapered ass on ignore, or make me remember that you exist a nanosecond after that.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Negged and reported for the pedophile slurs.

Cecelie1200 has gotten slapped down hard every time, and she loses her mind.  She can't stand the fact that she is stunted emotionally and mentally.  Yes, she will get ass kicked every time for the hate speech.

True conservatives have no political problem with homosexuality or heterosexuality.  The fact is that many species exhibit homosexuality while only one species exhibits homophobia.

Tuff that.  



Cecilie1200 said:


> If we could move right along past Jake the Grungy Perv sniffing around the junior-high student who wouldn't know a real source if it slapped him, perhaps we could get back to the topic:
> 
> What does the normal behavior of other species mean to normal human behavior?  Anything?  Nothing?
> 
> As has been pointed out and not even vaguely refuted or even dealt with, many other things that humans would never consider doing - or are incapable of doing, in some instances - are completely normal to other species.  Cannibalism is the big one that's been mentioned, but I myself also mentioned that many other species in the animal kingdom exhibit hermaphroditism as a normal genetic trait, while in humans it only appears rarely as an anomalous mutation.
> 
> So whenever you leftists want to stop dancing around the jailbait like a bunch of dogs around a bitch in heat, stop demanding that we can't discuss ANY other characteristics of the animal kingdom EXCEPT the one that you've designated as "proving" homosexuality is normal, and actually deal with this point, I will await your posts with great anticipation.
> 
> But I won't hold my breath, since I know what a bunch of uneducated chickenshits you all really are.


----------



## YoungRepublican

Cecilie1200 said:


> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Junior, you can point out any freaking thing you want.  It won't matter, because I don't take instruction from arrogant little teenaged asswipes who just discovered the world around them last week and now think they're frigging experts who are going to lecture their elders about how they aren't handling things right.  Maybe when your testicles have dropped and your voice has changed and you've gotten your first real job, you might have something to say to me, but that's still a good decade in the future.  So sit up straight, drink all your milk, and pipe down while the grown-ups are talking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha yes my age discounts me because I am new to the world. Hers a news flash for you lady.. You are the modern equivalent to the opposition of the civil rights movement and thats how youll be remembered. An out of touch idiot who went to their graves as an intolerant fool. The problem with the internet is that it gives people like you a voice, 20 years ago the only place you would have been able to spew your hate speech is at your local church. My age doesnt appear to be the problem in this discussion, its yours. It is your generation that is doing the harm and it will be remembered that way, believe that lady.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, little boy, your age DOES discount you.  I also don't ask the political opinions of my 4-year-old, and I like him a whole fuckload more than I do you.
> 
> While we're on the subject, though, it's not JUST your age that disqualifies you from deserving any of my respect or consideration.  It's also your utter paucity of information and education, and the laughable arrogance with which you still insist on presenting yourself despite that.
> 
> Let me ask you a question, Junior.  Who is "LadyWildlife"?  Do you know?  You cited her to me as a source of information, and called looking up her one-page Web post "research", so SURELY you know who she is, and what her claim to expertise is.  Let's hear it, and then perhaps I will view you as something other than a pissant little boy who needs to be sent to his room without supper.
> 
> Or you can sit around gassing about how I'm "spewing hate speech" for pointing out what an immature, obnoxious little ignoramus you are, and in just a few more posts, the only person who will even be listening to you will be Jake. *XXXXXXX*
> 
> Take your pick, juvenile, because up to this point, you haven't said a frigging thing that would make me miss you for a nanosecond after slapping your diapered ass on ignore, or make me remember that you exist a nanosecond after that.
Click to expand...


You lead a sad sad life your crazy bat. Keep hating gays and protesting evloution. People know who you are and they think you are an awful human being for it. Im no "junior" I am a college senior on his way to law school as I previously pointed out.. Please, what College/Grad school did you attend? If I were a betting man, which I am, I'd say you didnt, maybe two years at the local community college. Just leading some sad  lower to middle income life out there in bumblefuck, America never understanding reality, resting comfortably in the words of your preacher until the day you pass on realizing that every social opinion you ever had was gone, just like you.. Fuck off lady, no Intelligent person needs to hear your bull shit "God says to hate queers" nonsense. You have given me and the rest of evolved America a reason to hate people like you. Just head back to the double wide and leave adult conversations for those who have earned the right to be in them.


----------



## Sunni Man

YoungRepublican said:


> You lead a sad sad life your crazy bat. Keep hating gays and protesting evloution. People know who you are and they think you are an awful human being for it. Im no "junior" I am a college senior on his way to law school as I previously pointed out.. Please, what College/Grad school did you attend? If I were a betting man, which I am, I'd say you didnt, maybe two years at the local community college. _*Just leading some sad  lower to middle income life out there in bumblefuck, America*_ never understanding reality, resting comfortably in the words of your preacher until the day you pass on realizing that every social opinion you ever had was gone, just like you.. Fuck off lady, no Intelligent person needs to hear your bull shit "God says to hate queers" nonsense.* You have given me and the rest of evolved America a reason to hate people like you. *Just head back to the double wide and leave adult conversations for those who have earned the right to be in them.


Junior, you just "outed" yourself as an elitist liberal.

So cut out the fake, "I am a Republican" nonsense.

Your words are typical far leftist Democrat drivel that we have heard on this board ad nauseam.

You should take your fraudulent act somewhere else...........


----------



## JakeStarkey

He has outed himself as an evovled middle of the road Republican, Sunni Man.

You are an ultra right Moslem, with a hatred of Jews, who once served his country.

You have nothing of worth to offer now.


----------



## Sunni Man

JakeStarkey said:


> He has outed himself as an *evolved *middle of the road Republican, Sunni Man.


The word "evolved" is the new leftist euphemism for communist.........


----------



## JakeStarkey

Only in your confused mind, Sunni Man.


----------



## Sunni Man

I may be a lot of things, but "confused" isn't one of them...........


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are one of the most confused individuals here, SM.  Often you remind me of EdwardBaiamonte.


----------



## Sunni Man

I have always been very clear, concise, and consistant, about my stance on various topics.

Being a long time Republican; I am a conservatie on both fiscal and social issues

Pro: Death penalty, closed boarders, 2nd Amendment, right to work, etc.

Anti: unions, abortion, drugs, assault rifle bans, homo marriage, etc.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You can obfuscate with the worst posters, Sunni Man, so please do not dissemble now.

You are also very, very anti-Jewish and anti-Israel and anti-woman.


----------



## mjollnir

Sunni Man said:


> I have always been very clear, concise, and consistant, about my stance on various topics.
> 
> Being a long time Republican; I am a conservatie on both fiscal and social issues
> 
> Pro: Death penalty, closed boarders, 2nd Amendment, right to work, etc.
> 
> Anti: unions, abortion, drugs, assault rifle bans, homo marriage, etc.



LOL!  So, in your own words, you love big gov't.

Thanks for clearing that up, dunce.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> He has outed himself as an evovled middle of the road Republican, Sunni Man.
> 
> You are an ultra right Moslem, with a hatred of Jews, who once served his country.
> 
> You have nothing of worth to offer now.



Not if you agree with him.


----------



## JakeStarkey

QWB, those who agree with SM have nothing to offer America of worth, either.


----------



## Sunni Man

JakeStarkey said:


> You can *obfuscate *with the worst posters, Sunni Man, so please do not *dissemble *now.


^^^^^ Looks like that used Thesaurus you picked up at the yard sale last weekend is working out for you.


----------



## YoungRepublican

Sunni Man said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has outed himself as an *evolved *middle of the road Republican, Sunni Man.
> 
> 
> 
> The word "evolved" is the new leftist euphemism for communist.........
Click to expand...


The word evolved means not a fucking moron..


----------



## Sunni Man

YoungRepublican said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has outed himself as an *evolved *middle of the road Republican, Sunni Man.
> 
> 
> 
> The word "evolved" is the new leftist euphemism for communist.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word evolved means not a fucking moron..
Click to expand...

Then by that definition; you are definitely not evolved................


----------



## YoungRepublican

Sunni Man said:


> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word "evolved" is the new leftist euphemism for communist.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word evolved means not a fucking moron..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then by that definition; you are definitely not evolved................
Click to expand...


Good one..


----------



## Quantum Windbag

YoungRepublican said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has outed himself as an *evolved *middle of the road Republican, Sunni Man.
> 
> 
> 
> The word "evolved" is the new leftist euphemism for communist.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word evolved means not a fucking moron..
Click to expand...


Not when you are using it to refer to yourself.


----------



## YoungRepublican

Quantum Windbag said:


> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word "evolved" is the new leftist euphemism for communist.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word evolved means not a fucking moron..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when you are using it to refer to yourself.
Click to expand...


Heres the social definition of evolved for the generation that will live longer than yours and produce all of the legislation when you are old and dying:
Gay marriage: Legal
Abortion: Available for all who want it
Evolution: Taught in all schools as fact
Equal pay for Women in every job

These arent debates, they are just notions one generation holds as liberal until the next generation takes power and they are all passed. Its not a matter of if, nor is it really a debate. All of things I just listed will be passed and accepted in 30 years and there is really nothing you can do about it. Sorry im not sorry


----------



## JakeStarkey

By definition, SM is not evolved.  



Sunni Man said:


> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word "evolved" is the new leftist euphemism for communist.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word evolved means not a fucking moron..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then by that definition; you are definitely not evolved................
Click to expand...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

YoungRepublican said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word evolved means not a fucking moron..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not when you are using it to refer to yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heres the social definition of evolved for the generation that will live longer than yours and produce all of the legislation when you are old and dying:
> Gay marriage: Legal
> Abortion: Available for all who want it
> Evolution: Taught in all schools as fact
> Equal pay for Women in every job
> 
> These arent debates, they are just notions one generation holds as liberal until the next generation takes power and they are all passed. Its not a matter of if, nor is it really a debate. All of things I just listed will be passed and accepted in 30 years and there is really nothing you can do about it. Sorry im not sorry
Click to expand...


Here is my position on those subjects.

Gay marriage: None of my, or the governments, business.
Abortion: Ending life should always be a last resort. Come to think of it, I also oppose the death penalty.
Evolution: Since it cannot be accurately explained without teaching graduate level biology, and really doesn't make a difference to anyone who is not a biologist, why argue about it?
Equal pay for Women in every job: Why should women be forced to accept less money?

Go play with your toys, you aren't qualified to debate, or argue, with me.


----------



## YoungRepublican

Quantum Windbag said:


> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when you are using it to refer to yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heres the social definition of evolved for the generation that will live longer than yours and produce all of the legislation when you are old and dying:
> Gay marriage: Legal
> Abortion: Available for all who want it
> Evolution: Taught in all schools as fact
> Equal pay for Women in every job
> 
> These arent debates, they are just notions one generation holds as liberal until the next generation takes power and they are all passed. Its not a matter of if, nor is it really a debate. All of things I just listed will be passed and accepted in 30 years and there is really nothing you can do about it. Sorry im not sorry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is my position on those subjects.
> 
> Gay marriage: None of my, or the governments, business.
> Abortion: Ending life should always be a last resort. Come to think of it, I also oppose the death penalty.
> Evolution: Since it cannot be accurately explained without teaching graduate level biology, and really doesn't make a difference to anyone who is not a biologist, why argue about it?
> Equal pay for Women in every job: Why should women be forced to accept less money?
> 
> Go play with your toys, you aren't qualified to debate, or argue, with me.
Click to expand...


Then what part of my philosiphy isnt evolved? We agree on all of those issues besides evolution and how we shouldnt stop homosexuals from marrying and even that we sort of align.. I dont really understand why I should "Go play with my toys", because trust me I am well equiped to argue any position. Ive done my homework and unlike many young people actually have an interest in things that concern my future..


----------



## Quantum Windbag

YoungRepublican said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heres the social definition of evolved for the generation that will live longer than yours and produce all of the legislation when you are old and dying:
> Gay marriage: Legal
> Abortion: Available for all who want it
> Evolution: Taught in all schools as fact
> Equal pay for Women in every job
> 
> These arent debates, they are just notions one generation holds as liberal until the next generation takes power and they are all passed. Its not a matter of if, nor is it really a debate. All of things I just listed will be passed and accepted in 30 years and there is really nothing you can do about it. Sorry im not sorry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is my position on those subjects.
> 
> Gay marriage: None of my, or the governments, business.
> Abortion: Ending life should always be a last resort. Come to think of it, I also oppose the death penalty.
> Evolution: Since it cannot be accurately explained without teaching graduate level biology, and really doesn't make a difference to anyone who is not a biologist, why argue about it?
> Equal pay for Women in every job: Why should women be forced to accept less money?
> 
> Go play with your toys, you aren't qualified to debate, or argue, with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what part of my philosiphy isnt evolved? We agree on all of those issues besides evolution and how we shouldnt stop homosexuals from marrying and even that we sort of align.. I dont really understand why I should "Go play with my toys", because trust me I am well equiped to argue any position. Ive done my homework and unlike many young people actually have an interest in things that concern my future..
Click to expand...


Philosophy is the realm of children, adults use science because it tests things and looks for answers.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Well, QWB definitely has demonstrated neither philosopher nor scientist is he.

Maybe in the future but not now.  His posturing is pathetic.


----------



## MaryL

Animals do a lot of weird stuff, eat their poo and sniff each other&#8217;s butts, lick puddles of urine. I don't know how many species do that, but we humans have different standards. Then again, animals don&#8217;t marry each other, do they? This is a human trait, and a decidedly heterosexual one.  Marriage is about providing a stable home to offspring, not some kind of cheap empty symbol of societal acceptance gays would have it become.


----------



## Sunni Man

JakeStarkey said:


> By definition, SM is not evolved.


If murdering unborn babies by abortion, and championing perverted homo marriage, are seen by you as some kind of evolving.

Then no, I am not evolved.........


----------



## mjollnir

Sunni Man said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, SM is not evolved.
> 
> 
> 
> If murdering unborn babies by abortion, and championing perverted homo marriage, are seen by you as some kind of evolving.
> 
> Then no, I am not evolved.........
Click to expand...


Indeed:  your particular type of stupidity is a genetic cul de sac.


----------



## Samson

mjollnir said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, SM is not evolved.
> 
> 
> 
> If murdering unborn babies by abortion, and championing perverted homo marriage, are seen by you as some kind of evolving.
> 
> Then no, I am not evolved.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed:  your particular type of stupidity is a genetic cul de sac.
Click to expand...


Squeel Sunni!







Any man that does not believe in having anal sex with other men must be intellectually inferiour!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> Well, QWB definitely has demonstrated neither philosopher nor scientist is he.
> 
> Maybe in the future but not now.  His posturing is pathetic.



Philosophers gave us Earth as the center of the universe with everything revolving around it because they could look around and see that we were not moving. That explains why you prefer philosophy to science.


----------



## MaryL

How many other species of animals has poetry, art or mathematics? How many other animals make love face-to-face?  (Not gays though). How  many other animals feel a need to justify their sexual preferences? Just one.  Homo sapiens. Is that a fun fact or what?  Probably not.


----------



## Seawytch

MaryL said:


> How many other species of animals has poetry, art or mathematics? How many other animals make love face-to-face?  (Not gays though). How  many other animals feel a need to justify their sexual preferences? Just one.  Homo sapiens. Is that a fun fact or what?  Probably not.



Gays and lesbians can also make love face to face. This is the age of the Internet...

We aren't "justifying" anything. We are demanding equal treatment under the law.


----------



## mjollnir

MaryL said:


> How many other species of animals has poetry, art or mathematics? How many other animals make love face-to-face?  (Not gays though). How  many other animals feel a need to justify their sexual preferences? Just one.  Homo sapiens. Is that a fun fact or what?  Probably not.



How would you know how gays make love, fuckwit?

The can engage in the same positions that we do, without any apparent problems.

Please pull your head out of your ass and seek help for your condition.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Seawytch said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many other species of animals has poetry, art or mathematics? How many other animals make love face-to-face?  (Not gays though). How  many other animals feel a need to justify their sexual preferences? Just one.  Homo sapiens. Is that a fun fact or what?  Probably not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays and lesbians can also make love face to face. This is the age of the Internet...
> 
> We aren't "justifying" anything. We are demanding equal treatment under the law.
Click to expand...


No, you're demanding a radical redefinition of everything in society to fit your particular idiosyncratic view of "equal".

The shame of it is that so many people in this country are functionally illiterate that while they know what you're selling is gift-wrapped horseshit, they don't have the education to articulate WHY.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Let's see how it goes this time, Cecilie1200.  You have a right to your opinion, Cecilie1200, but no on has to respect it.  Twelve states and DC now recognize universal marriage and another state removed any state constitutional impediment, DOMA is on the ropes going into SCOTUS, DADT is dead in the military and can never be resurrected, and the homophobes have taken an incredible smack in the metaphorical mouth.  Americans 30 and under stare at you as if you had just escaped from the hyena cage at the zoo for ultra right crazies.

Throwing hissy fits reminiscent of bigrebnc at his worst probably won't end your headache.


----------



## YoungRepublican

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many other species of animals has poetry, art or mathematics? How many other animals make love face-to-face?  (Not gays though). How  many other animals feel a need to justify their sexual preferences? Just one.  Homo sapiens. Is that a fun fact or what?  Probably not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays and lesbians can also make love face to face. This is the age of the Internet...
> 
> We aren't "justifying" anything. We are demanding equal treatment under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're demanding a radical redefinition of everything in society to fit your particular idiosyncratic view of "equal".
> 
> The shame of it is that so many people in this country are functionally illiterate that while they know what you're selling is gift-wrapped horseshit, they don't have the education to articulate WHY.
Click to expand...


Um the U.S. has a literacy rate of 99 percent.. Our functionally illiterate often come from poor states that are the first to advocate banning same sex marriage. I find it really funny how you think it&#8217;s the uneducated preaching tolerance, while the brilliant protest it. Quite a paradox you have going on inside your head. And by the way It is you who is demanding a radical definition of equal. Two people aren&#8217;t equal in your eyes because they love one another. Quite a shame really. I have a pretty darn good education, and that is what leads me to the tolerant views on same sex marriage that I have. You never did answer my question of what college/grad school you attended.. Love to know the answer to that one..


----------



## AmyNation

Homophobia is dying out, give it 30 years and they will go the way of the racists, shamed into the closet


----------



## YoungRepublican

AmyNation said:


> Homophobia is dying out, give it 30 years and they will go the way of the racists, shamed into the closet



Short and concise. All that needs to be said on this topic.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many other species of animals has poetry, art or mathematics? How many other animals make love face-to-face?  (Not gays though). How  many other animals feel a need to justify their sexual preferences? Just one.  Homo sapiens. Is that a fun fact or what?  Probably not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays and lesbians can also make love face to face. This is the age of the Internet...
> 
> We aren't "justifying" anything. We are demanding equal treatment under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're demanding a radical redefinition of everything in society to fit your particular idiosyncratic view of "equal".
> 
> The shame of it is that so many people in this country are functionally illiterate that while they know what you're selling is gift-wrapped horseshit, they don't have the education to articulate WHY.
Click to expand...


Wrong again, as usual. 

The Constitution requires equal protection of (access to) the law, it has nothing to do with what gays and lesbians want or demand. The Constitution requires there be a consistent application of the law and civil liberties, and compels the state to justify any deviation from that mandate  citizens are not required to justify their exercising of a civil right. 

And same-sex couples are opposed to a radical redefinition of any aspect of society, including marriage. They simply seek access to their states marriage law, unchanged, unaltered, just as made available to opposite-sex couples, just as mandated by the 14th Amendment.


----------



## Cecilie1200

YoungRepublican said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays and lesbians can also make love face to face. This is the age of the Internet...
> 
> We aren't "justifying" anything. We are demanding equal treatment under the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're demanding a radical redefinition of everything in society to fit your particular idiosyncratic view of "equal".
> 
> The shame of it is that so many people in this country are functionally illiterate that while they know what you're selling is gift-wrapped horseshit, they don't have the education to articulate WHY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um the U.S. has a literacy rate of 99 percent.. Our functionally illiterate often come from poor states that are the first to advocate banning same sex marriage. I find it really funny how you think its the uneducated preaching tolerance, while the brilliant protest it. Quite a paradox you have going on inside your head. And by the way It is you who is demanding a radical definition of equal. Two people arent equal in your eyes because they love one another. Quite a shame really. I have a pretty darn good education, and that is what leads me to the tolerant views on same sex marriage that I have. You never did answer my question of what college/grad school you attended.. Love to know the answer to that one..
Click to expand...


Look up "functionally illiterate", and then ponder where this post classifies YOU on that scale.

Not that you deserve an explanation or will understand it, but I didn't say "the uneducated preach tolerance"; you just WANTED me to have said it, and I'm not responsible for the words you want to shove into my mouth.   I actually was saying that virtually everyone in this country is deplorably uneducated and ignorant.  Believe me, that includes you, and whoever told you that you have "a pretty darn [sic] good education" was either lying or not much better-educated than you are.

I also never said anything about who's "equal" or not, or "tolerance".  That's YOUR schtick, not mine, so please don't assume that my arguments are going to be framed according to your half-assed parameters and media buzzwords.

And finally, there's a reason why I didn't answer your question about my personal life, which anyone with a modicum of maturity, life experience, and basic common sense would have figured out before asking:  it's PERSONAL, otherwise known as "none of your frigging business".

Your debate is with my words, not with my _curricum vitae_, and no Internet claims of this degree or that college are going to make the exact same words more right or more wrong.  Deal with the words, and don't be a nosy little buttinski.


----------



## YoungRepublican

Cecilie1200 said:


> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're demanding a radical redefinition of everything in society to fit your particular idiosyncratic view of "equal".
> 
> The shame of it is that so many people in this country are functionally illiterate that while they know what you're selling is gift-wrapped horseshit, they don't have the education to articulate WHY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um the U.S. has a literacy rate of 99 percent.. Our functionally illiterate often come from poor states that are the first to advocate banning same sex marriage. I find it really funny how you think its the uneducated preaching tolerance, while the brilliant protest it. Quite a paradox you have going on inside your head. And by the way It is you who is demanding a radical definition of equal. Two people arent equal in your eyes because they love one another. Quite a shame really. I have a pretty darn good education, and that is what leads me to the tolerant views on same sex marriage that I have. You never did answer my question of what college/grad school you attended.. Love to know the answer to that one..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look up "functionally illiterate", and then ponder where this post classifies YOU on that scale.
> 
> Not that you deserve an explanation or will understand it, but I didn't say "the uneducated preach tolerance"; you just WANTED me to have said it, and I'm not responsible for the words you want to shove into my mouth.   I actually was saying that virtually everyone in this country is deplorably uneducated and ignorant.  Believe me, that includes you, and whoever told you that you have "a pretty darn [sic] good education" was either lying or not much better-educated than you are.
> 
> I also never said anything about who's "equal" or not, or "tolerance".  That's YOUR schtick, not mine, so please don't assume that my arguments are going to be framed according to your half-assed parameters and media buzzwords.
> 
> And finally, there's a reason why I didn't answer your question about my personal life, which anyone with a modicum of maturity, life experience, and basic common sense would have figured out before asking:  it's PERSONAL, otherwise known as "none of your frigging business".
> 
> Your debate is with my words, not with my _curricum vitae_, and no Internet claims of this degree or that college are going to make the exact same words more right or more wrong.  Deal with the words, and don't be a nosy little buttinski.
Click to expand...


Everything I wrote was exactly what you said, just with my own words. Any "functionally literate" person could see that. As for your denial of a college degree, Ill make it a safe assumption that there is none.You are on the wrong side of history no matter which way your uneducated mind wants to see it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays and lesbians can also make love face to face. This is the age of the Internet...
> 
> We aren't "justifying" anything. We are demanding equal treatment under the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're demanding a radical redefinition of everything in society to fit your particular idiosyncratic view of "equal".
> 
> The shame of it is that so many people in this country are functionally illiterate that while they know what you're selling is gift-wrapped horseshit, they don't have the education to articulate WHY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again, as usual.
> 
> The Constitution requires equal protection of (access to) the law, it has nothing to do with what gays and lesbians want or demand. The Constitution requires there be a consistent application of the law and civil liberties, and compels the state to justify any deviation from that mandate  citizens are not required to justify their exercising of a civil right.
> 
> And same-sex couples are opposed to a radical redefinition of any aspect of society, including marriage. They simply seek access to their states marriage law, unchanged, unaltered, just as made available to opposite-sex couples, just as mandated by the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...


Nice try, asshole, but you and I both know that the heart of the argument isn't "Does the Constitution require equal protection", but "What does 'equal protection' mean", so trying on this disingenuous crap of "The Constitution says THIS, and OBVIOUSLY it means what we want it to mean" is a waste of time.

How many times do you have to have it pointed out to you that this diversionary bullshit isn't going to fly with me before you strap on a pair and actually DEBATE?  Go ahead and try to force your parameters on me a million times; I'll just reject them and point out what a poltroon you are for trying it a million and one times.

What is this, your 56th surrender or so, just on THIS particular topic?


----------



## YoungRepublican

Cecilie1200 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're demanding a radical redefinition of everything in society to fit your particular idiosyncratic view of "equal".
> 
> The shame of it is that so many people in this country are functionally illiterate that while they know what you're selling is gift-wrapped horseshit, they don't have the education to articulate WHY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, as usual.
> 
> The Constitution requires equal protection of (access to) the law, it has nothing to do with what gays and lesbians &#8216;want&#8217; or &#8216;demand.&#8217; The Constitution requires there be a consistent application of the law and civil liberties, and compels the state to justify any deviation from that mandate &#8211; citizens are not required to justify their exercising of a civil right.
> 
> And same-sex couples are opposed to a &#8216;radical redefinition&#8217; of any aspect of society, including marriage. They simply seek access to their state&#8217;s marriage law, unchanged, unaltered, just as made available to opposite-sex couples, just as mandated by the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try, asshole, but you and I both know that the heart of the argument isn't "Does the Constitution require equal protection", but "What does 'equal protection' mean", so trying on this disingenuous crap of "The Constitution says THIS, and OBVIOUSLY it means what we want it to mean" is a waste of time.
> 
> How many times do you have to have it pointed out to you that this diversionary bullshit isn't going to fly with me before you strap on a pair and actually DEBATE?  Go ahead and try to force your parameters on me a million times; I'll just reject them and point out what a poltroon you are for trying it a million and one times.
> 
> What is this, your 56th surrender or so, just on THIS particular topic?
Click to expand...


No surrender from me, just fact based opinions. Want to make this a constitution debate, lets. We will start with Article one, ya know the whole thing about not making any laws establishing religon. So i say that since Christianity can not play a role, Same Sex marriage has the full legal right to exist. Check out the last eleven states plus D.C. All legal, all within the parameters of the law. It is only a matter of a few years until those legal guidlines stretch to all fifty and the anti gay marriage folks are silenced once and for all. Ah what a great day that will be in this nation and the good news is, youll be here to see it all happen!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

YoungRepublican said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, as usual.
> 
> The Constitution requires equal protection of (access to) the law, it has nothing to do with what gays and lesbians want or demand. The Constitution requires there be a consistent application of the law and civil liberties, and compels the state to justify any deviation from that mandate  citizens are not required to justify their exercising of a civil right.
> 
> And same-sex couples are opposed to a radical redefinition of any aspect of society, including marriage. They simply seek access to their states marriage law, unchanged, unaltered, just as made available to opposite-sex couples, just as mandated by the 14th Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, asshole, but you and I both know that the heart of the argument isn't "Does the Constitution require equal protection", but "What does 'equal protection' mean", so trying on this disingenuous crap of "The Constitution says THIS, and OBVIOUSLY it means what we want it to mean" is a waste of time.
> 
> How many times do you have to have it pointed out to you that this diversionary bullshit isn't going to fly with me before you strap on a pair and actually DEBATE?  Go ahead and try to force your parameters on me a million times; I'll just reject them and point out what a poltroon you are for trying it a million and one times.
> 
> What is this, your 56th surrender or so, just on THIS particular topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No surrender from me, just fact based opinions. Want to make this a constitution debate, lets. We will start with Article one, ya know the whole thing about not making any laws establishing religon. So i say that since Christianity can not play a role, Same Sex marriage has the full legal right to exist. Check out the last eleven states plus D.C. All legal, all within the parameters of the law. It is only a matter of a few years until those legal guidlines stretch to all fifty and the anti gay marriage folks are silenced once and for all. Ah what a great day that will be in this nation and the good news is, youll be here to see it all happen!
Click to expand...


Indeed, ideally this should be the manner the issue is addressed, where all 50 states obey the Constitution and allow same-sex couples to marry. 

This shouldnt be a matter for the courts, as each state should follow the law. 

Unfortunately, in the real world, there are ignorant, hateful, frightened people who see fit to oppose the Constitution and work to deny their fellow citizens their civil liberties as a consequence of that ignorance, hate, and fear. 

Same-sex couples have no other recourse than to seek remedy in the Federal courts, and compel the states to obey the Constitution.


----------



## YoungRepublican

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, asshole, but you and I both know that the heart of the argument isn't "Does the Constitution require equal protection", but "What does 'equal protection' mean", so trying on this disingenuous crap of "The Constitution says THIS, and OBVIOUSLY it means what we want it to mean" is a waste of time.
> 
> How many times do you have to have it pointed out to you that this diversionary bullshit isn't going to fly with me before you strap on a pair and actually DEBATE?  Go ahead and try to force your parameters on me a million times; I'll just reject them and point out what a poltroon you are for trying it a million and one times.
> 
> What is this, your 56th surrender or so, just on THIS particular topic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surrender from me, just fact based opinions. Want to make this a constitution debate, lets. We will start with Article one, ya know the whole thing about not making any laws establishing religon. So i say that since Christianity can not play a role, Same Sex marriage has the full legal right to exist. Check out the last eleven states plus D.C. All legal, all within the parameters of the law. It is only a matter of a few years until those legal guidlines stretch to all fifty and the anti gay marriage folks are silenced once and for all. Ah what a great day that will be in this nation and the good news is, youll be here to see it all happen!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, ideally this should be the manner the issue is addressed, where all 50 states obey the Constitution and allow same-sex couples to marry.
> 
> This shouldnt be a matter for the courts, as each state should follow the law.
> 
> Unfortunately, in the real world, there are ignorant, hateful, frightened people who see fit to oppose the Constitution and work to deny their fellow citizens their civil liberties as a consequence of that ignorance, hate, and fear.
> 
> Same-sex couples have no other recourse than to seek remedy in the Federal courts, and compel the states to obey the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Amen to that. Set, Spike, match on this one. It was really too easy, but a lot of fun none the less.


----------



## Zoom

get_involved said:


> If you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion. I have the right NOT to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.



Do you know the word Homophobia means?  

unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality. 

Are you homophobic?


----------



## YoungRepublican

Zoom said:


> get_involved said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion. I have the right NOT to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know the word Homophobia means?
> 
> unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.
> 
> Are you homophobic?
Click to expand...


He is right, there is no such thing as homophobia. There are people who dont mind gays, then there are assholes. Which by his definition of his "right" is exactly what he is.


----------



## Cecilie1200

YoungRepublican said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um the U.S. has a literacy rate of 99 percent.. Our functionally illiterate often come from poor states that are the first to advocate banning same sex marriage. I find it really funny how you think its the uneducated preaching tolerance, while the brilliant protest it. Quite a paradox you have going on inside your head. And by the way It is you who is demanding a radical definition of equal. Two people arent equal in your eyes because they love one another. Quite a shame really. I have a pretty darn good education, and that is what leads me to the tolerant views on same sex marriage that I have. You never did answer my question of what college/grad school you attended.. Love to know the answer to that one..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look up "functionally illiterate", and then ponder where this post classifies YOU on that scale.
> 
> Not that you deserve an explanation or will understand it, but I didn't say "the uneducated preach tolerance"; you just WANTED me to have said it, and I'm not responsible for the words you want to shove into my mouth.   I actually was saying that virtually everyone in this country is deplorably uneducated and ignorant.  Believe me, that includes you, and whoever told you that you have "a pretty darn [sic] good education" was either lying or not much better-educated than you are.
> 
> I also never said anything about who's "equal" or not, or "tolerance".  That's YOUR schtick, not mine, so please don't assume that my arguments are going to be framed according to your half-assed parameters and media buzzwords.
> 
> And finally, there's a reason why I didn't answer your question about my personal life, which anyone with a modicum of maturity, life experience, and basic common sense would have figured out before asking:  it's PERSONAL, otherwise known as "none of your frigging business".
> 
> Your debate is with my words, not with my _curricum vitae_, and no Internet claims of this degree or that college are going to make the exact same words more right or more wrong.  Deal with the words, and don't be a nosy little buttinski.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything I wrote was exactly what you said, just with my own words. Any "functionally literate" person could see that. As for your denial of a college degree, Ill make it a safe assumption that there is none.You are on the wrong side of history no matter which way your uneducated mind wants to see it.
Click to expand...


See, punk, the "just with your own words" is the red flag that tells you NOTHING you write is anything that I said.  Also, telling me how I was talking about "tolerance" and "equality", as though I view those things as the Holy Grails that you do, is an indication that you have no clue whatsoever what I said.  And, finally, ME TELLING YOU that I didn't say any of that shit is the biggest red flag of all that I didn't say any of that shit.

The whole point about someone being functionally illiterate, you knob, is that he's not exactly someone you want to rely on to understand what's being said in a conversation.

And finally, Mr. "I have a pretty darn [sic] good education, but I don't understand simple English" I didn't deny anything about a college degree.  I denied your right to interrogate me about my personal life.  I owe you no answers or information about myself whatsoever, and what you assume is of little consequence to me.  After all, you also assume you have a "pretty darn [sic] good education", and we can all see how accurate THAT is.

But hey, whatever gets you started down the long road toward being a disingenuous poltroon who couldn't carry on an honest, serious, informative debate if someone held a gun to your head.  Far be it from me to stand in your way.


----------



## YoungRepublican

Cecilie1200 said:


> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look up "functionally illiterate", and then ponder where this post classifies YOU on that scale.
> 
> Not that you deserve an explanation or will understand it, but I didn't say "the uneducated preach tolerance"; you just WANTED me to have said it, and I'm not responsible for the words you want to shove into my mouth.   I actually was saying that virtually everyone in this country is deplorably uneducated and ignorant.  Believe me, that includes you, and whoever told you that you have "a pretty darn [sic] good education" was either lying or not much better-educated than you are.
> 
> I also never said anything about who's "equal" or not, or "tolerance".  That's YOUR schtick, not mine, so please don't assume that my arguments are going to be framed according to your half-assed parameters and media buzzwords.
> 
> And finally, there's a reason why I didn't answer your question about my personal life, which anyone with a modicum of maturity, life experience, and basic common sense would have figured out before asking:  it's PERSONAL, otherwise known as "none of your frigging business".
> 
> Your debate is with my words, not with my _curricum vitae_, and no Internet claims of this degree or that college are going to make the exact same words more right or more wrong.  Deal with the words, and don't be a nosy little buttinski.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything I wrote was exactly what you said, just with my own words. Any "functionally literate" person could see that. As for your denial of a college degree, Ill make it a safe assumption that there is none.You are on the wrong side of history no matter which way your uneducated mind wants to see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, punk, the "just with your own words" is the red flag that tells you NOTHING you write is anything that I said.  Also, telling me how I was talking about "tolerance" and "equality", as though I view those things as the Holy Grails that you do, is an indication that you have no clue whatsoever what I said.  And, finally, ME TELLING YOU that I didn't say any of that shit is the biggest red flag of all that I didn't say any of that shit.
> 
> The whole point about someone being functionally illiterate, you knob, is that he's not exactly someone you want to rely on to understand what's being said in a conversation.
> 
> And finally, Mr. "I have a pretty darn [sic] good education, but I don't understand simple English" I didn't deny anything about a college degree.  I denied your right to interrogate me about my personal life.  I owe you no answers or information about myself whatsoever, and what you assume is of little consequence to me.  After all, you also assume you have a "pretty darn [sic] good education", and we can all see how accurate THAT is.
> 
> But hey, whatever gets you started down the long road toward being a disingenuous poltroon who couldn't carry on an honest, serious, informative debate if someone held a gun to your head.  Far be it from me to stand in your way.
Click to expand...


I think its pretty fair to say that my side won this debate and is winning the overall debate. Mainly due to your lack of answering to the whole 11 states legalizing same sex marriage and the constitution debate you wanted to have. I am on my way to a prospurous career path somewhere in criminal defense, maybe corporate law followed up by politics. Keep living in your bubble of what you think tolerance is or isnt, I really dont care. You lost this argument, you will ultimately lose the same sex marriage issue and thats about it, nothing more to say on this subject. Sucks to suck


----------



## Cecilie1200

YoungRepublican said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, as usual.
> 
> The Constitution requires equal protection of (access to) the law, it has nothing to do with what gays and lesbians want or demand. The Constitution requires there be a consistent application of the law and civil liberties, and compels the state to justify any deviation from that mandate  citizens are not required to justify their exercising of a civil right.
> 
> And same-sex couples are opposed to a radical redefinition of any aspect of society, including marriage. They simply seek access to their states marriage law, unchanged, unaltered, just as made available to opposite-sex couples, just as mandated by the 14th Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, asshole, but you and I both know that the heart of the argument isn't "Does the Constitution require equal protection", but "What does 'equal protection' mean", so trying on this disingenuous crap of "The Constitution says THIS, and OBVIOUSLY it means what we want it to mean" is a waste of time.
> 
> How many times do you have to have it pointed out to you that this diversionary bullshit isn't going to fly with me before you strap on a pair and actually DEBATE?  Go ahead and try to force your parameters on me a million times; I'll just reject them and point out what a poltroon you are for trying it a million and one times.
> 
> What is this, your 56th surrender or so, just on THIS particular topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No surrender from me, just fact based opinions. Want to make this a constitution debate, lets. We will start with Article one, ya know the whole thing about not making any laws establishing religon. So i say that since Christianity can not play a role, Same Sex marriage has the full legal right to exist. Check out the last eleven states plus D.C. All legal, all within the parameters of the law. It is only a matter of a few years until those legal guidlines stretch to all fifty and the anti gay marriage folks are silenced once and for all. Ah what a great day that will be in this nation and the good news is, youll be here to see it all happen!
Click to expand...


Hey, flatliner, do you know why this board has a "quote" function?  It's so that people can specify to whom they're responding, and to exactly which post.

So would you like to explain to me why it is that Your Brilliance feels the need to respond to remarks made directly and specifically to someone else?

When I want to make this ANY kind of debate with YOU, I will slap the back of your pointy little rock head and tell you so.  Right at the moment, you haven't remotely earned a debate with me.  You're still on the "Why should I view you as anything more interesting than a dancing poodle?" stage, and you haven't convinced me of THAT.

Clayton may be a lying, cowardly little pissant, but he's a lying, cowardly little pissant who's proven himself, if only barely.  Don't try to deal yourself in to other people's regard and standing.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Cecilie1200 said:


> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, asshole, but you and I both know that the heart of the argument isn't "Does the Constitution require equal protection", but "What does 'equal protection' mean", so trying on this disingenuous crap of "The Constitution says THIS, and OBVIOUSLY it means what we want it to mean" is a waste of time.
> 
> How many times do you have to have it pointed out to you that this diversionary bullshit isn't going to fly with me before you strap on a pair and actually DEBATE?  Go ahead and try to force your parameters on me a million times; I'll just reject them and point out what a poltroon you are for trying it a million and one times.
> 
> What is this, your 56th surrender or so, just on THIS particular topic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surrender from me, just fact based opinions. Want to make this a constitution debate, lets. We will start with Article one, ya know the whole thing about not making any laws establishing religon. So i say that since Christianity can not play a role, Same Sex marriage has the full legal right to exist. Check out the last eleven states plus D.C. All legal, all within the parameters of the law. It is only a matter of a few years until those legal guidlines stretch to all fifty and the anti gay marriage folks are silenced once and for all. Ah what a great day that will be in this nation and the good news is, youll be here to see it all happen!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, flatliner, do you know why this board has a "quote" function?  It's so that people can specify to whom they're responding, and to exactly which post.
> 
> So would you like to explain to me why it is that Your Brilliance feels the need to respond to remarks made directly and specifically to someone else?
> 
> When I want to make this ANY kind of debate with YOU, I will slap the back of your pointy little rock head and tell you so.  Right at the moment, you haven't remotely earned a debate with me.  You're still on the "Why should I view you as anything more interesting than a dancing poodle?" stage, and you haven't convinced me of THAT.
> 
> Clayton may be a lying, cowardly little pissant, but he's a lying, cowardly little pissant who's proven himself, if only barely.  Don't try to deal yourself in to other people's regard and standing.
Click to expand...


And yes, Clayton, coming from me and directed to you, that actually qualifies as something of a compliment, although I doubt you'll appreciate it.  Happy New Year, and don't get used to it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, asshole, but you and I both know that the heart of the argument isn't "Does the Constitution require equal protection", but "What does 'equal protection' mean", so trying on this disingenuous crap of "The Constitution says THIS, and OBVIOUSLY it means what we want it to mean" is a waste of time.
> 
> How many times do you have to have it pointed out to you that this diversionary bullshit isn't going to fly with me before you strap on a pair and actually DEBATE?  Go ahead and try to force your parameters on me a million times; I'll just reject them and point out what a poltroon you are for trying it a million and one times.
> 
> What is this, your 56th surrender or so, just on THIS particular topic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surrender from me, just fact based opinions. Want to make this a constitution debate, lets. We will start with Article one, ya know the whole thing about not making any laws establishing religon. So i say that since Christianity can not play a role, Same Sex marriage has the full legal right to exist. Check out the last eleven states plus D.C. All legal, all within the parameters of the law. It is only a matter of a few years until those legal guidlines stretch to all fifty and the anti gay marriage folks are silenced once and for all. Ah what a great day that will be in this nation and the good news is, youll be here to see it all happen!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, ideally this should be the manner the issue is addressed, where all 50 states obey the Constitution and allow same-sex couples to marry.
> 
> This shouldnt be a matter for the courts, as each state should follow the law.
> 
> Unfortunately, in the real world, there are ignorant, hateful, frightened people who see fit to oppose the Constitution and work to deny their fellow citizens their civil liberties as a consequence of that ignorance, hate, and fear.
> 
> Same-sex couples have no other recourse than to seek remedy in the Federal courts, and compel the states to obey the Constitution.
Click to expand...


It's easier to lecture to underaged dimwits than it is to defend your positions against intelligent adults, isn't it?  I find it pathetic how often the left has to create little fantasy worlds where they're always right, and their opposition never gets to speak.


----------



## YoungRepublican

Cecilie1200 said:


> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, asshole, but you and I both know that the heart of the argument isn't "Does the Constitution require equal protection", but "What does 'equal protection' mean", so trying on this disingenuous crap of "The Constitution says THIS, and OBVIOUSLY it means what we want it to mean" is a waste of time.
> 
> How many times do you have to have it pointed out to you that this diversionary bullshit isn't going to fly with me before you strap on a pair and actually DEBATE?  Go ahead and try to force your parameters on me a million times; I'll just reject them and point out what a poltroon you are for trying it a million and one times.
> 
> What is this, your 56th surrender or so, just on THIS particular topic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surrender from me, just fact based opinions. Want to make this a constitution debate, lets. We will start with Article one, ya know the whole thing about not making any laws establishing religon. So i say that since Christianity can not play a role, Same Sex marriage has the full legal right to exist. Check out the last eleven states plus D.C. All legal, all within the parameters of the law. It is only a matter of a few years until those legal guidlines stretch to all fifty and the anti gay marriage folks are silenced once and for all. Ah what a great day that will be in this nation and the good news is, youll be here to see it all happen!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, flatliner, do you know why this board has a "quote" function?  It's so that people can specify to whom they're responding, and to exactly which post.
> 
> So would you like to explain to me why it is that Your Brilliance feels the need to respond to remarks made directly and specifically to someone else?
> 
> When I want to make this ANY kind of debate with YOU, I will slap the back of your pointy little rock head and tell you so.  Right at the moment, you haven't remotely earned a debate with me.  You're still on the "Why should I view you as anything more interesting than a dancing poodle?" stage, and you haven't convinced me of THAT.
> 
> Clayton may be a lying, cowardly little pissant, but he's a lying, cowardly little pissant who's proven himself, if only barely.  Don't try to deal yourself in to other people's regard and standing.
Click to expand...


I get a little kick out of calling people like you out. Its what the Germans call Shaudenfrueidan, look it up. The simple fact that you know how simple your mind is, is extremely enjoyable to me. It's like a game and a fun one for me.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

YoungRepublican said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays and lesbians can also make love face to face. This is the age of the Internet...
> 
> We aren't "justifying" anything. We are demanding equal treatment under the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're demanding a radical redefinition of everything in society to fit your particular idiosyncratic view of "equal".
> 
> The shame of it is that so many people in this country are functionally illiterate that while they know what you're selling is gift-wrapped horseshit, they don't have the education to articulate WHY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um the U.S. has a literacy rate of 99 percent.. Our functionally illiterate often come from poor states that are the first to advocate banning same sex marriage. I find it really funny how you think it&#8217;s the uneducated preaching tolerance, while the brilliant protest it. Quite a paradox you have going on inside your head. And by the way It is you who is demanding a radical definition of equal. Two people aren&#8217;t equal in your eyes because they love one another. Quite a shame really. I have a pretty darn good education, and that is what leads me to the tolerant views on same sex marriage that I have. You never did answer my question of what college/grad school you attended.. Love to know the answer to that one..
Click to expand...


Excuse me? Are you aware that all the information that exists is available on the internet? According to NCES the two states with the lowest literacy rates are California and New York. I could be wrong, but my guess is that you would not class either one of those states as being poor, even if California did ban gay marriage.

State and County Literacy Estimates - State Estimates

By the way, did you look at Cecilie's avatar? Are you aware that she chose it specifically because it represents her lifestyle? Calling her intolerant makes as much sense as calling yourself evolved. She has been going easy on you, probably because she doesn't really like making children cry, but I am sure she will be happy to teach you that children should be seen and not heard.


----------



## Cecilie1200

YoungRepublican said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything I wrote was exactly what you said, just with my own words. Any "functionally literate" person could see that. As for your denial of a college degree, Ill make it a safe assumption that there is none.You are on the wrong side of history no matter which way your uneducated mind wants to see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, punk, the "just with your own words" is the red flag that tells you NOTHING you write is anything that I said.  Also, telling me how I was talking about "tolerance" and "equality", as though I view those things as the Holy Grails that you do, is an indication that you have no clue whatsoever what I said.  And, finally, ME TELLING YOU that I didn't say any of that shit is the biggest red flag of all that I didn't say any of that shit.
> 
> The whole point about someone being functionally illiterate, you knob, is that he's not exactly someone you want to rely on to understand what's being said in a conversation.
> 
> And finally, Mr. "I have a pretty darn [sic] good education, but I don't understand simple English" I didn't deny anything about a college degree.  I denied your right to interrogate me about my personal life.  I owe you no answers or information about myself whatsoever, and what you assume is of little consequence to me.  After all, you also assume you have a "pretty darn [sic] good education", and we can all see how accurate THAT is.
> 
> But hey, whatever gets you started down the long road toward being a disingenuous poltroon who couldn't carry on an honest, serious, informative debate if someone held a gun to your head.  Far be it from me to stand in your way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think its pretty fair to say that my side won this debate and is winning the overall debate. Mainly due to your lack of answering to the whole 11 states legalizing same sex marriage and the constitution debate you wanted to have. I am on my way to a prospurous career path somewhere in criminal defense, maybe corporate law followed up by politics. Keep living in your bubble of what you think tolerance is or isnt, I really dont care. You lost this argument, you will ultimately lose the same sex marriage issue and thats about it, nothing more to say on this subject. Sucks to suck
Click to expand...


  "We win, we win!  We called you mean and nasty and a bunch of other names, and that means we WIN!"  Typical kindergarten.

Sparkles, if you had lived through any more of history than last week - or been educated in it by someone with more brains than my dog - you'd know just how much a victory judicial fiats are NOT.

And please, don't confuse my personally telling you that you're an ignorant little boy who isn't worth dignifying with any response beyond, "Go play with your Legos, Junior" with any sort of national debate going on amongst those of us who can actually vote and have a say in the law.  The truth is, the Constitutional question has been answered over and over, and the fact that you have no idea what that answer was just emphasized how much your "pretty darn [sic] good education" has been nothing of the sort.

While I have no interest whatsoever in illuminating your stupefying ignorance on this debate, I WILL point out one thing you should learn:  history doesn't end, and political debates are NEVER "won"; they're a pendulum that goes on swinging forever, and only damned fools and little children think that because the pendulum is currently swinging their way, that means they've "won" and it's over.

Which are you:  a damned fool, a little child, or both?  I already know the answer.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AmyNation said:


> Homophobia is dying out, give it 30 years and they will go the way of the racists, shamed into the closet



Wanna bet?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, asshole, but you and I both know that the heart of the argument isn't "Does the Constitution require equal protection", but "What does 'equal protection' mean", so trying on this disingenuous crap of "The Constitution says THIS, and OBVIOUSLY it means what we want it to mean" is a waste of time.
> 
> How many times do you have to have it pointed out to you that this diversionary bullshit isn't going to fly with me before you strap on a pair and actually DEBATE?  Go ahead and try to force your parameters on me a million times; I'll just reject them and point out what a poltroon you are for trying it a million and one times.
> 
> What is this, your 56th surrender or so, just on THIS particular topic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surrender from me, just fact based opinions. Want to make this a constitution debate, lets. We will start with Article one, ya know the whole thing about not making any laws establishing religon. So i say that since Christianity can not play a role, Same Sex marriage has the full legal right to exist. Check out the last eleven states plus D.C. All legal, all within the parameters of the law. It is only a matter of a few years until those legal guidlines stretch to all fifty and the anti gay marriage folks are silenced once and for all. Ah what a great day that will be in this nation and the good news is, youll be here to see it all happen!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, ideally this should be the manner the issue is addressed, where all 50 states obey the Constitution and allow same-sex couples to marry.
> 
> This shouldnt be a matter for the courts, as each state should follow the law.
> 
> Unfortunately, in the real world, there are ignorant, hateful, frightened people who see fit to oppose the Constitution and work to deny their fellow citizens their civil liberties as a consequence of that ignorance, hate, and fear.
> 
> Same-sex couples have no other recourse than to seek remedy in the Federal courts, and compel the states to obey the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Ideally, the federal government would obey the Constitution and leave marriage to the states, where it belongs.


----------



## syrenn

AmyNation said:


> Homophobia is dying out, give it 30 years and they will go the way of the racists, shamed into the closet



so long as there is religion.... homophobia will never die out.


----------



## Cecilie1200

YoungRepublican said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> 
> No surrender from me, just fact based opinions. Want to make this a constitution debate, lets. We will start with Article one, ya know the whole thing about not making any laws establishing religon. So i say that since Christianity can not play a role, Same Sex marriage has the full legal right to exist. Check out the last eleven states plus D.C. All legal, all within the parameters of the law. It is only a matter of a few years until those legal guidlines stretch to all fifty and the anti gay marriage folks are silenced once and for all. Ah what a great day that will be in this nation and the good news is, youll be here to see it all happen!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, flatliner, do you know why this board has a "quote" function?  It's so that people can specify to whom they're responding, and to exactly which post.
> 
> So would you like to explain to me why it is that Your Brilliance feels the need to respond to remarks made directly and specifically to someone else?
> 
> When I want to make this ANY kind of debate with YOU, I will slap the back of your pointy little rock head and tell you so.  Right at the moment, you haven't remotely earned a debate with me.  You're still on the "Why should I view you as anything more interesting than a dancing poodle?" stage, and you haven't convinced me of THAT.
> 
> Clayton may be a lying, cowardly little pissant, but he's a lying, cowardly little pissant who's proven himself, if only barely.  Don't try to deal yourself in to other people's regard and standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get a little kick out of calling people like you out. Its what the Germans call Shaudenfrueidan, look it up. The simple fact that you know how simple your mind is, is extremely enjoyable to me. It's like a game and a fun one for me.
Click to expand...


Responding to remarks made to someone else as though you were being addressed is "calling me out"?  

If you'd just told me you were in an institution for incurably insane adolescents, it would have saved so much time.

Buh bye, crazy person.


----------



## Brawd

homophobia is so GAAAY


----------



## Cecilie1200

Quantum Windbag said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homophobia is dying out, give it 30 years and they will go the way of the racists, shamed into the closet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wanna bet?
Click to expand...


There will always be sexual deviants, anomalies, aberrations, whatever you want to call them (and if you want to attach some sort of value and judgement to those words, that's YOUR problem, not mine).  There always have been.  And even a cursory glance at history will show you that they go through stages, or cycles, of suppression and acceptance in every society that has ever existed.  Generally, and I'm very sorry if this upsets anyone, they do best when they accept that they are not the mainstream, never will be, and that that's actually okay.

Frankly, if you have so much trouble with the concept of being different that you have to try to define it away and force people to pretend you're something you're not in order to feel good about yourself, you need help.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Quantum Windbag said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> 
> No surrender from me, just fact based opinions. Want to make this a constitution debate, lets. We will start with Article one, ya know the whole thing about not making any laws establishing religon. So i say that since Christianity can not play a role, Same Sex marriage has the full legal right to exist. Check out the last eleven states plus D.C. All legal, all within the parameters of the law. It is only a matter of a few years until those legal guidlines stretch to all fifty and the anti gay marriage folks are silenced once and for all. Ah what a great day that will be in this nation and the good news is, youll be here to see it all happen!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, ideally this should be the manner the issue is addressed, where all 50 states obey the Constitution and allow same-sex couples to marry.
> 
> This shouldnt be a matter for the courts, as each state should follow the law.
> 
> Unfortunately, in the real world, there are ignorant, hateful, frightened people who see fit to oppose the Constitution and work to deny their fellow citizens their civil liberties as a consequence of that ignorance, hate, and fear.
> 
> Same-sex couples have no other recourse than to seek remedy in the Federal courts, and compel the states to obey the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ideally, the federal government would obey the Constitution and leave marriage to the states, where it belongs.
Click to expand...


And, equally ideally, the courts would leave the lawmaking to the legislatures and, where appropriate, the voters.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Cecilie1200 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, ideally this should be the manner the issue is addressed, where all 50 states obey the Constitution and allow same-sex couples to marry.
> 
> This shouldnt be a matter for the courts, as each state should follow the law.
> 
> Unfortunately, in the real world, there are ignorant, hateful, frightened people who see fit to oppose the Constitution and work to deny their fellow citizens their civil liberties as a consequence of that ignorance, hate, and fear.
> 
> Same-sex couples have no other recourse than to seek remedy in the Federal courts, and compel the states to obey the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ideally, the federal government would obey the Constitution and leave marriage to the states, where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, equally ideally, the courts would leave the lawmaking to the legislatures and, where appropriate, the voters.
Click to expand...


One can dream.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Quantum Windbag said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ideally, the federal government would obey the Constitution and leave marriage to the states, where it belongs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, equally ideally, the courts would leave the lawmaking to the legislatures and, where appropriate, the voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One can dream.
Click to expand...


One suspects, though, that more luck would be had dreaming about winning the lottery.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Your opinion is immaterial, Cecilie1200.

The only points about your opinion is that it is wrong.



Cecilie1200 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're demanding a radical redefinition of everything in society to fit your particular idiosyncratic view of "equal".
> 
> The shame of it is that so many people in this country are functionally illiterate that while they know what you're selling is gift-wrapped horseshit, they don't have the education to articulate WHY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, as usual.
> 
> The Constitution requires equal protection of (access to) the law, it has nothing to do with what gays and lesbians want or demand. The Constitution requires there be a consistent application of the law and civil liberties, and compels the state to justify any deviation from that mandate  citizens are not required to justify their exercising of a civil right.
> 
> And same-sex couples are opposed to a radical redefinition of any aspect of society, including marriage. They simply seek access to their states marriage law, unchanged, unaltered, just as made available to opposite-sex couples, just as mandated by the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try, asshole, but you and I both know that the heart of the argument isn't "Does the Constitution require equal protection", but "What does 'equal protection' mean", so trying on this disingenuous crap of "The Constitution says THIS, and OBVIOUSLY it means what we want it to mean" is a waste of time.
> 
> How many times do you have to have it pointed out to you that this diversionary bullshit isn't going to fly with me before you strap on a pair and actually DEBATE?  Go ahead and try to force your parameters on me a million times; I'll just reject them and point out what a poltroon you are for trying it a million and one times.
> 
> What is this, your 56th surrender or so, just on THIS particular topic?
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Cecilie1200 strutted out on the playground, called people out, and got thumped badly.


----------



## Sunni Man

JakeStarkey said:


> Your opinion is immaterial, Cecilie1200.
> 
> The only points about your opinion is that it is wrong.


^^^^^ Says the great and mighty JakeStarky..........


----------



## JakeStarkey

Says the facts. Opinions based on ultra right Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are contrary.





Sunni Man said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion is immaterial, Cecilie1200.
> 
> The only points about your opinion is that it is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^^ Says the great and mighty JakeStarky..........
Click to expand...


----------



## Sunni Man

JakeStarkey said:


> Says the facts. Opinions based on ultra right Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are contrary.


Contrary to what??


----------



## AmyNation

Quantum Windbag said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homophobia is dying out, give it 30 years and they will go the way of the racists, shamed into the closet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wanna bet?
Click to expand...


Sure. Let's meet back in 30 years and see if homophobia has gone the way of racism.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Contemporary Islam, Christianity, and Judaism.



Sunni Man said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the facts. Opinions based on ultra right Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> Contrary to what??
Click to expand...


----------



## Sunni Man

JakeStarkey said:


> Contemporary Islam, Christianity, and Judaism.
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the facts. Opinions based on ultra right Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> Contrary to what??
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Thankfully, there is no such thing as contemporary Islam.....just Islam........


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ah, sure there is.  I know many young Sunni American men and women under 35, and they think the way of their elders is the way of the past.  At least 4 out of 5 think the anti-homosexuality is absolutely stupid.  Many are re-thinking their positions on feminism.  You will be glad to know most are anti-Israel, but I bet their children will be far less so.

You are the past, SM.


----------



## Sunni Man

JakeStarkey said:


> Ah, sure there is.  I know many young Sunni American men and women under 35, and they think the way of their elders is the way of the past.  At least 4 out of 5 think the anti-homosexuality is absolutely stupid.  Many are re-thinking their positions on feminism.  You will be glad to know most are anti-Israel, but I bet their children will be far less so.


No doubt you have evidence or a Link to back up your idiotic claims??


----------



## JakeStarkey

The slice of Islamic youth in my community, probably 25 to 30, think as I have described.

The are probably not much different that other Islamic youth throughout the country who are exposed to modern communications, technology, and their peers.

You and your beliefs are on the down slope of American Islam, I would imagine.


----------



## Big Black Dog

Homophobia: Fun Fact

I'm not "afraid" of queers...  I just don't like 'em.


----------



## Sunni Man

You are full of pure BS 

I work directly with the muslim youth in my community, and they are not as you describe them to be like on the issues of homos and feminism.

The difference Jake, is that Judaism and Christianity have become buffet religions. 

Pick out the parts that you agree with; and disgard the rest as as you please. 

Whereas, Islam is an all or nothing religion.

You either accept it 100% or leave the religion.

You cannot disregard or change even one single word of the Quran or the sunnah (words and actions) of the Prophet.


----------



## mjollnir

Sunni Man said:


> You are full of pure BS
> 
> I work directly with the muslim youth in my community, and they are not as you describe them to be like on the issues of homos and feminism.
> 
> The difference Jake, is that Judaism and Christianity have become buffet religions.
> 
> Pick out the parts that you agree with; and disgard the rest as as you please.
> 
> Whereas, Islam is an all or nothing religion.
> 
> You either accept it 100% or leave the religion.
> 
> You cannot disregard or change even one single word of the Quran or the sunnah (words and actions) of the Prophet.



Yawn.  More pathetic attempts to validate your own, personal anecdotes, which are completely irrelevant to any other posters.

And yes, one can disregard anything in the Koran.  Muslims do this every day, you're just too fucking stupid to see it.  No one accepts '100% of the Koran'.


----------



## Sunni Man

Please go visit your local mosque and inquire as to what parts of the Quran are considered to be invalid and then get back with me...........


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are entitled to your opinion.  Peace be upon your head. 





Sunni Man said:


> You are full of pure BS  I work directly with the muslim youth in my community, and they are not as you describe them to be like on the issues of homos and feminism.  The difference Jake, is that Judaism and Christianity have become buffet religions.  Pick out the parts that you agree with; and disgard the rest as as you please.  Whereas, Islam is an all or nothing religion.  You either accept it 100% or leave the religion. You cannot disregard or change even one single word of the Quran or the sunnah (words and actions) of the Prophet.


----------



## Sunni Man

JakeStarkey said:


> You are entitled to your opinion.  Peace be upon your head.


Not my opinion, but a fact......


----------



## mjollnir

Sunni Man said:


> Please go visit your local mosque and inquire as to what parts of the Quran are considered to be invalid and then get back with me...........



Please stop trying to pretend that you're a Muslim or that you know anything about the Koran.

And please go back to meth rehab.


----------



## JakeStarkey

We are not discussing what you think, Sunni Man, but what the Islamic youth think, and they are becoming more American than you could possibly want.  The next generations will civilize Islam into an acceptable American model.  Tis what tis.


----------



## Sunni Man

JakeStarkey said:


> We are not discussing what you think, Sunni Man, but what the Islamic youth think, and they are becoming more American than you could possibly want.  The next generations will civilize Islam into an acceptable American model.  Tis what tis.


In Islamic theology we have a word "bid'ah", which translates into english as "innovation", (basically, modifying Islam)

The Qur'an and the sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad speak in no uncertain terms about the evils of bid'ah and those who allow it.

To change even one word in the Qur'an is bid'ah; and a straight path to hell.

Thus, no true follower of Islam is going to introduce any kind of bid'ah into the mosque or the muslim community.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Keep telling yourself that is so in the American Muslim community particularly among your youth and young people who think everyone over 40 is nuts about gay and female rights.


----------



## Sunni Man

In Islamic culture, unlike the western nations, the youth look up to their elders and value their wisdom.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Keep telling yourself that is how American Muslim youth think, but in our community our Christian and Jewish youth tell us their Islamic peers think the traditional Muslim hatred toward gay and feminine rights is crazy.


----------



## Sunni Man

Homosexuality is 100% forbidden in Islam and will never be accepted in the Islamic community.

Muslims have seen how both Judaism and Christianity slowly changed their theology in order to accommodate modern thinking over what the Bible clearly teaches about this and other issues.

And now both of these great religions are now just a former shell of themselves; and the churches and synagogues are rapidly losing members as a result.

That is why we muslims refuse to disobey or refute even one single word of the Qur'an or the commands of the Prophet.

In fear of becoming an inconsequential religion like Judaism and Christianity have become in the western nations.

Our muslim youth are well aware of the dangers to Islam if the Qur'an is not followed explicitly to the letter.


----------



## Brawd

Haven't you watched shahs of sunset? 

Reza is a muslim homosexual.


----------



## NLT

Seawytch said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> It makes perfect sense.  I'm merely pointing out that you're not above the fray. I've never claimed to be above the fray. You are as judgmental as anyone else, so to cast stones at others for being 'judgmental' is just hyporcrisy.  Most heterosexual people would most likely think of gay sex as being 'icky', it's a biological reaction, the same as any other natural reaction.  I'm guessing that gay people think heterosexual sex is 'icky' so does that make them bigots too?  Judging people for their feelings or natural reactions to things they think are 'icky' is no better or worse than the judging that you are doing.  Yet you see yourself as righteous somehow. It's just the flip side of the coin being turned over, who's morals are right?  Yours?  You certainly seem to think so.  You are no different than those you point your finger at.
> 
> 
> 
> I had a gay brother and he found heterosexual sex "icky".  I find homosexual sex "icky", too....I wouldn't do it.  He also thought mushrooms tasted "icky".  And, I find cooked cauliflower tastes "icky".  Plus, purple is seriously an "icky" color.
> 
> We are all such bigots, aren't we?  Violating that feelings/opinion code and all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's when you try to legislate away your "icky" feeling that the bigotry comes in.
Click to expand...


When you try to force your minority homoness on others and in the schools & the work place, reverse bigotry comes into play.


----------



## Sunni Man

Being opposed to homosexuality isn't bigotry.

Just common sense..........


----------



## Sunni Man

Brawd said:


> Haven't you watched shahs of sunset?
> 
> Reza is a muslim homosexual.


Nope, he is a Jew.    

"His father is Jewish and his mother is Muslim. In an episode he reveals his father converted to Islam to marry his mother. When his parents' marriage ended in divorce his father moved back to New York to be with his Jewish family; in an episode it's revealed that Farahan's paternal grandmother pressured his father and rejected him as not Jewish. *Reza himself identifies from a primarily Jewish background"*.

Shahs of Sunset - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Brawd

Sunni Man said:


> Brawd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't you watched shahs of sunset?
> 
> Reza is a muslim homosexual.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, he is a Jew.
> 
> "His father is Jewish and his mother is Muslim. In an episode he reveals his father converted to Islam to marry his mother. When his parents' marriage ended in divorce his father moved back to New York to be with his Jewish family; in an episode it's revealed that Farahan's paternal grandmother pressured his father and rejected him as not Jewish. *Reza himself identifies from a primarily Jewish background"*.
> 
> Shahs of Sunset - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


the jews rejected him didn't you watch that episode he was raised muslim by his mother.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

NLT said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a gay brother and he found heterosexual sex "icky".  I find homosexual sex "icky", too....I wouldn't do it.  He also thought mushrooms tasted "icky".  And, I find cooked cauliflower tastes "icky".  Plus, purple is seriously an "icky" color.
> 
> We are all such bigots, aren't we?  Violating that feelings/opinion code and all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's when you try to legislate away your "icky" feeling that the bigotry comes in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you try to force your minority homoness on others and in the schools & the work place, reverse bigotry comes into play.
Click to expand...


Nothing is being forced on anyone, particularly in schools or the workplace. And laws or policies designed to prohibit discriminatory practices do not constitute reverse bigotry.


----------



## Sunni Man

Brawd said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brawd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't you watched shahs of sunset?
> 
> Reza is a muslim homosexual.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, he is a Jew.
> 
> "His father is Jewish and his mother is Muslim. In an episode he reveals his father converted to Islam to marry his mother. When his parents' marriage ended in divorce his father moved back to New York to be with his Jewish family; in an episode it's revealed that Farahan's paternal grandmother pressured his father and rejected him as not Jewish. *Reza himself identifies from a primarily Jewish background"*.
> 
> Shahs of Sunset - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the jews rejected him didn't you watch that episode he was raised muslim by his mother.
Click to expand...

I have never watch the show, and never will.

He is on record that in his personal life off the show; he self identifies as a Jew and not a muslim.


----------



## Brawd

Sunni Man said:


> Brawd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, he is a Jew.
> 
> "His father is Jewish and his mother is Muslim. In an episode he reveals his father converted to Islam to marry his mother. When his parents' marriage ended in divorce his father moved back to New York to be with his Jewish family; in an episode it's revealed that Farahan's paternal grandmother pressured his father and rejected him as not Jewish. *Reza himself identifies from a primarily Jewish background"*.
> 
> Shahs of Sunset - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the jews rejected him didn't you watch that episode he was raised muslim by his mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have never watch the show, and never will.
> 
> He is on record that in his personal life off the show; he self identifies as a Jew and not a muslim.
Click to expand...


Not on the tv show, he says he is muslim , dunno.

What about the pink jihads who are the gay muslims?

Also my friend is  a muslim and she's from pakistan and she isn't against jews.

It's not a standard that regular muslims or jews have, only the political muslims and jews are using the division propoganda.

You must be wealthy AND powerful offline.


----------



## mjollnir

Sunni Man said:


> Homosexuality is 100% forbidden in Islam and will never be accepted in the Islamic community.
> 
> Muslims have seen how both Judaism and Christianity slowly changed their theology in order to accommodate modern thinking over what the Bible clearly teaches about this and other issues.
> 
> And now both of these great religions are now just a former shell of themselves; and the churches and synagogues are rapidly losing members as a result.
> 
> That is why we muslims refuse to disobey or refute even one single word of the Qur'an or the commands of the Prophet.
> 
> In fear of becoming an inconsequential religion like Judaism and Christianity have become in the western nations.
> 
> Our muslim youth are well aware of the dangers to Islam if the Qur'an is not followed explicitly to the letter.



Muslims have a long and cherished tradition of fucking young boys, you stupid shit.

Your denial just makes your delusions that much more pitiful.


----------



## Sunni Man

mjollnir said:


> Muslims have a long and cherished tradition of fucking young boys,.....


So did you enjoy them packing your fudge when you were younger??


----------



## JakeStarkey

The _*pink jihadists*_ will have fun when they have their with Sunni Man. 

Your way of life in the ME is ending here in America.  The youth want America not the ME.  They will interpret Islam as they will, not you, because you will die and become forgotten along with the rest of your generation.


----------



## Sunni Man

That is why we are making sure that the muslim youth understand what Islam is all about and reinforce the teachings of the Qur'an.

We teach them arabic so that they can read the original texts and know exactly what it says in the language of the Prophet.


----------



## mjollnir

Sunni Man said:


> mjollnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muslims have a long and cherished tradition of fucking young boys,.....
> 
> 
> 
> So did you enjoy them packing your fudge when you were younger??
Click to expand...


Take your fagtastic cock-lust to rentboy, Mustafa.


----------



## Brawd

Sunni Man said:


> That is why we are making sure that the muslim youth understand what Islam is all about and reinforce the teachings of the Qur'an.
> 
> We teach them arabic so that they can read the original texts and know exactly what it says in the language of the Prophet.



Hate to break it to you but muslim youth sits on tumblr and laughs at the old school muslims.

Things are different today pops get with the times.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Cecilie1200 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, equally ideally, the courts would leave the lawmaking to the legislatures and, where appropriate, the voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One can dream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One suspects, though, that more luck would be had dreaming about winning the lottery.
Click to expand...


Make that two.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Sunni Man said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion is immaterial, Cecilie1200.
> 
> The only points about your opinion is that it is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^^ Says the great and mighty JakeStarky..........
Click to expand...


Without Jake calling the play by play most people wouldn't know who won these little debates. To tell the truth, I use him when I don't feel like reading an entire thread, if he starts declaring victory I know that the other side won.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AmyNation said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homophobia is dying out, give it 30 years and they will go the way of the racists, shamed into the closet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wanna bet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. Let's meet back in 30 years and see if homophobia has gone the way of racism.
Click to expand...


If we are to believe Obama's  supporters everyone that disagrees with him is a racist. Where, exactly, did racism go?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> Ah, sure there is.  I know many young Sunni American men and women under 35, and they think the way of their elders is the way of the past.  At least 4 out of 5 think the anti-homosexuality is absolutely stupid.  Many are re-thinking their positions on feminism.  You will be glad to know most are anti-Israel, but I bet their children will be far less so.
> 
> You are the past, SM.



Did you consider the possibility that they might be lying, or that they might change their minds?


----------



## Sunni Man

Quantum Windbag said:


> Without Jake calling the play by play most people wouldn't know who won these little debates. To tell the truth, I use him when I don't feel like reading an entire thread, if he starts declaring victory I know that the other side won.


JakeOff is definitely a legend in his own mind..........


----------



## JakeStarkey

The older Muslims, like Sunni Man, have always been tormented and taunted by their latent homosexuality.  The younger American Muslims have little use for their tortured religious perversion of Islam.

The American Islamic youth are abandoning 





Brawd said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is why we are making sure that the muslim youth understand what Islam is all about and reinforce the teachings of the Qur'an.
> 
> We teach them arabic so that they can read the original texts and know exactly what it says in the language of the Prophet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to you but muslim youth sits on tumblr and laughs at the old school muslims.
> 
> Things are different today pops get with the times.
Click to expand...


----------



## Brawd

JakeStarkey said:


> The older Muslims, like Sunni Man, have always been tormented and taunted by their latent homosexuality.  The younger American Muslims have little use for their tortured religious perversion of Islam.
> 
> The American Islamic youth are abandoning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brawd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is why we are making sure that the muslim youth understand what Islam is all about and reinforce the teachings of the Qur'an.
> 
> We teach them arabic so that they can read the original texts and know exactly what it says in the language of the Prophet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to you but muslim youth sits on tumblr and laughs at the old school muslims.
> 
> Things are different today pops get with the times.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The guy must be 100 years old.

He should peek at what the young muslims are posting on tumblr


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sunni Man is in his early to late sixties, but he thinks as if he were alive in 1453.


----------



## Katzndogz

Brawd said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is why we are making sure that the muslim youth understand what Islam is all about and reinforce the teachings of the Qur'an.
> 
> We teach them arabic so that they can read the original texts and know exactly what it says in the language of the Prophet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to you but muslim youth sits on tumblr and laughs at the old school muslims.
> 
> Things are different today pops get with the times.
Click to expand...


Ohhhh so that's why the average age of an islamic terrorist is between 20 and 35!   They are getting with the times.


----------



## AmyNation

Quantum Windbag said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wanna bet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Let's meet back in 30 years and see if homophobia has gone the way of racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we are to believe Obama's  supporters everyone that disagrees with him is a racist. Where, exactly, did racism go?
Click to expand...


It's no longer socially acceptable to be a racist. Does racism still exist? Of course and it probably always will to some degree. The same will happen to homophobia.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Our American terrorists from Muslims to Christians to militia mutts are about the same age.



Katzndogz said:


> Brawd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is why we are making sure that the muslim youth understand what Islam is all about and reinforce the teachings of the Qur'an.
> 
> We teach them arabic so that they can read the original texts and know exactly what it says in the language of the Prophet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to you but muslim youth sits on tumblr and laughs at the old school muslims.
> 
> Things are different today pops get with the times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ohhhh so that's why the average age of an islamic terrorist is between 20 and 35!   They are getting with the times.
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Neither racism nor homophobia are acceptable or worthwhile social constructs in America.


----------



## Brawd

Katzndogz said:


> Brawd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is why we are making sure that the muslim youth understand what Islam is all about and reinforce the teachings of the Qur'an.
> 
> We teach them arabic so that they can read the original texts and know exactly what it says in the language of the Prophet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to you but muslim youth sits on tumblr and laughs at the old school muslims.
> 
> Things are different today pops get with the times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ohhhh so that's why the average age of an islamic terrorist is between 20 and 35!   They are getting with the times.
Click to expand...


The entire muslim youth is neither terrorist nor strict adherents to the religion, they are westernized and like pop music, tumblr and some even like da gay sex oh noooees !!!


----------



## Sunni Man

The perversion of homosexuality and it's devient lifestyle will always be viewed as disgusting by normal people and never be accepted.


----------



## Brawd

Sunni Man said:


> The perversion of homosexuality and it's devient lifestyle will always be viewed as disgusting by normal people and never be accepted.



Normal is relative and socially constructed, you should know that pops.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Says . . . who?  On what . .  . authority?

You are old, a hater, and out of touch, Sunni Man, with your own Islamic American youth as well as the rest of American youth.  



Sunni Man said:


> The perversion of homosexuality and it's devient lifestyle will always be viewed as disgusting by normal people and never be accepted.


----------



## Sunni Man

Go to some of the Islamic sites such as Sunniforum. com or Ummah. com and you will see what  muslim youth think about issues such as homosexuality and other decadent western cultural issues.

Then get back with me............


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sunni Man offers the older othodoxy and its sites for youth of proof that modern Muslim youth have not changed in three decades.

Modern American Islamic youth privately say they will wait for their elders to pass.


----------



## Brawd

Sunni Man said:


> Go to some of the Islamic sites such as Sunniforum. com or Ummah. com and you will see what  muslim youth think about issues such as homosexuality and other decadent western cultural issues.
> 
> Then get back with me............



Talk to Ahmed and Maham on tumblr and they will laugh at your outdated ways.

sorry pops


----------



## Brawd

JakeStarkey said:


> Sunni Man offers the older othodoxy and its sites for youth of proof that modern Muslim youth have not changed in three decades.
> 
> Modern American Islamic youth privately say they will wait for their elders to pass.



He's old , those old old muslims are as bad as the old conservative christians, oh noooess somebody is gay, it's gonna wreck my religious fairy tale beliefs.


----------



## Sunni Man

Brawd said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go to some of the Islamic sites such as Sunniforum. com or Ummah. com and you will see what  muslim youth think about issues such as homosexuality and other decadent western cultural issues.
> 
> Then get back with me............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talk to Ahmed and Maham on tumblr and they will laugh at your outdated ways.
> 
> sorry pops
Click to expand...

Tell them to come here and post........that is if they really exist.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

AmyNation said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Let's meet back in 30 years and see if homophobia has gone the way of racism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we are to believe Obama's  supporters everyone that disagrees with him is a racist. Where, exactly, did racism go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's no longer socially acceptable to be a racist. Does racism still exist? Of course and it probably always will to some degree. The same will happen to homophobia.
Click to expand...


I guess that would depend on what society you live in.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Quantum Windbag said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we are to believe Obama's  supporters everyone that disagrees with him is a racist. Where, exactly, did racism go?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's no longer socially acceptable to be a racist. Does racism still exist? Of course and it probably always will to some degree. The same will happen to homophobia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess that would depend on what society you live in.
Click to expand...


I hate to break it to the progressives - who never learn from history, and so are always doomed to repeat it - but all of the thoughts and attitudes that they are so complacently and self-righteously convinced they have "evolved past" are merely cyclical, and will be back, just like they always have been.


----------



## JakeStarkey

In our society, though, we know that racism and homophobia are morally and ethically inconsistent with human decency and dignity.

We may cycle out of it again to the depths where you live.





Cecilie1200 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's no longer socially acceptable to be a racist. Does racism still exist? Of course and it probably always will to some degree. The same will happen to homophobia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess that would depend on what society you live in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate to break it to the progressives - who never learn from history, and so are always doomed to repeat it - but all of the thoughts and attitudes that they are so complacently and self-righteously convinced they have "evolved past" are merely cyclical, and will be back, just like they always have been.
Click to expand...


----------



## Sunni Man

^^^^^^ 100% correct

Whether it's the communists of the former USSR or the Hippies in the 60"s

They always think in their deluded so called progressive minds. 

That man is evolving, and they are on the cutting edge of this new society and way of thinking.

Only to later to discover that it's just part of a cycle that's happened countless time throughout human history.       

And their utopian ideal was just a delusion.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Says Sunni Man, still living in the 15th century religiously.


----------



## Brawd

Sunni Man said:


> Brawd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go to some of the Islamic sites such as Sunniforum. com or Ummah. com and you will see what  muslim youth think about issues such as homosexuality and other decadent western cultural issues.
> 
> Then get back with me............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talk to Ahmed and Maham on tumblr and they will laugh at your outdated ways.
> 
> sorry pops
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell them to come here and post........that is if they really exist.
Click to expand...


oh they exist but they wouldn't waste time on you, just go to gaymuslim tumblr com


----------



## Sunni Man

JakeStarkey said:


> In our society, though, *we *know that racism and homophobia are morally and ethically inconsistent with human decency and dignity.


By "we" do you mean you and your boyfriend??


----------



## Sunni Man

Brawd said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brawd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talk to Ahmed and Maham on tumblr and they will laugh at your outdated ways.
> 
> sorry pops
> 
> 
> 
> Tell them to come here and post........that is if they really exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh they exist but they wouldn't waste time on you, just go to gaymuslim tumblr com
Click to expand...

They may have been born to muslim parents.

But if they are homos; then they are not muslims.

And they would never go to a mosque and announce they are gay.

Unless they have a death wish.............


----------



## Brawd

Sunni Man said:


> Brawd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell them to come here and post........that is if they really exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh they exist but they wouldn't waste time on you, just go to gaymuslim tumblr com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They may have been born to muslim parents.
> 
> But if they are homos; then they are not muslims.
> 
> And they would never go to a mosque and announce they are gay.
> 
> Unless they have a death wish.............
Click to expand...


You didn't go read his blog and no not all muslims are killers or wishing death on each other just because of sexual preference.

Your from the outdated version of muslim.


----------



## Sunni Man

Brawd said:


> You didn't go read his blog and no not all muslims are killers or wishing death on each other just because of sexual preference.
> 
> Your from the outdated version of muslim.


So one faggot claims to be a muslim and you think he speaks for 1.5 billion muslim people.

You definitely have a lot to learn junior.


----------



## Brawd

Sunni Man said:


> Brawd said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't go read his blog and no not all muslims are killers or wishing death on each other just because of sexual preference.
> 
> Your from the outdated version of muslim.
> 
> 
> 
> So one faggot claims to be a muslim and you think he speaks for 1.5 billion muslim people.
> 
> You definitely have a lot to learn junior.
Click to expand...


it's more then one, make a tumblr account and pm me your screen name


----------



## Sunni Man

No way Jose.

I have no reason to go to some pervert faggots forum and see what these homos have to says about anything.       

Actually, your posting is getting very boring and tedious.

So I guess it's time to put you on ignore.

Bye


----------



## Brawd

Sunni Man said:


> No way Jose.
> 
> I have no reason to go to some pervert faggots forum and see what these homos have to says about anything.
> 
> Actually, your posting is getting very boring and tedious.
> 
> So I guess it's time to put you on ignore.
> 
> Bye



Bye Imam poser.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The latent homosexual self-loathing of a Muslim pervert is demonstrated in SM's comment below.  

To use your own language, SM, it's OK for you to be a fudge packer.



Sunni Man said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> In our society, though, *we *know that racism and homophobia are morally and ethically inconsistent with human decency and dignity.
> 
> 
> 
> By "we" do you mean you and your boyfriend??
Click to expand...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

And this is why we have a Constitution

Persons have every right to hate homosexuals, just as they have a right to hate African-Americans, Muslims, and Jews. 

They have a right to express that hatred, protected by the First Amendment, unencumbered by government restriction.

They have the right to not practice homosexuality if so directed by their religions dogma, and to prohibit homosexuals, African-Americans, Muslims, and Jews from joining their religion or private organizations. 

Persons *may not*, however, attempt to *codify *that hate, fear, ignorance, or racism; states and local jurisdictions *may not* enact measures that deem a class of persons a stranger to their laws. 

Judging from the conservatives who have subscribed to this thread, the Constitution and its case law protecting Americans from the hate, fear, ignorance, and racism exhibited by many on the right is needed as much now as at any time during our Nations history.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Just so.



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And this is why we have a Constitution
> 
> Persons have every right to hate homosexuals, just as they have a right to hate African-Americans, Muslims, and Jews.
> 
> They have a right to express that hatred, protected by the First Amendment, unencumbered by government restriction.
> 
> They have the right to not practice homosexuality if so directed by their religions dogma, and to prohibit homosexuals, African-Americans, Muslims, and Jews from joining their religion or private organizations.
> 
> Persons *may not*, however, attempt to *codify *that hate, fear, ignorance, or racism; states and local jurisdictions *may not* enact measures that deem a class of persons a stranger to their laws.
> 
> Judging from the conservatives who have subscribed to this thread, the Constitution and its case law protecting Americans from the hate, fear, ignorance, and racism exhibited by many on the right is needed as much now as at any time during our Nations history.


----------



## Brawd

JakeStarkey said:


> The latent homosexual self-loathing of a Muslim pervert is demonstrated in SM's comment below.
> 
> To use your own language, SM, it's OK for you to be a fudge packer.
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> In our society, though, *we *know that racism and homophobia are morally and ethically inconsistent with human decency and dignity.
> 
> 
> 
> By "we" do you mean you and your boyfriend??
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


He's a crybaby he put me on ignore because I showed him some young gay muslim tumblr bloggers.

Holy Allah he's soo old school it's just sad.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I heard of an incident where some good ol' boyds had to convince a guy like Sunni Man back in western Louisiana that if he beat his sixteen year old girl again for listening to rock and roll that he would be in for a very, very rough time.  I am glad he finally learned.  He was also put on insurance bond in district court that he could not move the children out of the district without the judge's foreknowledge and approval.  His passport was also removed for five years.


----------



## daveman

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And this is why we have a Constitution
> 
> Persons have every right to hate homosexuals, just as they have a right to hate African-Americans, Muslims, and Jews.
> 
> They have a right to express that hatred, protected by the First Amendment, unencumbered by government restriction.
> 
> They have the right to not practice homosexuality if so directed by their religions dogma, and to prohibit homosexuals, African-Americans, Muslims, and Jews from joining their religion or private organizations.
> 
> Persons *may not*, however, attempt to *codify *that hate, fear, ignorance, or racism; states and local jurisdictions *may not* enact measures that deem a class of persons a stranger to their laws.
> 
> Judging from the conservatives who have subscribed to this thread, the Constitution and its case law protecting Americans from the hate, fear, ignorance, and racism exhibited by many on the right is needed as much now as at any time during our Nations history.


And yet racism has been codified.

Affirmative Action.

Relaxed hiring standards for minorities.

All because white liberals believe minorities aren't good enough to succeed without the help of white liberals.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

daveman said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this is why we have a Constitution
> 
> Persons have every right to hate homosexuals, just as they have a right to hate African-Americans, Muslims, and Jews.
> 
> They have a right to express that hatred, protected by the First Amendment, unencumbered by government restriction.
> 
> They have the right to not practice homosexuality if so directed by their religions dogma, and to prohibit homosexuals, African-Americans, Muslims, and Jews from joining their religion or private organizations.
> 
> Persons *may not*, however, attempt to *codify *that hate, fear, ignorance, or racism; states and local jurisdictions *may not* enact measures that deem a class of persons a stranger to their laws.
> 
> Judging from the conservatives who have subscribed to this thread, the Constitution and its case law protecting Americans from the hate, fear, ignorance, and racism exhibited by many on the right is needed as much now as at any time during our Nations history.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet racism has been codified.
> 
> Affirmative Action.
> 
> Relaxed hiring standards for minorities.
> 
> All because white liberals believe minorities aren't good enough to succeed without the help of white liberals.
Click to expand...


It's called "buying votes." It happens to work.


----------



## JakeStarkey

davmen simply is davying along.


----------

