# Gays blaming blacks for gay marriage ban in California



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 12, 2008)

Sodomites blaming blacks, can't these sore loser accept that they've lost the right to live is sodomosexual matrimony in California? This backs up Mr Bass' assertions of blacks being the least gay of all people:


Criticism mounts among gays over Calif. ban - Yahoo! News


Exit polls in California showed that the gay marriage ban received a majority from black voters, which has prompted some gay leaders to complain that they were abandoned by a minority group that should understand discrimination.

Kathryn Kolbert, a black lesbian who is president of People for the American Way, a Washington-based group that monitors the religious right, was so worried about a backlash that she wrote a memo to colleagues, warning it is wrong and self-defeating to blame black voters for the outcome. 

"It's always easy to scapegoat when you are feeling bitter about a loss," Kolbert said. "What we do in America when we are frustrated is blame the people we always blame." 



Its no surprise, gay so called "rights" and the black Civil Rights are *NOT* the same so sodomites shouldn't be surprise to see this from blacks.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 12, 2008)

And they would be right.  If the Bass hadn't forgot what it is like to be discriminated against, the Bass would see clearly and give these people equal rights.

If slavery were put up for a vote, the bass would still be a slave.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 12, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> And they would be right.  If the Bass hadn't forgot what it is like to be discriminated against, the Bass would see clearly and give these people equal rights.
> 
> If slavery were put up for a vote, the bass would still be a slave.




The sealybobo is wrong. Being "discriminated" against because of gay sex acts[which are voluntary, willful sex acts] vs being discriminated against because of skin colour/race/ethnicity is *NOT* the same.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 12, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> The sealybobo is wrong. Being "discriminated" against because of gay sex acts[which are voluntary, willful sex acts] vs being discriminated against because of skin colour/race/ethnicity is *NOT* the same.



It's not exactly the same no, but that's just symantics.  

If the bass was a real America, he would know it is not right to exclude one group of people from having access to benefits other groups of people have based on their sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, gender, etc.  

Where does the Bass get married?  A Baptist church?  excellent.

Where does John Kerry get married?  A catholic church?  Cool.

Where does The Sealybobo get married?  Greek Orthodox?  Nice!

Where do we all go to get divorced?  Court?  

So your church can deny marrying someone if they want, for whatever reason they want.  More power to them.

But you allow 2 people to get married and enjoy the benefits, like sharing healthcare, or making decisions for each other, or splitting what they have if they decide to get a divorce down the road.  

A gay couple can't get the tax breaks that straight couples get?  Bullshit.
They can't make decisions for each other in hospitals?  Crap.
They can't share healthcare?  Why not?
And if one stays home and the other works and saves for 30 years and the one that saved decides to kick the other one out, the bread winner gets all the money?  

I think the Bass needs to seperate church and state.  Constitutionally, you are wrong.

And like I said, if you put it up for a vote back in the 1800's, you would still be a slave.  Some things you don't let the masses decide on.  Wrong is wrong.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 12, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> The sealybobo is wrong. Being "discriminated" against because of gay sex acts[which are voluntary, willful sex acts] vs being discriminated against because of skin colour/race/ethnicity is *NOT* the same.



By the way, back in the 50's and 60's, whites used the bible to argue why blacks and whites should not marry.

They talked about this on Air America the other day.  Denying these people equal rights is wrong no matter how you justify it.  Either stop giving married people who do not have children tax breaks and stop letting them share insurance, or give it to gay people.

They were talking about Sodom & Gamora.  I guess that town was punished by God for all their sins?  But the funny thing is, they did a lot more than sodomize.  So I find it funny that the bible thumpers chose to focus on the sodomy but ignore all the other shit they were doing that made god mad.  

And we all sin.  You sin, I sin.  And if being gay is a sin, so what?  Are you going to hell you sinner?  NO?  Well then neither are they.  Unless of course they haven't accepted Jesus Christ as their savior.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 13, 2008)

While engaging in homosexual acts is a choice, as are all sexual acts, the orientation itself is not a choice. 

From The American Psychological Association: 

*Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?*

No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

*Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?*

No. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, a mental disorder, or an emotional problem. More than 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information.

In the past, the studies of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about such people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better-designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting this removal.

For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.​
The next thing people need to realize is that civil marriage is a legal contract. As a paralegal, I'm not aware of any other legal contract that has a gender bias.

It won't let me post the URL until I've made 15 posts or more for some odd reason, so just go to apahelpcenter.org and look for "Sexual Orientation."


----------



## YWN666 (Nov 13, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> The sealybobo is wrong. Being "discriminated" against because of gay sex acts[which are voluntary, willful sex acts] vs being discriminated against because of skin colour/race/ethnicity is *NOT* the same.



*FYI a sexual act between two people of the same sex does not make them homosexual.*


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 13, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> It's not exactly the same no, but that's just symantics.
> 
> If the bass was a real America, he would know it is not right to exclude one group of people from having access to benefits other groups of people have based on their sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, gender, etc.
> 
> ...



Well hell what ever will the people that like dead people for sex do? They are surely discriminated against and who are they really hurting after all?

How about NAMBLA? They too face horrible discrimination, why the Government even puts them in PRISON.

I can go on and on about deviant sex acts and show you why your simplistic statement is retarded as hell.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 13, 2008)

YWN666 said:


> *FYI a sexual act between two people of the same sex does not make them homosexual.*



Ya, as I recall black men claim if they are the GIVER they are not Gay, same as Arab men.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 13, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Well hell what ever will the people that like dead people for sex do? They are surely discriminated against and who are they really hurting after all?
> 
> How about NAMBLA? They too face horrible discrimination, why the Government even puts them in PRISON.
> 
> I can go on and on about deviant sex acts and show you why your simplistic statement is retarded as hell.



Apples & Oranges. 

NAMBLA is an organization that advocates sex between grown men and young boys. This an age of consent issue. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. 

As for your mention of necrophilia - do you seriously believe that doesn't harm people? If a loved one of yours was dead, would it bother you if someone were to have sex with them?

I bet it would. 

Two consenting adults engaging in homosexual acts does not harm anyone - period.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 13, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Well hell what ever will the people that like dead people for sex do? They are surely discriminated against and who are they really hurting after all?
> 
> How about NAMBLA? They too face horrible discrimination, why the Government even puts them in PRISON.
> 
> I can go on and on about deviant sex acts and show you why your simplistic statement is retarded as hell.



Is it legal to have sex with dead people now?

Is it legal to have sex with young boys now?

Do you give your wife oral?  I know some bible thumpers who think that's immoral and a homosexual act.  Also a sin.  

Your arguments are squashed.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 13, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> *Exit polls in California showed that the gay marriage ban received a majority from black voters, which has prompted some gay leaders to complain that they were abandoned by a minority group that should understand discrimination.*


I understand the NAACP has a new motto. "The NAACP: Protecting Americans from teh Gay since 2008."

A dark chapter in black American history.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 13, 2008)

Ravi said:


> I understand the NAACP has a new motto. "The NAACP: Protecting Americans from teh Gay since 2008."
> 
> A dark chapter in black American history.



I'm so glad that my greek immigrant grandparents didn't start descriminating aginst the next minority that took their place.

There was a time when they were considered the "dirty greeks" in a neighborhood filled with blondes and an occasional Italian.  The Italians were so glad to see the Greeks arrive.  Just like the blacks like Bass today are loving that muslims and gays are taking all the heat. 

Rather than be like Powell and see that discrimination is discrimination no matter who's on the receiving end.


----------



## strollingbones (Nov 13, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> Apples & Oranges.
> 
> NAMBLA is an organization that advocates sex between grown men and young boys. This an age of consent issue. It has nothing to do with homosexuality.
> 
> ...




he can not see the apples for his wall of oranges....

arent most necros...hetro anyways?


----------



## jillian (Nov 13, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Sodomites blaming blacks, can't these sore loser accept that they've lost the right to live is sodomosexual matrimony in California? This backs up Mr Bass' assertions of blacks being the least gay of all people:
> 
> 
> Criticism mounts among gays over Calif. ban - Yahoo! News
> ...



What do you think the vote would be, loony toon, if segregation were put on the ballot?

Schmuck.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 13, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> arent most necros...hetro anyways?



You meam like Jeffery Dahmer!?!?


----------



## YWN666 (Nov 13, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ya, as I recall black men claim if they are the GIVER they are not Gay, same as Arab men.


*

Oh, good grief.................  

Thanks for showing us your ignorance, Archie.*


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 13, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> The sealybobo is wrong. Being "discriminated" against because of gay sex acts[which are voluntary, willful sex acts] vs being discriminated against because of skin colour/race/ethnicity is *NOT* the same.



Oh yea Bass.  Someone just mentioned Jeffrey Dahmer.  He prayed on gay black men.  Watch the movie.  It's horrible, but will prove that blacks are gay.  

Not only are they gay, but they have horrible taste.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 13, 2008)

YWN666 said:


> *
> 
> Oh, good grief.................
> 
> Thanks for showing us your ignorance, Archie.*



Hey, he was banging me.  I wasn't enjoying it nor was I hard.  He was hard.  How is he not gay for being excited enough to bang me but I'm gay because he's putting it to me?


----------



## del (Nov 13, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Hey, he was banging me.  I wasn't enjoying it nor was I hard.  He was hard.  How is he not gay for being excited enough to bang me but I'm gay because he's putting it to me?



TMI-big time


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 13, 2008)

del said:


> TMI-big time



Totally kidding.  

But, the idea that the guy who's getting banged is more or less gay than the guy giving.  

Actually, imo, the guy receiving has got to be gayer.  I can see why the giver is giving, but why is the receiver receiving?


----------



## WhiteLion (Nov 13, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Sodomites blaming blacks, can't these sore loser accept that they've lost the right to live is sodomosexual matrimony in California? This backs up Mr Bass' assertions of blacks being the least gay of all people:
> 
> 
> Criticism mounts among gays over Calif. ban - Yahoo! News
> ...



Gays try to equate the 1960's negro civil rights movement to their agenda, when the fact of the matter they have all the rights anyone else has collectively, to grant them same sex marriage would place them above the law... same sex marriage and homosexuality is pawned off in an effort to destroy societal identity by redifining the traditional heterosexual family foundation hands down...


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 13, 2008)

WhiteLion said:


> Gays try to equate the 1960's negro civil rights movement to their agenda, when the fact of the matter they have all the rights anyone else has collectively, to grant them same sex marriage would place them above the law... same sex marriage and homosexuality is pawned off in an effort to destroy societal identity by redifining the traditional heterosexual family foundation hands down...



What?    That's mumbo jumbo.  

And why are you siding with the black now mr WHITE lion?  

The sad thing about human nature is that the black man will join you in this fight to discriminate against gays or muslims or illegals or jews because he's just glad the focus is off him.

The only time the constitution was ammended to take away rights was prohibition.  And we see how well that turned out.  

You don't put discrimination into the constitution!

If a straight couple can get a tax write off, you gotta give the gay couple that same benefit.  At least in America you do.

Again, your Jewish/baptist/catholic/muslim church married you, right?  But where do you go to get a divorce?  Court.  The Judge.  So keep  your catholic weddings.  But gay people need to be allowed to be married.  And get the benefits that go with it.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?


----------



## WhiteLion (Nov 13, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> What?    That's mumbo jumbo.
> 
> And why are you siding with the black now mr WHITE lion?
> 
> ...


Understand?? lol like i said in my earlier post, same sex marriage and homosexuality is pawned off in an multiculturalist effort to destroy societal identity by redifining the traditional heterosexual family foundation hands down


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 13, 2008)

WhiteLion said:


> Understand?? lol like i said in my earlier post, same sex marriage and homosexuality is pawned off in an multiculturalist effort to destroy societal identity by redifining the traditional heterosexual family foundation hands down



I believe racists said the same thing about blacks marrying whites.  I also believe that back during the civil rights movement, racists were able to use the bible to show why and where god does not approve of interacial marriage.  

All that doesn't matter in America.  As long as they aren't hurting anyone, they should be able to do it.  As long as straight couples get the benefits, gay couples should too.  And of course as long as it's not against the law.  Is it?  Is it illegal to be gay?  

What you said is your opinion.  So start arguing with facts.  Or prove your claim.  Because I think hetero couples are doing fine on their own ruining the sactity of marriage.


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Nov 13, 2008)

WhiteLion said:


> Understand?? lol like i said in my earlier post, same sex marriage and homosexuality is pawned off in an multiculturalist effort to destroy societal identity by redifining the traditional heterosexual family foundation hands down



There's no reasoning with this person.  This person believes that if gay people can get married to eachother then they are somehow above the law.  What law?  What the hell is this person talking about?  Is there something wrong with being a multiculturalist?  Or would you rather live in a white, Protestant Christian, middle-class, everyone looks/talks/acts the same cultural abyss?  And social identity won't be affected by same sex marriage.  How would it?  A same sex couple gets married and that does what to society?  Give me a break!  Your dogma clouds your vision so much that you can't see past the Bible in front of your face.  Go back to Church and never come out again and leave the world to the rest of us who better understand the reality of human beings and the nature of the world.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 13, 2008)

Did you guys hear Mark Foley's interview yesterday?  What a scumbag.  He says he isn't technically a pedophile because pedophilia is technically between a man and a pre pubesent child.  

DUDE, they were in highschool you freakin perv!!!!


----------



## Mr. President (Nov 13, 2008)

This is a touchy subject because marriage in its origin is a biblical term used to define a lifetime commitment of a man and a woman.  This is why your church can marry you.  However, the courts handle the divorce because the seperation of church and state would not allow for the church to decide the placement of children and financial responsibilities of each of the adults.  One would argue that the same sepration of church and state that grants the divorce should allow homosexuals to marry; however, because it was a biblically originated premise there are no provisions for homosexuality in them.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 13, 2008)

Coloradomtnman said:


> There's no reasoning with this person.  This person believes that if gay people can get married to eachother then they are somehow above the law.  What law?  What the hell is this person talking about?  Is there something wrong with being a multiculturalist?  Or would you rather live in a white, Protestant Christian, middle-class, everyone looks/talks/acts the same cultural abyss?  And social identity won't be affected by same sex marriage.  How would it?  A same sex couple gets married and that does what to society?  Give me a break!  Your dogma clouds your vision so much that you can't see past the Bible in front of your face.  Go back to Church and never come out again and leave the world to the rest of us who better understand the reality of human beings and the nature of the world.



Nice post.  I'm not gay, but if we didn't live in a society where males weren't supposed to show affection for each other, I'd kiss you square on the lips.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 13, 2008)

Mr. President said:


> This is a touchy subject because marriage in its origin is a biblical term used to define a lifetime commitment of a man and a woman.  This is why your church can marry you.  However, the courts handle the divorce because the seperation of church and state would not allow for the church to decide the placement of children and financial responsibilities of each of the adults.  One would argue that the same sepration of church and state that grants the divorce should allow homosexuals to marry; however, because it was a biblically originated premise there are no provisions for homosexuality in them.



I agree.  I said some of those same things earlier, only not as elequently.  LOL.  

My dad is a good person, but right now he defends banning gay marriage.  He uses all the old arguments.  He even gets a bit emotional about it.  

And he's a liberal.  This is going to be a tough one to convince people that it's not right to discriminate on gays, but it is totally an argument we will win.  

Years ago I remember the arguments were totally different than they are now.  They are down to their last argument, that it's not ok with god.  BFD if you are an athiest.  And not all Americans are christians or religious.  So get religion out of the argument.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 13, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Sodomites blaming blacks, can't these sore loser accept that they've lost the right to live is sodomosexual matrimony in California? This backs up Mr Bass' assertions of blacks being the least gay of all people:
> 
> 
> Criticism mounts among gays over Calif. ban - Yahoo! News
> ...



I've yet to see the sodomites protesting the black churches like they have the white ones. Must not be PeeCee.


----------



## WhiteLion (Nov 13, 2008)

Coloradomtnman said:


> There's no reasoning with this person.  This person believes that if gay people can get married to eachother then they are somehow above the law.  What law?  What the hell is this person talking about?  Is there something wrong with being a multiculturalist?  Or would you rather live in a white, Protestant Christian, middle-class, everyone looks/talks/acts the same cultural abyss?  And social identity won't be affected by same sex marriage.  How would it?  A same sex couple gets married and that does what to society?  Give me a break!  Your dogma clouds your vision so much that you can't see past the Bible in front of your face.  Go back to Church and never come out again and leave the world to the rest of us who better understand the reality of human beings and the nature of the world.


Jesus Christ came to abolish dogma, same sex marriage and homosexuality is pawned off as a multiculturalist effort to destroy societal identity by redifining the traditional heterosexual *family foundation*,family foundation,family foundation........................


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 13, 2008)

glockmail said:


> I've yet to see the sodomites protesting the black churches like they have the white ones. Must not be PeeCee.



Then you haven't read my comments, because I expect more from blacks than I do from whites.  

Blacks are proving they are just like white people.  Give them the power and they'll descriminate too.  Shame.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 13, 2008)

WhiteLion said:


> same sex marriage and homosexuality is pawned off in an multiculturalist effort to destroy societal identity by redifining the traditional heterosexual QUOTE]
> 
> Can you prove this or show this to be true?  Or show that this is happening?


----------



## Mr. President (Nov 13, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> I agree.  I said some of those same things earlier, only not as elequently.  LOL.
> 
> My dad is a good person, but right now he defends banning gay marriage.  He uses all the old arguments.  He even gets a bit emotional about it.
> 
> ...



See Im not for gay marriage im against it.  However, Gay Partnership or whatever else you want to name it thats not marriage is ok with me.  The way I see it is if an EQUAL alternative is created we can protect the sanctity of marriage and allow the economic advantages to homosexual couples that are granted to heterosexual couples.  You know kind of like NBA WNBA.


----------



## AllieBaba (Nov 13, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> By the way, back in the 50's and 60's, whites used the bible to argue why blacks and whites should not marry.
> 
> They talked about this on Air America the other day.  Denying these people equal rights is wrong no matter how you justify it.  Either stop giving married people who do not have children tax breaks and stop letting them share insurance, or give it to gay people.
> 
> ...



The only way to redemption is to ask for forgiveness for your sins and REPENT. That means work at avoiding the sin.

Gays who have the attitude of "being homosexual is a sin but we all sin so it doesn't matter and I don't have to worry about it" sadly are missing the point of forgiveness. God will forgive you, but you have to admit you're doing something wrong, and try to rectify it.

Hehe...rectify.


----------



## AllieBaba (Nov 13, 2008)

"Multiculturist".

My cup overfloweth with crap.


----------



## WhiteLion (Nov 13, 2008)

Coloradomtnman said:


> There's no reasoning with this person.  This person believes that if gay people can get married to eachother then they are somehow above the law.  What law?  What the hell is this person talking about?  Is there something wrong with being a multiculturalist?  Or would you rather live in a white, Protestant Christian, middle-class, everyone looks/talks/acts the same cultural abyss?  And social identity won't be affected by same sex marriage.  How would it?  A same sex couple gets married and that does what to society?  Give me a break!  Your dogma clouds your vision so much that you can't see past the Bible in front of your face.  Go back to Church and never come out again and leave the world to the rest of us who better understand the reality of human beings and the nature of the world.


Jesus Christ came to abolish dogma dummy, same sex marriage and homosexuality is pawned off as a multiculturalist effort to destroy societal identity by redifining the traditional heterosexual *family foundation*,family foundation,family foundation........................family foundation....

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. 
Winston Churchill
Misery looooooooves company....


----------



## Ravi (Nov 13, 2008)

Mr. President said:


> See Im not for gay marriage im against it.  However, Gay Partnership or whatever else you want to name it thats not marriage is ok with me.  The way I see it is if an EQUAL alternative is created we can protect the sanctity of marriage and allow the economic advantages to homosexual couples that are granted to heterosexual couples.  You know kind of like NBA WNBA.


That all sounds nice and fair but it would mean the government would be telling a church that they could not call something they perform a marriage. Because you know there are churches that are going to have no problem performing ceremonies for gays.

So, how correct is it to allow the government to tell a church what words they may utter or print? Or anyone, for that matter...why has the government involved itself in defining a word in this manner?


----------



## Mr. President (Nov 13, 2008)

Ravi said:


> That all sounds nice and fair but it would mean the government would be telling a church that they could not call something they perform a marriage. Because you know there are churches that are going to have no problem performing ceremonies for gays.
> 
> So, how correct is it to allow the government to tell a church what words they may utter or print? Or anyone, for that matter...why has the government involved itself in defining a word in this manner?



Call it what you want in service or at home but instead of a marriage certificate it would be a partnership certificate the government role would begin and end there.


----------



## WhiteLion (Nov 13, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> The only way to redemption is to ask for forgiveness for your sins and REPENT. That means work at avoiding the sin.
> 
> Gays who have the attitude of "being homosexual is a sin but we all sin so it doesn't matter and I don't have to worry about it" sadly are missing the point of forgiveness. God will forgive you, but you have to admit you're doing something wrong, and try to rectify it.
> 
> Hehe...rectify.


lol


----------



## 007 (Nov 13, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> *Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?*
> 
> No. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, a mental disorder, or an emotional problem. More than 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information.



*BULLSHIT.* It was, is, and always will be a mental disorder.

*Homosexual Activists Intimidate American Psychiatric Association into Removing Homosexuality from List of Disorders*

BY RYAN SORBA

It was never a medical decisionand thats why I think the action came so fastIt was a political move.

Thats how far weve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.
-Barbara Gittings, Same-gender sex activist

Let us, for a moment, rewind to the year1970. In this year, same-gender sex activists began a program of intimidation aimed at the American Psychiatric Association (APA). Activist Frank Kameny states the movements objective clearly, I feel that the entire homophile movementis going to stand or fall upon the question of whether or not homosexuality is a sickness, and upon our taking a firm stand on it (The Gay Crusaders, by Kay Tobin and Randy Wicker, p. 98)

In 1970, psychiatrists generally considered sexual desires toward members of ones own gender to be disordered. Karoly Maria Kertbenys term, homosexual was the official descriptor for those inflicted by this mental-physical disassociative disorder. Psychiatrys authoritative voice influenced public opinion, which at the time was negative toward same-gender sex. Of course, public sexual activity in parks and public restrooms contributed to societies negative views about the types of people that did such things, but scientific opinion was crucial in the public attitude.

Led by radicals like Frank Kameny, same-gender sex activists attacked many psychiatrists publicly, as Newsweek describes, But even more than the government, it is the psychiatrists who have experienced the full rage of the homosexual activists. Over the past two years, gay-lib organizations have repeatedly disrupted medical meetings, and three months agoin the movements most aggressive demonstration so fara group of 30 militants broke into a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in Washington, where they turned the staid proceedings into near chaos for twenty minutes. We are here to denounce your authority to call us sick or mentally disordered, shouted the groups leader, Dr. Franklin Kameny, while the 2,000 shocked psychiatrists looked on in disbelief. For us, as homosexuals, your profession is the enemy incarnate. We demand that psychiatrists treat us as human beings, not as patients to be cured! (Newsweek, 8-23-71, p.47)

Ironically, at the very moment Franklin Kameny was claiming that same-gender sex was healthy, safe, and natural, a deadly virus was silently passing through communities of men all over the nation as a result of the promiscuous, unhealthy nature of the sex they were having. Only a decade later, thousands of men would be dead or dying, of AIDS.

On June 7, of the following year, 1971, Franklin Kameny wrote a letter to the Psychiatric News threatening the APA with not only more, but worse, disruptions. In this letter he states, Our presence there was only the beginning of an increasingly intensive campaign by homosexuals to change the approach of psychiatry toward homosexuality or, failing that, to discredit psychiatry. (The Gay Crusaders p. 130-131)

Article continues here with the truth...


----------



## WhiteLion (Nov 13, 2008)

Ravi said:


> That all sounds nice and fair but it would mean the government would be telling a church that they could not call something they perform a marriage. Because you know there are churches that are going to have no problem performing ceremonies for gays.
> 
> So, how correct is it to allow the government to tell a church what words they may utter or print? Or anyone, for that matter...why has the government involved itself in defining a word in this manner?


I bet you my church wont!!! Oh but that would make us fuuuuuuuundamentalist


----------



## mattskramer (Nov 13, 2008)

Pale Rider said:


> *BULLSHIT.* It was, is, and always will be a mental disorder.
> 
> *Homosexual Activists Intimidate American Psychiatric Association into Removing Homosexuality from List of Disorders*
> 
> ...




Silly right-winger spin.


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Nov 13, 2008)

WhiteLion said:


> Jesus Christ came to abolish dogma, same sex marriage and homosexuality is pawned off as a multiculturalist effort to destroy societal identity by redifining the traditional heterosexual *family foundation*,family foundation,family foundation........................



If Jesus Christ came to abolish dogma and you're a Christian, then why are you so dogmatic in your beliefs?  Do you know what dogma means?


----------



## bornright (Nov 13, 2008)

Homosexuals have the same rights now as heterosexuals.  Homosexuals have the right to marry the same as heterosexuals.  They can marry someone of the opposite sex now.  Maybe homosexuals are asking for more rights than heterosexuals.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 13, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Then you haven't read my comments, because I expect more from blacks than I do from whites.  ...


  Yeah, from the safety and anonymity of your keyboard. Give me a fucking break.


----------



## WhiteLion (Nov 13, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Yeah, from the safety and anonymity of your keyboard. Give me a fucking break.


lol true glock


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Nov 13, 2008)

WhiteLion said:


> Jesus Christ came to abolish dogma dummy, same sex marriage and homosexuality is pawned off as a multiculturalist effort to destroy societal identity by redifining the traditional heterosexual *family foundation*,family foundation,family foundation........................family foundation....
> 
> Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
> Winston Churchill
> Misery looooooooves company....



What's the family foundation, WhiteLion?  Husband, wife, children?  Who defined that?  Oh, don't tell me, God did and you read it in the Bible.  Blah blah blah.  That's dogma.

In the Himilayas there are women married to two men, typically brothers, and it works because one man spends 6 months tending the herd while the other stays home helping with the family.  Then the switch.  Its been that way for centuries if not millenia.  Does God hate them?

What about bedouins who've practiced polygamy in the desert for millenia and it worked for them?  And to say it hasn't worked is ignorant because, guess what, those people still exist!

And what about Mormons?  They're Christians and yet many practice polygamy!

Have you ever spoken to a woman who was a wife in a polygamist marriage.  Many will tell you they like it, some because of indoctrination but some because of real practical reasons and why it works for them as an individual.

But none of this would ever get through to you because you so blindly believe your religion and need your religion so badly that you would never consider that your religion isn't perfect or that the Bible could be anything but the absolute truth.  Or, in other words, dogma.


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Nov 13, 2008)

WhiteLion said:


> I bet you my church wont!!! Oh but that would make us fuuuuuuuundamentalist



Yes, it does.


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Nov 13, 2008)

bornright said:


> Homosexuals have the same rights now as heterosexuals.  Homosexuals have the right to marry the same as heterosexuals.  They can marry someone of the opposite sex now.  Maybe homosexuals are asking for more rights than heterosexuals.



Heterosexual couples can marry for love (they don't always, but they can).  Homosexuals can't.  Therefore they do not enjoy the same rights.  Simple logic.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 13, 2008)

Mr. President said:


> See Im not for gay marriage im against it.  However, Gay Partnership or whatever else you want to name it thats not marriage is ok with me.  The way I see it is if an EQUAL alternative is created we can protect the sanctity of marriage and allow the economic advantages to homosexual couples that are granted to heterosexual couples.  You know kind of like NBA WNBA.



I'm ok with that.

People who are against what you just said usually fear that seperate but equal is never equal, but I believe this will be equal.  

It's not like we'll make them get inferior healthcare as gay couples.  They'll still get the same crappy healthcare you and I get.

And the one with more money will get fucked just like in straight marriages.  I wonder if Elton John wants gay marriage?  I wouldn't.  Then that dude could get half his shit.

PS.  Did you hear Simon Cowell gave his ex girlfriend something like $5 million and a home?  Even though they weren't married????

God, what dirt does she have on him.


----------



## 007 (Nov 13, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> Silly right-winger spin.



Spin my ass, it's sons a bichin' truth, and you can't dispute it. So your sorry little retort is actually what I expect from you, a guy that sat around and had a circle jerk with his queer buddies, and a guy thinks it's OK for daddy to fuck his little daughter.

You're just as sick in the head as all the rest of the homos matts, I don't expect you to believe the truth.


----------



## WhiteLion (Nov 13, 2008)

Coloradomtnman said:


> What's the family foundation, WhiteLion?  Husband, wife, children?  Who defined that?  Oh, don't tell me, God did and you read it in the Bible.  Blah blah blah.  That's dogma.
> 
> In the Himilayas there are women married to two men, typically brothers, and it works because one man spends 6 months tending the herd while the other stays home helping with the family.  Then the switch.  Its been that way for centuries if not millenia.  Does God hate them?
> 
> ...


Jesus the Christ came to abolish DOGMA sorry but your opinion is just that, *yours* read it an weep it baby...Our BIBLE is our guide and the world and its failing polices are yours...
World built the Titanic the Christains built the ARK blub, blub, blub EVEN GOD CANT SINK THE TITANIC??? BAM!!!!!!!

And dont make me start quoting scriptures you atheistc agnostic ill have you pissing fire and running cover you unholy turd...


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 13, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Yeah, from the safety and anonymity of your keyboard. Give me a fucking break.



What?  

I said/meant I expect black people not to descriminate against gays because blacks themselves get descriminated against and they should know better.

Why would I have to say that from the "safety and anonymity" of my keyboard?  Who am I supposed to be afraid of?  Blacks or whites?  Why would a black person be offended or want to hit me for saying that?  

If a bunch of blondes pick on a brunette and then that brunette goes and picks on a red head, that brunette should be ashamed of themselves.

Should I be afraid of brunettes now?  

I would never say anything to offend black people.  Not on purpose anyways.  Now white people?  They deserve it.


----------



## WhiteLion (Nov 13, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> What?
> 
> I said/meant I expect black people not to descriminate against gays because blacks themselves get descriminated against and they should know better.
> 
> ...


Only because we let you, unlike our negro counter parts we gave over our power or more or less was taken by multiculturalist carpet baggers or sellouts... I do credit the negro at least they stuck together...


----------



## 52ndStreet (Nov 13, 2008)

This Homosexuality appears to be a White Thing. It is illegal in many Black countries through out the World.


----------



## Mr. President (Nov 13, 2008)

52ndStreet said:


> This Homosexuality appears to be a White Thing. It is illegal in many Black countries through out the World.



How hard is it to make a decision to not apply any logic to your thoughts or comments and just speak all the time.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 13, 2008)

WhiteLion said:


> Only because we let you, unlike our negro counter parts we gave over our power or more or less was taken by multiculturalist carpet baggers or sellouts... I do credit the negro at least they stuck together...



We'll be a lot better off when you realize it isn't about black & white, gay/straight, man/woman or jew/muslim or christian/athiest.

It's rich vs poor.  And you are poor.  So basically to George Bush, you are the negro my brother.  

And I stick together with my poor/middle class brothers and sisters.  I don't care if they are gay, women, muslims, jews, black.  

I know that we share the same concerns.  Health care costs, wages, unemployment, inflation, worker rights.

And George Bush would much rather live next to a rich black guy than he would your broke ass.  

He only panders to your ignorance so he can get your sorry ass vote.  Why else are they selling America to foreign interests?  George Bush has more in common with a millionaire from India than he does you.  Why else would they sell a port to Dubai?  It's all about $ to them.  They don't give a fuck about you.

Just remember, and I hope this scares you.  White man white woman, white baby, but white man or woman with black man or black woman, and you always get a black baby.  It's coming!!!  Do you have kids?  Oh no!!!

I hope we all melt together into one breed.  Then there won't be people like you anymore.

I take that back.  Then the light skinned people will make fun of the darker shades.  People are people.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 13, 2008)

52ndStreet said:


> This Homosexuality appears to be a White Thing. It is illegal in many Black countries through out the World.



Is it just me or are black people less angry since the election?  I'm sensing pride and confidence.  

Maybe they don't feel like white people are looking down on them anymore.  Maybe they don't feel like second class citizens anymore.

Maybe they realize the man is keeping all of us broke asses down.  Not just them.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 13, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> What?
> 
> I said/meant I expect black people not to descriminate against gays because blacks themselves get descriminated against and they should know better.
> 
> ...


 I'm still waiting for pictures of gays protesting in front of a black church.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 13, 2008)

WhiteLion said:


> Gays try to equate the 1960's negro civil rights movement to their agenda, when the fact of the matter they have all the rights anyone else has collectively, to grant them same sex marriage would place them above the law... same sex marriage and homosexuality is pawned off in an effort to destroy societal identity by redifining the traditional heterosexual family foundation hands down...



True indeed and many of us find it insulting that a group of people who's lifestyle revolves around deviant, unnatural sexual acts are trying to equate the acceptance of it to a movement that was a struggle for something totally different. Gays are not suffering without being allowed to legally marry and if they want to settle property they should draw up a will.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 13, 2008)

deviant and unnatural.. kinda like black dudes fucking white chicks, eh?


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 13, 2008)

glockmail said:


> I'm still waiting for pictures of gays protesting in front of a black church.




Sodomites aren't that damn crazy to try something like that thats why they speak their nonsense on TV and it magazines away from the Black Church. They know their sodomite agenda has *ZERO* chance of being heard and listened to by the black church.


----------



## sky dancer (Nov 13, 2008)

glockmail said:


> I'm still waiting for pictures of gays protesting in front of a black church.



Why?

Why are you waiting and why do you think gays would protest in front of a black church?

It was Mormons and Catholics who poured money into California recently.  It is not black churches or black people who are opposing marriage equality in great numbers.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 13, 2008)

Shogun said:


> deviant and unnatural.. kinda like black dudes fucking white chicks, eh?



Two men screwing each other up the rectum is in *NO* way comparable to a black man and white woman having sex, you're a retard for using the logic of white racists to justify homosexual sex being just as natural and heterosexual sex, which produces offspring. Still eating


----------



## Shogun (Nov 13, 2008)

that certainly is your ignorant negrocentric opinion, now isn't it?  Face it, the exact same excuses to limit gays also once limited chicken lovers from getting hitched to white women just the same.  THAT, you licorice jelly bean, is the historic fact of the matter.


----------



## AllieBaba (Nov 13, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Did you guys hear Mark Foley's interview yesterday?  What a scumbag.  He says he isn't technically a pedophile because pedophilia is technically between a man and a pre pubesent child.
> 
> DUDE, they were in highschool you freakin perv!!!!



High school girls get abortions without anyone ever asking them who knocked them up. Do you feel equal outrage against those guys?

And btw, the best statistics available from the guttmacher institute (which are admittedly shitty because nobody can get Planned Parenthood to obtain and share information) show that most girls who get abortions are pregnant by much older men.


----------



## AllieBaba (Nov 13, 2008)

glockmail said:


> I'm still waiting for pictures of gays protesting in front of a black church.



All those black Baptist women who voted against gay marriage would beat the shit out of them.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 13, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Why?
> 
> Why are you waiting and why do you think gays would protest in front of a black church?
> 
> It was Mormons and Catholics who poured money into California recently.  It is not black churches or black people who are opposing marriage equality in great numbers.


 So your theory is what, that the Mormons and Catholics made the blacks vote against gays?


----------



## glockmail (Nov 13, 2008)

Shogun said:


> that certainly is your ignorant *negrocentric *opinion,...


Racist.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 13, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Racist.



Unlike your shot list of WHITE ****** references, both "negro" and "centric" are viable scientific terms.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 13, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Unlike your shot list of WHITE ****** references, both "negro" and "centric" are viable scientific terms.



Actually, the correct term is "wigger", which is what you are.


----------



## AllieBaba (Nov 13, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Why?
> 
> Why are you waiting and why do you think gays would protest in front of a black church?
> 
> It was Mormons and Catholics who poured money into California recently.  It is not black churches or black people who are opposing marriage equality in great numbers.



Not according to CNN. 70 percent of all blacks voting voted AGAINST gay marriage.

They're mostly baptist. You won't catch baptists voting for gay marriage, or for abortion. Spin it any way you like, but that's the truth.


----------



## WhiteLion (Nov 13, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> We'll be a lot better off when you realize it isn't about black & white, gay/straight, man/woman or jew/muslim or christian/athiest.
> 
> It's rich vs poor.  And you are poor.  So basically to George Bush, you are the negro my brother.
> 
> ...


No your wrong, there are still millions of caucasian females that my sons can marry and they're knocking down my door everyday to get to them.. as we have taught them to love other races but to marry only with their own kind to perserve our race... Just because your into the multicultralist movement doesnt mean that everyone else's doing it, thats what the socialist media would have some to beleive.. Id admit im 1/8 North American Choctaw Indian but not enough to forsake the larger portion of my Norman ancestry... See some families beleive it or not are much like the family of MOSES(you know the 10 commandments) we have a code of honor and ethics that we live by and are pasted from generation to generation and the circle is not broken... So you go on right ahead and melt on in but remember there are some that will always remain true to themselves and their families...


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 13, 2008)

Pale Rider said:


> *BULLSHIT.* It was, is, and always will be a mental disorder.
> 
> *Homosexual Activists Intimidate American Psychiatric Association into Removing Homosexuality from List of Disorders*
> 
> ...



LMAO. You post a blog as evidence of -- ANYTHING!!!!!! 

LOL.

It is not a mental disorder. Only bigots think it is.


----------



## Dis (Nov 13, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> LMAO. You post a blog as evidence of -- ANYTHING!!!!!!
> 
> LOL.
> 
> It is not a metnal disorder. Only bigots think it is.



Hey, if Rayboy can post YouTube, and call THAT proof..


----------



## Gunny (Nov 13, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> The sealybobo is wrong. Being "discriminated" against because of gay sex acts[which are voluntary, willful sex acts] vs being discriminated against because of skin colour/race/ethnicity is *NOT* the same.



Damn.  Wonders never cease.  That's twice in two days I agree with Charles.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 13, 2008)

Gunny said:


> Damn.  Wonders never cease.  That's twice in two days I agree with Charles.


I also agree with you and Charles.


----------



## Dis (Nov 13, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> I also agree with you and Charles.



You probably still ain't coming out of the red-rep zone.


----------



## Gunny (Nov 13, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> I also agree with you and Charles.


----------



## Turboswede (Nov 13, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> By the way, back in the 50's and 60's, whites used the bible to argue why blacks and whites should not marry.



It was illegal not just talked about and the Name of the case that overtured it...wait...its classic



*Virginia vs. Loving​*


----------



## Gunny (Nov 13, 2008)

Turboswede said:


> It was illegal not just talked about and the Name of the case that overtured it...wait...its classic
> 
> 
> 
> *Virginia vs. Loving​*



It's still a dishonest comparison.  Being black is hereditary and  really cannot be hidden.  One cannot choose their skin color.

Homosexuality is manifested solely by behavior.  Nothing more has been conclusively proven, and that behavior can be kept hidden.  One can choose whether to or not to engage in homosexual behavior; regardless what you want to claim in regard to orientation.  It requires a conscious decision; therefore, is a choice.


----------



## eots (Nov 13, 2008)

Gunny said:


> It's still a dishonest comparison.  Being black is hereditary and  really cannot be hidden.  One cannot choose their skin color.
> 
> Homosexuality is manifested solely by behavior.  Nothing more has been conclusively proven, and that behavior can be kept hidden.  One can choose whether to or not to engage in homosexual behavior; regardless what you want to claim in regard to orientation.  It requires a conscious decision; therefore, is a choice.



but apparently there is _good news_ and if this _choice_ leads to a touch of the old aids you just have to _feed them a fetus _ in the morning and they will be right as rain by the after....its like a miracle.......from god...

HIGH HOPES FOR AIDS THERAPY ...
Stem Cells - News - HIGH HOPES FOR AIDS THERAPY / Experimental Treatment Fortifies the Body's own Stem Cells with an Enzyme that Could Block the Virus' Relentless Advance


----------



## Turboswede (Nov 13, 2008)

Gunny said:


> It's still a dishonest comparison.  Being black is hereditary and  really cannot be hidden.  One cannot choose their skin color.
> 
> Homosexuality is manifested solely by behavior.  Nothing more has been conclusively proven, and that behavior can be kept hidden.  One can choose whether to or not to engage in homosexual behavior; regardless what you want to claim in regard to orientation.  It requires a conscious decision; therefore, is a choice.



No sense of humor Gunny?


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 13, 2008)

Gunny said:


> It's still a dishonest comparison.  Being black is hereditary and  really cannot be hidden.  One cannot choose their skin color.
> 
> Homosexuality is manifested solely by behavior.  Nothing more has been conclusively proven, and that behavior can be kept hidden.  One can choose whether to or not to engage in homosexual behavior; regardless what you want to claim in regard to orientation.  It requires a conscious decision; therefore, is a choice.



Engaging in homosexual acts - or, heterosexual acts - is a choice, yes. But one cannot choose his or her sexual orientation. And the last time I checked, engaging in sex acts is not a requirement for marriage. So, if you're argument is that being black cannot be helped, then it is my factual contention that being homosexual cannot be helped. 

One cannot choose his or her sexual orientation, notwithstanding the ignorance of the blog writer cited a few pages back. 

I'm not sure I understand what point you're trying to make.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 14, 2008)

Shogun said:


> that certainly is your ignorant negrocentric opinion, now isn't it?  Face it, the exact same excuses to limit gays also once limited chicken lovers from getting hitched to white women just the same.  THAT, you licorice jelly bean, is the historic fact of the matter.



Jackass, your so comparison is weak, very weak and makes no damn sense, you use the logic of racist to justify what basically amounts to government support of a lifestyle of voluntary sex acts. Gays are *NOT* limited, period, they are not suffering, they are *NOT* considered nor were ever considered as subhumans like blacks. Their lifestyle is based on sex acts which is *NOT* a sexual lifestyle thats pre-determined from the womb, no evidence exists for it. What and who they are is solely determined by their actions, not biology, so it isn't the same. 


You're a damn hypocrites because on one hand you're insulting blacks with your obvious racism and using the logic of racists[which is already wrong from the start] while simultaneously trying to justify support of the homosexual lifestyle by comparing homosexual so-called struggles to those of blacks, you can't have your head up your rectum and on top of your head at the same time moron. Interracial marriage isn't unnatural, any man with a penis and woman with a vagina who have sex produces life, which is nature's way of putting life on the planet. Besides providing sexual pleasure what function does homosexual sex serves? If it is so natural and predetermined why haven't gays naturally evolved organs that do the same as heterosexuals? The answer is that their lifestyle is a lifestyle they live because they get sexual pleasure for what they do and like it so much that they're under the delusion that it must be natural.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 14, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> You're a damn hypocrites because on one hand you're insulting blacks with your obvious racism and using the logic of racists[which is already wrong from the start] while simultaneously trying to justify support of the homosexual lifestyle by comparing homosexual so-called struggles to those of blacks, you can't have your head up your rectum and on top of your head at the same time moron. Interracial marriage isn't unnatural, any man with a penis and woman with a vagina who have sex produces life, which is nature's way of putting life on the planet. Besides providing sexual pleasure what function does homosexual sex serves? If it is so natural and predetermined why haven't gays naturally evolved organs that do the same as heterosexuals? The answer is that their lifestyle is a lifestyle they live because they get sexual pleasure for what they do and like it so much that they're under the delusion that it must be natural.



So then any couple who has sex for pleasure rather than procreation is behaving unnaturally? Or, what about sterile couples? Are they behaving unnaturally? Clearly if sex is for procreation solely, then we shouldn't allow sterile couples to wed; and, most importantly, we should have an official from the government in the bedroom of every married couple - at all times - making sure any and all sexual acts performed are for the purpose of procreation only. 

Or, maybe, you're just wrong.

Courtesy of National Geographic. (Because I am a new member and cannot yet post links, I will post the article in its entirety. If you want to see the article for yourself, type "Homosexuality In The Wild" in a Google search bar and the first hit should be this article.)


*Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate*
*
From National Geographic*

Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it.  So go the lyrics penned by U.S. songwriter Cole Porter.

Porter, who first hit it big in the 1920s, wouldn't risk parading his homosexuality in public. In his day "the birds and the bees" generally meant only one thing&#8212;sex between a male and female.

_But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom._

_Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now._ They display classic pair-bonding behavior&#8212;entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates.

_Wild birds exhibit similar behavior. There are male ostriches that only court their own gender, and pairs of male flamingos that mate, build nests, and even raise foster chicks._

Filmmakers recently went in search of homosexual wild animals as part of a National Geographic Ultimate Explorer documentary about the female's role in the mating game. (The film, Girl Power, will be screened in the U.S this Saturday at 8 p.m. ET, 5 p.m PT on MSNBC TV.)

_The team caught female Japanese macaques engaged in intimate acts which, if observed in humans, would be in the X-rated category.
_

"The homosexual behavior that goes on is completely baffling and intriguing," says National Geographic Ultimate Explorer correspondent, Mireya Mayor. "You would have thought females that want to be mated, especially over their fertile period, would be seeking out males."

Well, perhaps, in a roundabout way, they are seeking males, suggests primatologist Amy Parish.

She argues that female macaques may enhance their social position through homosexual intimacy which in turn influences breeding success. Parish says, "Taking something that's nonreproductive, like mounting another female&#8212;if it leads to control of a resource or acquisition of a resource or a good alliance partner, that could directly impact your reproductive success."

*Sexual Gratification*
_
On the other hand, they could just be enjoying themselves, suggests Paul Vasey, animal behavior professor at the University of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. "They're engaging in the behavior because it's gratifying sexually or it's sexually pleasurable," he says. "They just like it. It doesn't have any sort of adaptive payoff."_

Matthew Grober, biology professor at Georgia State University, agrees, saying, _"If [sex] wasn't fun, we wouldn't have any kids around. So I think that maybe Japanese macaques have taken the fun aspect of sex and really run with it."_

The bonobo, an African ape closely related to humans, has an even bigger sexual appetite. *Studies suggest 75 percent of bonobo sex is nonreproductive and that nearly all bonobos are bisexual.* Frans de Waal, author of Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape, calls the species a "make love, not war" primate. He believes bonobos use sex to resolve conflicts between individuals.

Other animals appear to go through a homosexual phase before they become fully mature. For instance, male dolphin calves often form temporary sexual partnerships, which scientists believe help to establish lifelong bonds. Such sexual behavior has been documented only relatively recently. Zoologists have been accused of skirting round the subject for fear of stepping into a political minefield.

"There was a lot of hiding of what was going on, I think, because people were maybe afraid that they would get into trouble by talking about it," notes de Waal. Whether it's a good idea or not, it's hard not make comparisons between humans and other animals, especially primates. *The fact that homosexuality does, after all, exist in the natural world is bound to be used against people who insist such behavior is unnatural.*

In the U.S., in particular, the moral debate over this issue rages on. Many on the religious right regard homosexuality as a sin. And only this month, President Bush vowed to continue his bid to ban gay marriages after the Senate blocked the proposal.

_Already, cases of animal homosexuality have been cited in successful court cases brought against states like Texas, where gay sex was, until recently, illegal._

Yet scientists say we should be wary of referring to animals when considering what's acceptable in human society. For instance, infanticide, as practiced by lions and many other animals, isn't something people, gay or straight, generally approve of in humans. 

*Human Homosexuality*

So how far can we go in using animals to help us understand human homosexuality? Robin Dunbar is a professor of evolutionary psychology at the University of Liverpool, England. *"The bottom line is that anything that happens in other primates, and particularly other apes, is likely to have strong evolutionary continuity with what happens in humans," he said.
*
Dunbar says the bonobo's use of homosexual activity for social bonding is a possible example, adding, "One of the main arguments for human homosexual behavior is that it helps bond male groups together, particularly where a group of individuals are dependent on each other, as they might be in hunting or warfare."

For instance, the Spartans, in ancient Greece, encouraged homosexuality among their elite troops. "They had the not unreasonable belief that individuals would stick by and make all efforts to rescue other individuals if they had a lover relationship," Dunbar added.

Another suggestion is that homosexuality is a developmental phase people go through. He said, "This is similar to the argument of play in young animals to get their brain and muscles to work effectively and together. Off the back of this, there's the possibility you can get individuals locked into this phase for the rest of their lives as a result of the social environment they grow up in."

But he adds that homosexuality doesn't necessarily have to have a function. It could be a spin-off or by-product of something else and in itself carries no evolutionary weight."

*He cites sexual gratification, which encourages procreation, as an example. "An organism is designed to maximize its motivational systems," he adds*.

In other words, if the urge to have sex is strong enough it may spill over into nonreproductive sex, as suggested by the actions of the bonobos and macaques. However, as Dunbar admits, there's a long way to go before the causes of homosexuality in humans are fully understood.

He said, "Nobody's really investigated this issue thoroughly, because it's so politically sensitive. It's fair to say all possibilities are still open."​
So there goes your argument that homosexuality is "unnatural." Now, it is of course necessary to mention that many things in the animal kingdom are not acceptable in human society, such as infanticide. But does infanticide cause someone harm? Of course. Does homosexuality cause someone harm? Of course NOT. 

The bottom line:

Homosexuality is natural, beneficial, and you should quit spewing your nonsense. Although, anyone with Idi Amin as their avatar shouldn't be taken seriously anyway.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 14, 2008)

So a few animals get confused and start humping everything in sight.

Heck, have you ever seen a dog start humping someones leg?

If the leg the dog is humping a man. Does that make the dog a homo??

No, the animal is just excited or confused. And we are talking about animals not people.

Homosexuality is subhuman behavior and animalistic.

Animals have no choice, and are operating on stimulus response. 

Homos are making a conscious choice to engage in degenerate activities.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 14, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> So a few animals get confused and start humping everything in sight.



Did you bother to read the article? 



> Homosexuality is subhuman behavior and animalistic.



Oh, oh, oh. I see. First homosexuality was "unnatural" but now it is "animalistic."

So is breathing. 



> Animals have no choice, and are operating on stimulus response.



This is false. 



> Homos are making a conscious choice to engage in degenerate activities.



Who says they are "degenerate activities"? I don't think they are degenerate activities. A lot of people don't believe that. Tell me, where does that come from?


----------



## glockmail (Nov 14, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> LMAO. You post a blog as evidence of -- ANYTHING!!!!!!
> 
> LOL.
> 
> It is not a mental disorder. Only bigots think it is.





> Kameny viewed one&#8217;s attraction to a specific gender as fluid, and viewed acts of sodomy as morally equivalent to natural sexual acts within the bounds of marriage. Led by radicals like Franklin Kameny, pro&#8208;sodomy activists attacked psychiatrists across America, as Newsweek describes:
> &#8220;But even more than the government, it is the psychiatrists who have
> experienced the full rage of the homosexual activists. Over the past two years, gay&#8208;lib organizations have repeatedly disrupted medical meetings, and three months ago&#8212;in the movements most aggressive demonstration so far&#8212;a group of 30 militants broke into a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in Washington, where they turned the staid proceedings into near chaos for twenty minutes. &#8216;We are here to denounce your authority to call us sick or mentally disordered,&#8217; shouted the group&#8217;s leader, Dr. Franklin Kameny, while the 2,000 shocked psychiatrists looked on in disbelief. &#8216;For us, as homosexuals, your profession is the enemy incarnate. We demand that psychiatrists treat us as human beings, not as patients to be cured!&#8217;&#8221;


 http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/born_gay_hoax/TheBornGayHoax.pdf


----------



## Shogun (Nov 14, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Actually, the correct term is "wigger", which is what you are.




indeed, the racist term you like to use meaning WHITE ****** sure seems to be correct for your racist vocab..


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 14, 2008)

glockmail said:


> http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/born_gay_hoax/TheBornGayHoax.pdf



Hmmm, I wonder who I should believe? The highly respected American Psychological Association, or a group of bigoted morons who praise God each time they successfully wipe themselves.

Choices, choices. 

Get real.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 14, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Jackass, your so comparison is weak, very weak and makes no damn sense, you use the logic of racist to justify what basically amounts to government support of a lifestyle of voluntary sex acts. Gays are *NOT* limited, period, they are not suffering, they are *NOT* considered nor were ever considered as subhumans like blacks. Their lifestyle is based on sex acts which is *NOT* a sexual lifestyle thats pre-determined from the womb, no evidence exists for it. What and who they are is solely determined by their actions, not biology, so it isn't the same.
> 
> 
> You're a damn hypocrites because on one hand you're insulting blacks with your obvious racism and using the logic of racists[which is already wrong from the start] while simultaneously trying to justify support of the homosexual lifestyle by comparing homosexual so-called struggles to those of blacks, you can't have your head up your rectum and on top of your head at the same time moron. Interracial marriage isn't unnatural, any man with a penis and woman with a vagina who have sex produces life, which is nature's way of putting life on the planet. Besides providing sexual pleasure what function does homosexual sex serves? If it is so natural and predetermined why haven't gays naturally evolved organs that do the same as heterosexuals? The answer is that their lifestyle is a lifestyle they live because they get sexual pleasure for what they do and like it so much that they're under the delusion that it must be natural.



First, you fucking tar stain crybaby, why don't you tell me about how it sucks to be disregarded because of a genetic predisposition that doesn't fit into the status quo so I can remind you that your spear chucking ass doesn't corner the market on discrimination.  Second, I can show you homosexuality across historic society AND the animal kingdom so your entire argument is based on a predictable ghetto ignorance that is truly rich this side of Va vs Loving.  AND, unless you are some kind of negrodaumus you can't assume that EVOLUTION would have developed homosexual genitalia.  Indeed, that would have to be the crowning failure of your niggardly stupidity as a simian-brained posterchild for irony.  If you can't admit at what age you DECIDED to like vaginas instead of cocks then your entire opinion fails to do anything beyond fuel the same shit your discriminated ancestors enjoyed.  If you can hate you can be hated, dark spot.  You should probably scream racist now because it certainly won't be ironic given your outright hatred, and willing discrimination, against gays.


Not all african american are ******* but YOU, sir, are certainly one dumb ******.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 14, 2008)

Shogun said:


> First, you fucking tar stain crybaby, why don't you tell me about how it sucks to be disregarded because of a genetic predisposition that doesn't fit into the status quo so I can remind you that your spear chucking ass doesn't corner the market on discrimination.  Second, I can show you homosexuality across historic society AND the animal kingdom so your entire argument is based on a predictable ghetto ignorance that is truly rich this side of Va vs Loving.  AND, unless you are some kind of negrodaumus you can't assume that EVOLUTION would have developed homosexual genitalia.  Indeed, that would have to be the crowning failure of your niggardly stupidity as a simian-brained posterchild for irony.  If you can't admit at what age you DECIDED to like vaginas instead of cocks then your entire opinion fails to do anything beyond fuel the same shit your discriminated ancestors enjoyed.  If you can hate you can be hated, dark spot.  You should probably scream racist now because it certainly won't be ironic given your outright hatred, and willing discrimination, against gays.
> 
> 
> Not all african american are ******* but YOU, sir, are certainly one dumb ******.



This was rude, insensitive, and ignorant.


But it was funny. LOL.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 14, 2008)

Shogun said:


> First, you fucking tar stain crybaby, why don't you tell me about how it sucks to be disregarded because of a genetic predisposition that doesn't fit into the status quo so I can remind you that your spear chucking ass doesn't corner the market on discrimination.  Second, I can show you homosexuality across historic society AND the animal kingdom so your entire argument is based on a predictable ghetto ignorance that is truly rich this side of Va vs Loving.  AND, unless you are some kind of negrodaumus you can't assume that EVOLUTION would have developed homosexual genitalia.  Indeed, that would have to be the crowning failure of your niggardly stupidity as a simian-brained posterchild for irony.  If you can't admit at what age you DECIDED to like vaginas instead of cocks then your entire opinion fails to do anything beyond fuel the same shit your discriminated ancestors enjoyed.  If you can hate you can be hated, dark spot.  You should probably scream racist now because it certainly won't be ironic given your outright hatred, and willing discrimination, against gays.
> 
> 
> Not all african american are ******* but YOU, sir, are certainly one dumb ******.


So the racist dividing line is this according to Shogun:

If you support gays and their lifestyle; then you are an African American

But if you dislike gays; than you are classified as a ******.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 14, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> So the racist dividing line is this according to Shogun:
> 
> If you support gays and their lifestyle; then you are an African American
> 
> But if you dislike gays; than you are classified as a ******.



Ignorance is a ****** trait.  Ask an educated black man about that.  Thus far, dark spot has yet to post anything that doesn't echo of the same kind of shit Loving dealt with.  Disliking any minority group despite the plight of your own minority group pretty mush puts the bow on that package.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 14, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> This was rude, insensitive, and ignorant.
> 
> 
> But it was funny. LOL.





Reminding chucky bass that he doesn't have a monopoly on hatefulness just like he doesn't have a monopoly on victimhood should do more for his bones than powdered ghetto milk and government cheese.


----------



## AllieBaba (Nov 14, 2008)

I like the diversity of separate groups, but I've no problem with intermarriage, either. My younger kids are American Indian and my granddaughter (as I've said ad nauseum, I'm sure) is Hispanic and they're all high quality. So long as they listen to mama/grandma, I've got no problem at all with them and will box the ears of anyone who does. I have black cousins (though I've never met them) and my brother married a Greek girl. Is that a different ethnicity? I don't know, don't care.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 14, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Ignorance is a ****** trait...


 Racist.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 14, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> Hmmm, I wonder who I should believe? The highly respected American Psychological Association, or a group of bigoted morons who praise God each time they successfully wipe themselves.
> 
> Choices, choices.
> 
> Get real.


 Since the APA cowed down to the militant gays, then I expect you to believe the militant gays.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 14, 2008)

Shogun said:


> indeed, the racist term you like to use meaning WHITE ****** sure seems to be correct for your racist vocab..


 The urban dictionary that I cite doesn't use that definition. You must be using a racist version.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 14, 2008)

Shogun said:


> First, you fucking tar stain crybaby, why don't you tell me about how it sucks to be disregarded because of a genetic predisposition that doesn't fit into the status quo so I can remind you that your spear chucking ass doesn't corner the market on discrimination.  Second, I can show you homosexuality across historic society AND the animal kingdom so your entire argument is based on a predictable ghetto ignorance that is truly rich this side of Va vs Loving.  AND, unless you are some kind of negrodaumus you can't assume that EVOLUTION would have developed homosexual genitalia.  Indeed, that would have to be the crowning failure of your niggardly stupidity as a simian-brained posterchild for irony.  If you can't admit at what age you DECIDED to like vaginas instead of cocks then your entire opinion fails to do anything beyond fuel the same shit your discriminated ancestors enjoyed.  If you can hate you can be hated, dark spot.  You should probably scream racist now because it certainly won't be ironic given your outright hatred, and willing discrimination, against gays.
> 
> 
> Not all african american are ******* but YOU, sir, are certainly one dumb ******.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 14, 2008)

Shogun said:


> ....
> Not all african american are ******* but YOU, sir, are certainly one dumb ******.


 Racist.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 14, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> So the racist dividing line is this according to Shogun:
> 
> If you support gays and their lifestyle; then you are an African American
> 
> But if you dislike gays; than you are classified as a ******.



Shogun is a racist and like the true, *deceiving* white liberal he is[you know, those types of fake white liberals who enjoy throwing dung at white conservatives as the racists just to keep the spotlight from off their obvious racism by pretending to be noble and for the equality of all] and that is his logic, either you support two men shagging each other up anus or you're a ******. If thats the case a lot of blacks are "*******" using his retarded logic as well as a lot of evangelical whites.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 14, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Shogun is a racist and like the true, *deceiving* white liberal he is[you know, those types of fake white liberals who enjoy throwing dung at white conservatives as the racists just to keep the spotlight from off their obvious racism by pretending to be noble and for the equality of all] and that is his logic, either you support two men shagging each other up anus or you're a ******. If thats the case a lot of blacks are "*******" using his retarded logic as well as a lot of evangelical whites.


 Simply the best post ever.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 14, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Racist.




His tactics of using racist language to appear to be noble to teach Mr. Bass a lesson is a typical tactic used by fake white liberals to attempt to hide and cover their own racism while simultaneously pointing fingers at white conservatives. And some fellow blacks wonder why Mr. bass has far less respect and trust for those on the left as opposed to the right.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 14, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> His tactics of using racist language to appear to be noble to teach Mr. Bass a lesson is a typical tactic used by fake white liberals to attempt to hide and cover their own racism while simultaneously pointing fingers at white conservatives. And some fellow blacks wonder why Mr. bass has far less respect and trust for those on the left as opposed to the right.


Liberals are liars my friend, and a black man who recognizes that is a big threat to their political power.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 14, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Liberals are liars my friend, and a black man who recognizes that is a big threat to their political power.



Not all white liberals and white conservatives are deceivers but of the two the white liberal is by far the most deceitful and hypocritical of the two which by default makes them the most dangerous. Malcolm X hit it perfectly on the head when he said this of those white liberals who use blacks:

"*The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way: the liberal is more deceitful than the conservative. The liberal is more hypocritical than the conservative.

Both want power, but the white liberal is the one who has perfected the art of posing as the Negros friend and benefactor*; and by winning the friendship, allegiance, and support of the Negro, the white liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or tool in this political football game that is constantly raging between the white liberals and white conservatives.



Faith in Action | Malcolm X on White Liberals


Mr Bass thinks of those damn Clintons as the perfect example of deceitful white liberals, they exposed themselves during the primaries.


----------



## AllieBaba (Nov 14, 2008)

Well, I can't find it to quote it, but in reference to Shogun's assertion that animals engage in homosexuality, it just isn't true.

Animals will mistakenly have sex with the same sex (llamas are a great example. They just hump anything they find until they get it right). And animals will enjoy long friendships with others of the same sex...but this is NOT  a "homosexual" bond where you get two male dogs hanging out and engaging in sexual relations over the course of time. It doesn't happen, and the assertion that it does is a lie.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 14, 2008)

glockmail said:


> The urban dictionary that I cite doesn't use that definition. You must be using a racist version.



Your david duke urban dictionary is a joke.  You need to see the link again, dickum head?  If you want to itch this scratch i'll gladly post the link to Urban Dictionary again so we can see which of us is correct about this...


----------



## Shogun (Nov 14, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> ://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m249/PL00m_Lift/moron_retarded.jpg





WOW!  Way to bring on your A game retort!  It's so BLACKTASTIC that it's clearly no wonder why you validate my posts!


----------



## Shogun (Nov 14, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Racist.



HA!
you poor, embittered old man... It's cute watching you follow me around here trying to get some payback for every time i've punked you out on this forum.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 14, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Shogun is a racist and like the true, *deceiving* white liberal he is[you know, those types of fake white liberals who enjoy throwing dung at white conservatives as the racists just to keep the spotlight from off their obvious racism by pretending to be noble and for the equality of all] and that is his logic, either you support two men shagging each other up anus or you're a ******. If thats the case a lot of blacks are "*******" using his retarded logic as well as a lot of evangelical whites.



Watching you cry racist after seeing your posts on your favorite subject is kinda like a fat man calling someone else a pig for asking for a second helping.  Indeed, after your constant whitey hating negrocentric posts it's probably not hilarious as hell that you would point that kind of finger.  I betcha some reptilian brained fool like Glock will fall in line while hoping that his use of the word wigger is minimized in the shadow of my blatant truth.  

For the record, you won't find a single post of mine that suggests a staggered equality based on race or sexuality.  Not a single one.  Can you say the same thing?  Of course not.  I'll put my stark use of the word ****** up against your posts any day of the week, tube lips.  

and yes, there ARE a lot of ******* that are ghetto blacks and white trailer park evangelicals.  I take it you've driven through Kentucky lately.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 14, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Simply the best post ever.



translation:

"I would eat your turds as long as you keep posting and keep the awsome Shogie away from my 'Heather Locklear looks just like she did at 20' posts today!"


----------



## aztech (Nov 14, 2008)

Allie...you may want to read this.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 14, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> His tactics of using racist language to appear to be noble to teach Mr. Bass a lesson is a typical tactic used by fake white liberals to attempt to hide and cover their own racism while simultaneously pointing fingers at white conservatives. And some fellow blacks wonder why Mr. bass has far less respect and trust for those on the left as opposed to the right.



FAKE white liberals, eh?  Coming from a ghetto bastard that puts the* IG*norant in n*IG*ger thats a compliment.  Indeed, dig up a single post of mine that is not a beacon of strict equality if you think i'm as much of a racist as you are a homophobe.  Trust me, dude... given YOUR posts on this forum i'm pretty sure no lefty gives the first rats ass about how much respect you give anyone.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 14, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Liberals are liars my friend, and a black man who recognizes that is a big threat to their political power.






says the guy who insists that calling a white guy who acts like a ****** a WIGGER is not racist!


Thats fucking RICH!


----------



## Shogun (Nov 14, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Not all white liberals and white conservatives are deceivers but of the two the white liberal is by far the most deceitful and hypocritical of the two which by default makes them the most dangerous. Malcolm X hit it perfectly on the head when he said this of those white liberals who use blacks:
> 
> "*The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way: the liberal is more deceitful than the conservative. The liberal is more hypocritical than the conservative.
> 
> ...





HA!

Way to whip out a Malcom X statement that was made BEFORE his eyes were open to what kind of snakes even his own black race could foster!


once again, the GHETTO strike back!


----------



## Shogun (Nov 14, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Well, I can't find it to quote it, but in reference to Shogun's assertion that animals engage in homosexuality, it just isn't true.
> 
> Animals will mistakenly have sex with the same sex (llamas are a great example. They just hump anything they find until they get it right). And animals will enjoy long friendships with others of the same sex...but this is NOT  a "homosexual" bond where you get two male dogs hanging out and engaging in sexual relations over the course of time. It doesn't happen, and the assertion that it does is a lie.



*Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate*

Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate

But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 14, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Not all white liberals and white conservatives are deceivers but of the two the white liberal is by far the most deceitful and hypocritical of the two which by default makes them the most dangerous. Malcolm X hit it perfectly on the head when he said this of those white liberals who use blacks:
> 
> "*The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way: the liberal is more deceitful than the conservative. The liberal is more hypocritical than the conservative.
> 
> ...


 I've read Malcolm X and I share his sentiment to a certain extent. Liberals always seem more government as the answer to all societies problems. It has been proven wrong again and again, yet they still insist it therefore they are liars. More government gives them more power ove the People so X is dead on about that. Conservatives, however, see government more often as the problem and they therefore seek to reduce its size and scope. They want power over the government instead of over the People. In that way I believe Mr. X was wrong.


----------



## WhiteLion (Nov 14, 2008)

Turboswede said:


> It was illegal not just talked about and the Name of the case that overtured it...wait...its classic
> 
> 
> 
> *Virginia vs. Loving​*


They got that from the old testament where jews only married jews during the life of Moses, and they still mostly practice it today...well the orthodox anyways. Our family doesnt beleive in interracial marriage nor same sex marriage but it has nothing to do with being a racist, its more of interfamily traditonal code of ethics past down from generations of both our Norman and North American Indian ancestry i guess you can say we kept some things sacred...And if we have to travel thousands of miles to find like people we will do so to preserve our family lineage....


----------



## WhiteLion (Nov 14, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Racist.


Exactly


----------



## WhiteLion (Nov 14, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Liberals are liars my friend, and a black man who recognizes that is a big threat to their political power.


Exacty


----------



## WhiteLion (Nov 14, 2008)

Shogun said:


> *Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate*
> 
> Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate
> 
> But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom.


Thats because their animals dumb ass, your suppose to be up higher on the foodchain and know better, or has your brain not fully developed???, doh
Liberalism is a mental disorder-Michael Savage


----------



## CactusCarlos (Nov 14, 2008)

Shogun said:


> *Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate*
> 
> Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate
> 
> But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom.



Animals also practice incest and cannibalism and eat their own feces.


----------



## WhiteLion (Nov 14, 2008)

CactusCarlos said:


> Animals also practice incest and cannibalism and eat their own feces.


Dont homos put their privates in feces?


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 14, 2008)

Shogun said:


> HA!
> 
> Way to whip out a Malcom X statement that was made BEFORE his eyes were open to what kind of snakes even his own black race could foster!
> 
> ...




Thats statement he made was dead on and if you read any of his speeches after this he said the same thing, white liberals like *YOU* have perfected the craft of being the friend of blacks, mainly to hide their own racism and also for politican gain, you'renot fooling anyone imbecile.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 14, 2008)

CactusCarlos said:


> Animals also practice incest and cannibalism and eat their own feces.



Cannibalism is harmful to people, physically (in some cases) and psychologically. Incest is illegal because the gene pool suffers, thus potentially harmful to society. If the related persons are close enough, their offspring can be severely deformed. Incest is also illegal to keep the peace within the family. If incest were legal, the repercussions would be enormous. It's not the same with homosexuality. 

And I don't believe there is any law against eating your own feces. 



> Dont homos put their privates in feces?



I don't know. Why don't you tell us?


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 14, 2008)

I think that's why they call homos "fudge packers"!!


----------



## glockmail (Nov 15, 2008)

Shit stabbers.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 15, 2008)

Nasty!!! just plain Nasty!!!!

No wonder homos carry all kinds of diseases and infections


----------



## mattskramer (Nov 15, 2008)

Pale Rider said:


> Spin my ass, it's sons a bichin' truth, and you can't dispute it. So your sorry little retort is actually what I expect from you, a guy that sat around and had a circle jerk with his queer buddies, and a guy thinks it's OK for daddy to fuck his little daughter.
> 
> You're just as sick in the head as all the rest of the homos matts, I don't expect you to believe the truth.



One disruption and a threat.  Big deal.  Even if the APA was bullied into changing its position, there are many other reputable organizations that have concluded that it is okay to be gay.  They have even concluded that there is no significant difference in children raised by gay couples when compared to children raised by straight couples.  

(Irrelevant erroneous, personal attacks ignored)


----------



## mattskramer (Nov 15, 2008)

Pale Rider said:


> Spin my ass, it's sons a bichin' truth, and you can't dispute it. So your sorry little retort is actually what I expect from you, a guy that sat around and had a circle jerk with his queer buddies, and a guy thinks it's OK for daddy to fuck his little daughter.
> 
> You're just as sick in the head as all the rest of the homos matts, I don't expect you to believe the truth.



By the way, your signature line is probably incorrect.  When Obama becomes president and if you are a US citizen, then he will become your president  just as Bush was my president.  Now, you can renounce your US citizenship and move to another country.    Id be happy to help you pack.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 15, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Nasty!!! just plain Nasty!!!!
> 
> No wonder homos carry all kinds of diseases and infections



Precisely, what disease do homosexuals carry exclusively? Is there a "Gay Disease," as you see it? 

You're a pig. Describing people like you and the "Liberals are liars" mutt, as well as that WhiteLion idiot and that pitifully lame African American, is an impossible task. What the hell has caused you people to be so mean-spirited? Of course I'm not behaving in a very Christian-like manner by saying this, but please explain to me how you folks can consider yourselves Christians? Moral people? 

If you think by preaching hate and intolerance you're going to heaven, then perhaps you ought think again. 

I mean, I don't know. I'm not in the businesses of deciding who goes to heaven and who doesn't. But my understanding of the Bible does not bode well for you folks. Your contributions are the epitomy of hate and evil. 

*1 Corinthians 13: * 

1. If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

2. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

3. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

4. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

5. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

6. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.

7. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.

9. For we know in part and we prophesy in part,

10. but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.

11. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.

12. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.​


----------



## glockmail (Nov 15, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Nasty!!! just plain Nasty!!!!
> 
> No wonder homos carry all kinds of diseases and infections


 The rats and flies of society.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 15, 2008)

Here you go Macintosh. This is in the Bible concerning homos (sodomites).


Leviticus 20:13  KJV: (King James Version): "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 15, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Leviticus 20:13  KJV: (King James Version): "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."



Rather than cherry-pick that particular book of the Bible, why not read it in its entirety and weep at a few other "abominations." 

Like Shogun alluded to, why don't you and all you other bigots picket Red Lobster?


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 15, 2008)

glockmail said:


> The rats and flies of society.


Please don't insult rats and flies by comparing them to homos!!


----------



## glockmail (Nov 15, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> Rather than cherry-pick the that particular book of the Bible, why not read it in its entirety and weep at a few other "abominations."


 For example?


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 15, 2008)

glockmail said:


> For example?



Shellfish, pork, sodomy (even opposite-sex sodomy) and the list goes on. Have you actually read the Bible?


----------



## glockmail (Nov 15, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> Shellfish, pork, sodomy (even opposite-sex sodomy) and the list goes on. Have you actually read the Bible?


 Read it at least every week. You do realize that Christ fulfilled the scriptures, leading us to the knowledge to be able to consume shellfish and pork safely, right? There has been no such fulfillment for sodomy or homosexuality.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 15, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> Rather than cherry-pick that particular book of the Bible, why not read it in its entirety and weep at a few other "abominations."


This verse is in the Bible. 

Then how can it be cherry picking?!?!


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 15, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> Like Shogun alluded to, why don't you and all you other bigots picket Red Lobster?


Because, Red Lobster is NOT trying to make laws forcing me to eat their food.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 15, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Because, Red Lobster is NOT trying to make laws forcing me to eat their food.



Is someone forcing you to be gay? To marry a man?

No? Oh, okay.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 15, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> This verse is in the Bible.
> 
> Then how can it be cherry picking?!?!



You're picking out one particular verse. Why don't you read this verse: "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Done To You."

You and the rest of you bigots are a waste of time, space, and bandwidth. 

People like you should be banned from breathing regular air. You assholes should be forced to acquire your own private air supply if you are to live. 

Silly, huh? Sorta like everything you've said.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 15, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Read it at least every week. You do realize that Christ fulfilled the scriptures, leading us to the knowledge to be able to consume shellfish and pork safely, right? There has been no such fulfillment for sodomy or homosexuality.



So you think homosexuals should be put to death?

You think Jesus would approve of you referring to homosexuals as rats and flies?


----------



## glockmail (Nov 15, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> Is someone forcing you to be gay? To marry a man?
> 
> No? Oh, okay.


 No, you're forcing society to accept _your _definition of marriage.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 15, 2008)

glockmail said:


> No, you're forcing society to accept _your _definition of marriage.



No, I'm not. Civil marriage is a legal contract between two people - that's precedent. Your silly argument only holds water if homosexuals were asking the government to force churches into marrying them.  

If you're "sickandtiredoflLiblies" from politicalforum.com, you show a different side on here. That guy, while clearly partisan, was not hateful.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 15, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> No, I'm not. Civil marriage is a legal contract between two people - that's precedent. Your silly argument only holds water if homosexuals were asking the government to force churches into marrying them.
> ....


 Then call it something else, like farriage.  Get it? Fairy Marriage.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 15, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Then call it something else, like farriage.  Get it? Fairy Marriage.



Real mature.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 15, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> Real mature.


You just don't appreciate good humor.
I thought it was better than garriage, or farriage for fag, or flamer marriage.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 15, 2008)

The married homo partner could be called a "Sodomate"


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 15, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> One disruption and a threat.  Big deal.  Even if the APA was bullied into changing its position, there are many other reputable organizations that have concluded that it is okay to be gay.



The APA was bullied and who are these other "reputable" organizations that say its ok to be gay and is backed by authentic scientific research and not politically correct activism?




> They have even concluded that there is no significant difference in children raised by gay couples when compared to children raised by straight couples.



LMAO, you haven't been reading current scientific research have you? Read and weep:






Psychol Rep. 2008 Aug;103(1):275-304.

Re-evaluation of the "no differences" hypothesis concerning gay and lesbian parenting as assessed in eight early (1979-1986) and four later (1997-1998) dissertations.

Schumm WR.

Academic and policy effects of eight early dissertations on gay and lesbian parenting are discussed with a focus on their having been cited at least 234 times in over 50 literature reviews, beginning with Gottman in 1989 and 1990. Most literature reviews, referencing these eight early dissertations and agreeing with Gottman's early conclusions, have reiterated the theme that parenting by gay men or lesbians has outcomes no different than parenting by heterosexual parents. Here it is proposed that certain potential adverse findings may have been obscured by suppressor effects which could have been evaluated had multivariate analyses been implemented. Further, several adverse findings were detected by reanalyzing data where sufficient information was yet available. Some of the dissertations' results (absent controls for social desirability and other differences between homosexual and heterosexual parents) supported the 2001 "no differences" hypothesis discussed by Stacey and Biblarz. Yet, differences were also observed, including some evidence in more recent dissertations, suggesting that parental sexual orientation might be associated with children's later sexual orientation and adult attachment style, among other outcomes. Odds ratios associated with some of the apparent effects were substantial in magnitude as well as statistically significant. Also, more recent research on gay and lesbian parenting continues to be flawed by many of the same limitations as previous research in this area of study, including overlooked suppressor effects.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 15, 2008)

Shogun said:


> *Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate*
> 
> Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate
> 
> But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom.



Retarded supporter of fudgepacker, since when is it logical to draw conclusions of what is natural for humans by trying to use animal behaviour to rationalize homosexuality?  Animals do a lot of things that isn't considered as normal by humans[so-called animal homosexuality isn't even normal for animals anyways] but somehow homosexuality is somehow the one thats sticks out as normal? LMAO! Neo-libtards and sodomites will go to any and all lengths to justify a sick, sexually deviant lifestyle. Just like drug addicts that make up excuses and weak reasons to defend their addiction, homosexuals do anything to defend their sexually perverse lifestyle because of the intense pleasure they get from having gay sex acts.


----------



## mattskramer (Nov 15, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> The APA was bullied and who are these other "reputable" organizations that say its ok to be gay and is backed by authentic scientific research and not politically correct activism?
> 
> LMAO, you haven't been reading current scientific research have you? Read and weep:
> 
> ...



What is there to weep about?  It is just a difference of opinion.  

Now, it is the opinion of these people that ultimately matter.  

Gay and lesbian parenting enjoys broad support from medical experts. Organizations that have officially supported adoption by same-sex couples include the American Psychological Association, the Child Welfare League of America, the American Bar Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychoanalytic Association, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.

Oh.  I am so sure that the Child Welfare League doesnt care enough about child welfare to review information that it has received concerning gay parenting.  Yeah.  Right.  It would rather bow to this alleged gay mafia.  Similarly, the pediatric associations dont care about kids.  They were duped by the pressure groups.  Of course the Council on Adoptable Children isnt concerned about what is in the best interest of children.  They are interested in what is in the best interest of gay groups.  Look.  The proof is in the pudding.  When it comes down to it, look at the groups and organizations whose goal it is to care about the interest of the kids.  I think that most of the time you will find that they think that gay parenting is okay.  Dont tell me that gay pressure groups bullied all of the above organizations or that the organizations are too ignorant and were swayed by faulty research.  It is part of there job to find out what is best for kids.  So it seems to me that they would be careful with what research information that they receive.  It is reasonable to conclude that they have looked at much of the literature, and even got to know and assist gay and straight parents, and that based on experience and research, they see that it is okay to be gay parents. 

Next.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 15, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> What is there to weep about?  It is just a difference of opinion.
> 
> Now, it is the opinion of these people that ultimately matter.
> 
> ...



Difference of opinion? LOL, looks more like that PC theory that homos wave around as proof isn't completely factual after all. Where is the research by these so called "reputable organisations" that confirms anything? gays did bully the APA and not all of the members of the APA were in complete agreement anyways. A house with a male and female parent is best for kids, not a house with two mommies or daddies.


----------



## mattskramer (Nov 15, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Difference of opinion? LOL, looks more like that PC theory that homos wave around as proof isn't completely factual after all. Where is the research by these so called "reputable organisations" that confirms anything? gays did bully the APA and not all of the members of the APA were in complete agreement anyways. A house with a male and female parent is best for kids, not a house with two mommies or daddies.



I sufficiently argued my case.  You asked for a list.  I gave it to you.  It is reasonable to conclude that those organizations that care for kids would not be readily bullied by a gay mafia or easily duped by faulty research.  I am not going to waste my time on a scavenger hunt gathering examples of their evaluations and experiences.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 16, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> I sufficiently argued my case.  You asked for a list.  I gave it to you.  It is reasonable to conclude that those organizations that care for kids would not be readily bullied by a gay mafia or easily duped by faulty research.  I am not going to waste my time on a scavenger hunt gathering examples of their evaluations and experiences.



BS, you haven't proven anything. As far as the APA they were basically forced into making their decision on homosexuality. You can't find and research and or evaluations by thesepeople because none exist.


----------



## eots (Nov 16, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> BS, you haven't proven anything. As far as the APA they were basically forced into making their decision on homosexuality. You can't find and research and or evaluations by these people because none exist.



do you belive that consenting adults have the right to practice there deviant behaviors if they choose to ? without fear of violence or persecution..I do
I Just don't want them teaching my child to that deviant behavior is normal
and to be celebrated and have deviant pride days and parades..I don't  see the need  for anyone to parade there sexual fetishes on a float down main street...


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 16, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Did you guys hear Mark Foley's interview yesterday?  What a scumbag.  He says he isn't technically a pedophile because pedophilia is technically between a man and a pre pubesent child.
> 
> DUDE, they were in highschool you freakin perv!!!!



Well, he's right.  TECHNICALLY, that makes him an ephibophile, not a pedophile.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 16, 2008)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Heterosexual couples can marry for love (they don't always, but they can).  Homosexuals can't.  Therefore they do not enjoy the same rights.  Simple logic.



Where does the law say anything about love?  How can you claim "simple logic" when you're talking about fuzzy emotion?

Curiouser and curiouser, as Lewis Carroll said.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 16, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Is it just me or are black people less angry since the election?  I'm sensing pride and confidence.
> 
> Maybe they don't feel like white people are looking down on them anymore.  Maybe they don't feel like second class citizens anymore.
> 
> Maybe they realize the man is keeping all of us broke asses down.  Not just them.



Maybe their racism and bigotry isn't feeling quite so inflamed and irritated at the moment.  Give it a few weeks.

Mind you, when I say "they", I'm referring to you and the sort of people you obviously associate with.  I don't personally know any racists or bigots of any color, so no one of my acquaintance is wasting time on such nonsense.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 16, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> LMAO. You post a blog as evidence of -- ANYTHING!!!!!!
> 
> LOL.
> 
> It is not a mental disorder. Only bigots think it is.



Actually, the blog is correct in this case.  The American Psychiatric Association DID classify homosexuality as a mental disorder for a very long time.  And as much as I'm sure you would like to simplistically dismiss that as "just ignorance and bigotry", I doubt even you really believe that.  And they DID change the listing, not because of any new scientific evidence, but because of pure political pressure.

So you could quite fairly say that only those with extreme biases believe it's NOT a mental disorder, ie. those who pressured the APA and those who caved in to the pressure.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 16, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> One disruption and a threat.  Big deal.  Even if the APA was bullied into changing its position, there are many other reputable organizations that have concluded that it is okay to be gay.  They have even concluded that there is no significant difference in children raised by gay couples when compared to children raised by straight couples.
> 
> (Irrelevant erroneous, personal attacks ignored)



And they have concluded these things based on what evidence, exactly?  Or could it just have been on the desire to be politically correct and not subject to ugly public attacks?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 16, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> Shellfish, pork, sodomy (even opposite-sex sodomy) and the list goes on. Have you actually read the Bible?



I don't remember the Bible listing shellfish OR pork as "abominations".  I DO, however, remember the New Testament reversing the eating and food preparation restrictions.  Could you point me, oh Biblical scholar, to the place where the characterization of homosexuality as an abomination was rescinded?  Thanks.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 16, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> You're picking out one particular verse. Why don't you read this verse: "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Done To You."
> 
> You and the rest of you bigots are a waste of time, space, and bandwidth.
> 
> ...



Because you think we don't want others to also prevent US from marrying people of our own sex?

I must be missing the double standard you seem to think we're employing.

And why am I not surprised to see a leftist trying to lay a proprietary claim to something free and universally available like air?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 16, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> I sufficiently argued my case.  You asked for a list.  I gave it to you.  It is reasonable to conclude that those organizations that care for kids would not be readily bullied by a gay mafia or easily duped by faulty research.  I am not going to waste my time on a scavenger hunt gathering examples of their evaluations and experiences.



WHY is that reasonable to conclude?  Because organizations that claim to be "for the children" never make egregious mistakes concerning the welfare of those children?  Because wonderful, caring child workers never leave kids in homes with abusive parents who subsequently kill them?  They never place them in foster homes where they're molested and abused?  Schoolteachers are never convicted of having sex with their students?

On what, exactly, am I basing the conclusion that because someone claims to care for children is omniscient and infallible and not at all subject to political agenda?


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 16, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Actually, the blog is correct in this case.  The American Psychiatric Association DID classify homosexuality as a mental disorder for a very long time.  And as much as I'm sure you would like to simplistically dismiss that as "just ignorance and bigotry", I doubt even you really believe that.  And they DID change the listing, not because of any new scientific evidence, but because of pure political pressure.
> 
> So you could quite fairly say that only those with extreme biases believe it's NOT a mental disorder, ie. those who pressured the APA and those who caved in to the pressure.



No, the blog is not correct. As I said, I'm more inclined to believe the APA in this case. I'm certainly not going to believe someone who has a rough time expressing themselves in clear, concise language (you); I'm not going to trust people who compare homosexuals to rats and mice; and I'm not going to trust a fucking blog. 

Sorry, bigot. Keep your religion to yourself.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 16, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> No, the blog is not correct. As I said, I'm more inclined to believe the APA in this case. I'm certainly not going to believe someone who has a rough time expressing themselves in clear, concise language (you); I'm not going to trust people who compare homosexuals to rats and mice; and I'm not going to trust a fucking blog.
> 
> Sorry, bigot. Keep your religion to yourself.



The blog is not correct because you choose to believe something else?  Interesting evidentiary standards you have there.

I express myself very clearly, thank you very much.  Perhaps you should investigate the difference between "clear and concise" and "dumbed down", and stop blaming me because you don't have the vocabularly to follow a conversation above the elementary school level.

I'll keep my religion to myself when you keep your atheism to yourself.  As long as you feel free to exercise your Constitutional right to shove your beliefs in my face, right back atcha.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 16, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Because you think we don't want others to also prevent US from marrying people of our own sex?
> 
> I must be missing the double standard you seem to think we're employing.
> 
> And why am I not surprised to see a leftist trying to lay a proprietary claim to something free and universally available like air?



First of all, try and express yourself a little bit. Explain just what the first sentence is supposed to mean, then tell me why that is relevant to what I have said?

And I'm a conservative, BTW.



> I don't remember the Bible listing shellfish OR pork as "abominations". I DO, however, remember the New Testament reversing the eating and food preparation restrictions. Could you point me, oh Biblical scholar, to the place where the characterization of homosexuality as an abomination was rescinded? Thanks.



Now you're operating under the assumption that every bigot here is a Christian and not a Jew; I don't make such assumptions. In the Old Testament, eating shellfish and pork were sins. For you Christians, I offered _other_ verses. For example, I asked the one bigot if he thought Christ would approve of referring to homosexuals as rats and mice. I also quoted "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Done To You." I also quoted Corinthians and the chapter about love. I also mentioned heterosexual sodomy and wondered why you bigots weren't as voraciously against that.

You people just don't have an answer. You bigots and hypocrites are totally against homosexuality, or, sins you don't commit. But when it comes to sins and abominations you do commit, you're quiet as mice about them.  

But let's just remember that this is not a Christian nation; it was not founded on the Christians faith, so let's quit legislating religious edict. 

Civil marriage is a legal contract. Currently, it is discriminates on the basis of gender. 

"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 16, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> The blog is not correct because you choose to believe something else?  Interesting evidentiary standards you have there.
> 
> I express myself very clearly, thank you very much.  Perhaps you should investigate the difference between "clear and concise" and "dumbed down", and stop blaming me because you don't have the vocabularly to follow a conversation above the elementary school level.
> 
> I'll keep my religion to myself when you keep your atheism to yourself.  As long as you feel free to exercise your Constitutional right to shove your beliefs in my face, right back atcha.



No, because I choose to believe 30 years of objective research. I choose to believe science. You choose to believe trailer park trash. 

And no, you don't express yourself clearly. Run-on sentences, words used out of context, et cetera... Why not go back to school? And I rather like your second response. Typical of people like you. 

I'm not an atheist, so thank you for coming to another asinine conclusion. And my beliefs are consistent with the Constitution; yours are not. 

And learn to spell.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 16, 2008)

Talk around it all you want, but the bible says that homos are an abomination to him and should be stoned to death. Period

Any christian who sticks up for homos is going against god and the bible. Period


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 16, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> No, the blog is not correct. As I said, I'm more inclined to believe the APA in this case. I'm certainly not going to believe someone who has a rough time expressing themselves in clear, concise language (you); I'm not going to trust people who compare homosexuals to rats and mice; and I'm not going to trust a fucking blog.
> 
> Sorry, bigot. Keep your religion to yourself.



You are in denial severe denial, the APA had to vote on the issue and almost half voted against removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. There's even a book out from a prohomosexual member of the APA that states that the decision was purely political and not scientific, for the purpose of reducing oppression against gays.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 16, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Talk around it all you want, but the bible says that homos are an abomination to him and should be stoned to death. Period
> 
> Any christian who sticks up for homos is going against god and the bible. Period



Oh, so you morons tell me that that Christ fulfilled the old law, so shellfish and pork are O.K. to eat. But yet killing homosexuals is still O.K.? Did you not catch the "If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also?" Ya know, the whole no killing bit. 

And nice rep, Sunni. "Fag lover!" Real mature, you putz.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 16, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> No, because I choose to believe 30 years of objective research. I choose to believe science. You choose to believe trailer park trash.
> 
> And no, you don't express yourself clearly. Run-on sentences, words used out of context, et cetera... Why not go back to school? And I rather like your second response. Typical of people like you.
> 
> ...



Where is the evidence of this 30 years worth of "objective" research? Just because its the APA doesn't mean its automatically objective. Nevertheless, where are the papers that document this 30 years worth of objective research?


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 16, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> You are in denial severe denial, the APA had to vote on the issue and almost half voted against removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. There's even a book out from a pro homosexual member of the APA that states that the decision was purely political and not scientific, for the purpose of reducing oppression against gays.



No, I'm not in denial. And the book was written by a bigot, too, I surmise. And of course you operate - ignorantly - under the assumption that the APA is only psychological organization claiming such things as, "Homosexuality is not a mental illness."

Ever hear of The Royal College?


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 16, 2008)

YWN666 said:


> *FYI a sexual act between two people of the same sex does not make them homosexual.*






what does it make them? Adventureous?


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 16, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Where is the evidence of this 30 years worth of "objective" research? Just because its the APA doesn't mean its automatically objective. Nevertheless, where are the papers that document this 30 years worth of objective research?



Go to the APA website and have a look. I do believe I posted the link.


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 16, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Talk around it all you want, but the bible says that homos are an abomination to him and should be stoned to death. Period
> 
> Any christian who sticks up for homos is going against god and the bible. Period





well, I personally ain't gonna stone nobody to death, I don't give a fig what the bible says.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 16, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> No, I'm not in denial. And the book was written by a bigot, too, I surmise. And of course you operate - ignorantly - under the assumption that the APA is only psychological organization claiming such things as, "Homosexuality is not a mental illness."
> 
> Ever hear of The Royal College?



Written by a bigot huh? Are you so sure of that?


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 16, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> well, I personally ain't gonna stone nobody to death, I don't give a fig what the bible says.


It would solve the homo problem very quickly!!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 16, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> First of all, try and express yourself a little bit. Explain just what the first sentence is supposed to mean, then tell me why that is relevant to what I have said?



All right, let me break out the Crayolas and draw you a picture.

The post I responded to self-righteously proclaimed that we should "do unto others as we would have them do unto us."  I am questioning the relevance of this remark, since using it would imply that while we oppose same-sex marriage for others, we don't want those others to prevent US from marrying someone of the same sex.  Which is nonsense, obviously, so we clearly ARE doing unto others exactly what we want done unto us as well.



Macintosh said:


> And I'm a conservative, BTW.



Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't care.



Macintosh said:


> Now you're operating under the assumption that every bigot here is a Christian and not a Jew; I don't make such assumptions.



Actually, I'm operating under the assumption that "bigot" is just a word you like to throw around as a generic condemnation, presumably in the hopes that it will put people on the defensive and make them too cowed to stand up to you.  As far as I'm concerned, you might as well resort to calling me a "mean old poopyhead", because it'll produce more or less the same effect.



Macintosh said:


> In the Old Testament, eating shellfish and pork were sins.



No, really?  You don't say.

I never said they weren't sins, Chuckles.  I said they weren't listed as "abominations", and they weren't.  God condemned different things for different reasons, and while pork and shellfish are no longer the food poisoning hazards they were in more primitive times, homosexuality doesn't appear to have ever reached a point of acceptability in God's eyes that I've noticed, unless your Bible has some books in it that mine doesn't.



Macintosh said:


> For you Christians, I offered _other_ verses.



Yes, I was deeply impressed by your vast ability to irrelevantly confuse totally unrelated Biblical issues into one big mess.



Macintosh said:


> For example, I asked the one bigot if he thought Christ would approve of referring to homosexuals as rats and mice.



Which is between you and him, and has nothing to do with me.



Macintosh said:


> I also quoted "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Done To You."



And I have explained, as simplistically as I could manage, how ludicrously inappropriate that particular quote was.



Macintosh said:


> I also quoted Corinthians and the chapter about love.



Which was so completely apropos of nothing that I didn't even consider it worth commenting on.  I still don't.



Macintosh said:


> I also mentioned heterosexual sodomy and wondered why you bigots weren't as voraciously against that.



While I appreciate this point-by-point recap of your deeply fascinating post, I should mention that I read it the first time, I'm well aware of what you said, and my problem was that I thought it was nonsense, not that I didn't _grok _the words.

However, I do have to ask if you honestly believe that the problem people have with homosexuality is simply concerning the orifice involved.  Since the exact same reaction is applied to lesbians, who often don't use any sort of penetration of any orifice, I have to wonder how you could have arrived at this conclusion.



Macintosh said:


> You people just don't have an answer. You bigots and hypocrites are totally against homosexuality, or, sins you don't commit. But when it comes to sins sins and abominations you do commit, you're quiet as mice about them.



You people?  I'm not twins, sweetie.  And I'm not sure what it is you claim I don't have an answer for, since you haven't really asked me any questions.  All you've done is declaim.

I'm not even going to touch the absurdity of your remark about "sins you commit", since unless you've been peeking through my bedroom window, you have no way of knowing which sins I do or don't commit, nor are they at all relevant to the discussion at hand.



Macintosh said:


> But let's just remember that this is not a Christian nation; it was not founded on the Christians faith, so let's quit legislating religious edict.



Let's just remember that this nation CERTAINLY wasn't founded on atheism, and I'll stop trying to legislate my beliefs just as soon as you stop trying to legislate yours. 



Macintosh said:


> Civil marriage is a legal contract. Currently, it is discriminates on the basis of gender.



It discriminates on a lot of bases.  Sex is not one of them, since anyone of any sex who meets the legal requirements of age, mental capacity, etc. may get married exactly like anyone else.



Macintosh said:


> "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis



Well, that explains why he was such a crappy, boring writer.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 16, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> All right, let me break out the Crayolas and draw you a picture.
> 
> The post I responded to self-righteously proclaimed that we should "do unto others as we would have them do unto us."  I am questioning the relevance of this remark, since using it would imply that while we oppose same-sex marriage for others, we don't want those others to prevent US from marrying someone of the same sex.  Which is nonsense, obviously, so we clearly ARE doing unto others exactly what we want done unto us as well.



And you feel you are in a position to make such an extraordinary statement, huh? How could you possibly know what you would want, not want, et cetera... unless you were gay. (I suppose your next statement will be, "I am gay!") 

Also, that statement was directed more toward the morons who said, "Homosexuals are the rats and flies of our society." 

I'm sorry you couldn't comprehend that. 



> Actually, I'm operating under the assumption that "bigot" is just a word you like to throw around as a generic condemnation, presumably in the hopes that it will put people on the defensive and make them too cowed to stand up to you.  As far as I'm concerned, you might as well resort to calling me a "mean old poopyhead", because it'll produce more or less the same effect.



No, I don't like the word. In fact, I would rather not have to use it. However, I was always told that I should call a spade a spade. 

You bigots ignore 35 years of objective research, and for no other reason than to rationalize your own hatred; I call that bigotry. 



> I never said they weren't sins, Chuckles.  I said they weren't listed as "abominations", and they weren't.  God condemned different things for different reasons, and while pork and shellfish are no longer the food poisoning hazards they were in more primitive times, homosexuality doesn't appear to have ever reached a point of acceptability in God's eyes that I've noticed, unless your Bible has some books in it that mine doesn't.



First of all, you hopeless moron. It is listed as an "abomination" in only one or two translations. If you read a few other translations, it is listed as "detestable," "abhorrent," et cetera... So this blanket term is simply a synonym for a bad sin. The same can be said for other sins, depending on the translation. Pity you couldn't understand that. But I do remember reading something about one sin is no worse than another... Something, ya know. 



> Yes, I was deeply impressed by your vast ability to irrelevantly confuse totally unrelated Biblical issues into one big mess.



In your mind, it may have been "one big mess." But I imagine walking is "one big mess" when your mind attempts to contemplate it. 



> And I have explained, as simplistically as I could manage, how ludicrously inappropriate that particular quote was.



It wasn't inappropriate, as explained above. 



> Which was so completely apropos of nothing that I didn't even consider it worth commenting on.  I still don't.



I see you have a problem putting two and two together. 



> While I appreciate this point-by-point recap of your deeply fascinating post, I should mention that I read it the first time, I'm well aware of what you said, and my problem was that I thought it was nonsense, not that I didn't _grok _the words.



Well, I wouldn't think if I were you. 



> However, I do have to ask if you honestly believe that the problem people have with homosexuality is simply concerning the orifice involved.  Since the exact same reaction is applied to lesbians, who often don't use any sort of penetration of any orifice, I have to wonder how you could have arrived at this conclusion.



Clearly, you simply skim the thread for statements you disagree with, whilst forgetting statements you do agree with. Perhaps if you had read/remembered the entire thread, or bothered to figure out what statement I was responding to, you wouldn't ask such idiotic questions. 



> I'm not even going to touch the absurdity of your remark about "sins you commit", since unless you've been peeking through my bedroom window, you have no way of knowing which sins I do or don't commit, nor are they at all relevant to the discussion at hand.



I don't have to peek in your bedroom to know you're a sinner; I just have to read the Bible. Unless you are God, you are a sinner. 

Or, did you forget that part of the Bible, too?



> Let's just remember that this nation CERTAINLY wasn't founded on atheism, and I'll stop trying to legislate my beliefs just as soon as you stop trying to legislate yours.



My beliefs are not religious; yours are. My beliefs are consistent with the Constitution.



> It discriminates on a lot of bases.  Sex is not one of them, since anyone of any sex who meets the legal requirements of age, mental capacity, etc. may get married exactly like anyone else.



This is an asinine statement devoid of any type of sense and understanding. Natural behavior, genetic predisposition, etc... Ring a bell? Virginia v. Loving? Ring a bell?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 16, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> No, because I choose to believe 30 years of objective research. I choose to believe science. You choose to believe trailer park trash.



Objective research?  Science?  WHAT objective research, precisely?  All I've ever heard you tout is your ability to fling trite insults at your opponents as a debate tactic.



Macintosh said:


> And no, you don't express yourself clearly. Run-on sentences, words used out of context, et cetera... Why not go back to school? And I rather like your second response. Typical of people like you.



Okay, now I KNOW you're delusional, and quite possibly filling out all of your posts from a standard set of insult macros.  At first, I thought you were just wildly unimaginative and lacking in substantial facts, but anyone who tries to object to ME on the basis of grammar and English usage is clearly working off of a boilerplate without bothering to try to link it to reality.



Macintosh said:


> I'm not an atheist, so thank you for coming to another asinine conclusion. And my beliefs are consistent with the Constitution; yours are not.
> 
> And learn to spell.



You flatter yourself that I care what you call your beliefs.  The point remains that the Constitution does not at any point say, "Only those who derive their beliefs from non-religious sources have the right to influence public debate", so you can tell me how "consistent" with the Constitution your beliefs are until you're blue in the face, and you'll still be as laughably wrong as you were about the alleged "30 years of objective research" that you mysteriously can't ever quote.  But hey, who needs to, when you have the definitive argument that your opponents are "trailer park trash"?  That settles it all, doesn't it?

I never misspell, which you would know if you were bothering to comment on my actual posts (or even read them), instead of just choosing at random off of your Big List O'Insults - number 73, bad grammar and spelling; number 122, racist/bigot/homophobe.  

What a walking parody you are.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 16, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> Oh, so you morons tell me that that Christ fulfilled the old law, so shellfish and pork are O.K. to eat. But yet killing homosexuals is still O.K.? Did you not catch the "If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also?" Ya know, the whole no killing bit.
> 
> And nice rep, Sunni. "Fag lover!" Real mature, you putz.



I don't believe anyone suggested killing homosexuals, although I wouldn't expect someone who only reads his own posts to know that.

I do always love to be lectured on the proper way to practice my religion by someone doesn't profess it, is so blatantly bigoted that he's practically wearing a sheet and a pointy hat, and has only read those parts of the Bible that were randomly quoted on his favorite blog.  The only thing that would make you more amusing at this point would be if you were on drugs, too.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 16, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Objective research?  Science?  WHAT objective research, precisely?  All I've ever heard you tout is your ability to fling trite insults at your opponents as a debate tactic.



More evidence that you don't actually read the thread. 



> Okay, now I KNOW you're delusional, and quite possibly filling out all of your posts from a standard set of insult macros.  At first, I thought you were just wildly unimaginative and lacking in substantial facts, but anyone who tries to object to ME on the basis of grammar and English usage is clearly working off of a boilerplate without bothering to try to link it to reality.



Hardly. It's quite obvious. 



> You flatter yourself that I care what you call your beliefs.  The point remains that the Constitution does not at any point say, "Only those who derive their beliefs from non-religious sources have the right to influence public debate", so you can tell me how "consistent" with the Constitution your beliefs are until you're blue in the face, and you'll still be as laughably wrong as you were about the alleged "30 years of objective research" that you mysteriously can't ever quote.  But hey, who needs to, when you have the definitive argument that your opponents are "trailer park trash"?  That settles it all, doesn't it?



When those beliefs are unconstitutional, it certainly does say that. And I've quoted the research several times. You, like a moron, ignore it. Perhaps you think ignoring it makes it disappear. The difference is I've actually referenced my assertions; you bigots have not.



> I never misspell, which you would know if you were bothering to comment on my actual posts (or even read them), instead of just choosing at random off of your Big List O'Insults - number 73, bad grammar and spelling; number 122, racist/bigot/homophobe.



Um, yes you do misspell - quite a bit. And rather than repeating the same old tired shit, perhaps you could back up that which you assert.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 16, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I don't believe anyone suggested killing homosexuals, although I wouldn't expect someone who only reads his own posts to know that.



More evidence you don't actually read and/or comprehend most of the thread. 



> I do always love to be lectured on the proper way to practice my religion by someone doesn't profess it, is so blatantly bigoted that he's practically wearing a sheet and a pointy hat, and has only read those parts of the Bible that were randomly quoted on his favorite blog.  The only thing that would make you more amusing at this point would be if you were on drugs, too.



I'm a bigot? LMAO. Care to back that up?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 16, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> And you feel you are in a position to make such an extraordinary statement, huh? How could you possibly know what you would want, not want, et cetera... unless you were gay. (I suppose your next statement will be, "I am gay!")



Who said anything about being gay, Einstein?  The inapppropriate comment you made went" . . . as you would have them do unto you", not ". . . as you would have them do unto someone you might be in an alternate universe."  I am perfectly happy to have people do unto me right now exactly as I am doing unto them.  They don't get legal sanction for same-sex unions, and neither do I.  I'm completely content with that _quid pro quo_.



Macintosh said:


> Also, that statement was directed more toward the morons who said, "Homosexuals are the rats and flies of our society."
> 
> I'm sorry you couldn't comprehend that.



I did comprehend it.  You apparently didn't, which is why it was necessary for me to tell you twice that it's between him and you, and has no place in a post directed at me.

If you can't manage to remember that there's more than one person here, perhaps you should find a less taxing hobby.  We'll understand.  Maybe something in knitting or scrapbooking?



Macintosh said:


> No, I don't like the word. In fact, I would rather not have to use it. However, I was always told that I should call a spade a spade.



From the utter randomness of your posts, I would deduce that you were always told that you should call EVERYTHING a spade, including rakes and wheelbarrows, on the off-chance that you might be correct on one out of every fifty garden implements.

Of course, it does leave people wondering why you're allowed out without your protective helmet and babysitter, but I for one applaud your efforts at mainstreaming.



Macintosh said:


> You bigots ignore 35 years of objective research, and for no other reason than to rationalize your own hatred; I call that bigotry.



Well, I admit it would be a lot harder to "ignore" this alleged objective research if you ever actually produced it.  At this point, I'm assuming that you use the phrase "objective research" to mean "my ability to claim it exists over and over", since that appears to be the only substantiation you have.



Macintosh said:


> First of all, you hopeless moron. It is listed as an "abomination" in only one or two translations. If you read a few other translations, it is listed as "detestable," "abhorrent," et cetera... So this blanket term is simply a synonym for a bad sin. The same can be said for other sins, depending on the translation. Pity you couldn't understand that. But I do remember reading something about one sin is no worse than another... Something, ya know.



How adorable.  The little monkey is so cute when he capers and dances, and he looks almost human in that cunning little cap and vest, doesn't he?  

Thanks for the Bible lesson, Billy Graham.  It almost sounds as though you talked to someone who once knew someone else who read the Bible as a child.  Very authoritative.



Macintosh said:


> In your mind, it may have been "one big mess." But I imagine walking is "one big mess" when your mind attempts to contemplate it.



I'm sure it _would _appear that way to your imagination.  For those of us with normal mental capacity, however, walking requires no contemplation at all.  Again, though, I applaud your valiant attempts at mainstreaming.



Macintosh said:


> I see you have a problem putting two and two together.



Not at all.  It requires very little deductive reasoning to understand you.  You're about as unpredictable as a volume of "Fun With Dick and Jane", although your plotline is less complex.



Macintosh said:


> Well, I wouldn't think if I were you.



You'd have to think if you were me.  If you didn't think, you'd still be yourself.



Macintosh said:


> Clearly, you simply skim the thread for statements you disagree with, whilst forgetting statements you do agree with.



I don't forget them.  I just don't happen to think they require comment, generally speaking.  I suppose I COULD employ your method of simply throwing a dart at a board to choose my responses, but that would seem so imitative.



Macintosh said:


> Perhaps if you had read/remembered the entire thread, or bothered to figure out what statement I was responding to, you wouldn't ask such idiotic questions.




I know exactly what you were saying and who you were responding to.  It's just damned hard to make anything intelligent out of such idiotic material to work with.  I don't WANT to waste my time having to ask you why you don't seem to realize that there are multiple, separate individuals posting on this board, but if you WILL insist on posting as though we're all the same person, what else can I do?



Macintosh said:


> I don't have to peek in your bedroom to know you're a sinner; I just have to read the Bible. Unless you are God, you are a sinner.
> 
> Or, did you forget that part of the Bible, too?



I was actually commenting on the part where you presumed to make statements as to the specific sins, dear.  Don't worry, though.  We all understand how hard you're struggling with this adult conversation thing, and I promise, we're really, really impressed with your progress.

Big round of applause, everyone.  Such courage in the face of adversity is really inspiring, isn't it?  



Macintosh said:


> My beliefs are not religious; yours are. My beliefs are consistent with the Constitution.



Perhaps you could cite for me the section of the Constitution that specifies that only secularists are allowed to influence public debate and political affairs, then.  I swear, I'm just not having any luck with finding the clause that says, "All religious people have to shut up and give up their civil rights".



Macintosh said:


> This is an asinine statement devoid of any type of sense and understanding. Natural behavior, genetic predisposition, etc... Ring a bell? Virginia v. Loving? Ring a bell?



I'm not sure what "bell" your standard practice of throwing out random words that bear no relation to the topic is supposed to ring.  I'm certainly very proud of you that you've managed to memorize the name of a legal case, but I'm sorry to have to tell you that your big achievement there doesn't make it the correct response to every situation.

But thanks for trying.  It really was very cute.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 16, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> More evidence that you don't actually read the thread.



In other words, "I said the research existed THREE TIMES, so that should settle it."

Of course, the fact that you could tell me water was wet at this point and I would simply pat you on the head and say, "That's nice, sweetie, now go play," does sort of hinder your ability to use your word for things as proof.



Macintosh said:


> Hardly. It's quite obvious.



Well, maybe if you grew your bangs longer to hide the scar, it wouldn't be so obvious.



Macintosh said:


> When those beliefs are unconstitutional, it certainly does say that.



Beliefs are Unconstitutional now?  Which Amendment was it that outlawed beliefs, and where was I when it was ratified?  You would have thought SOMEONE would have reported on it.



Macintosh said:


> And I've quoted the research several times. You, like a moron, ignore it. Perhaps you think ignoring it makes it disappear. The difference is I've actually referenced my assertions; you bigots have not.



You haven't quoted anything.  You said it existed.  There's a difference.

The only assertion I've made is that you're ignorant and a joke.  The only reference I need for that assertion is your posts . . . and they just keep on comin', don't they?



Macintosh said:


> Um, yes you do misspell - quite a bit. And rather than repeating the same old tired shit, perhaps you could back up that which you assert.



Um, if that were true, you would be able to cite some instances, and you can't, because I don't.  No matter how many times you throw #73 at me, it won't become true, any more than saying "objective research" repeatedly will make it exist.

"You misspell - quite a bit."


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 16, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> More evidence you don't actually read and/or comprehend most of the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a bigot? LMAO. Care to back that up?



Well, since you've proven that you only ever read your own posts, surely you've noticed the virulent strain of religious hatred and prejudice that oozes from every word you say.

There might be a better word for someone who wants to take away people's Constitutional rights based on religious belief, but "bigot" works just fine for me.

I hope it's not too big a shock to you to find out that your favorite generic insult actually has a definition beyond "someone I don't like".  I rather hope it IS too big a shock to you to find out that you meet that definition.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 16, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Who said anything about being gay, Einstein?  The inapppropriate comment you made went" . . . as you would have them do unto you", not ". . . as you would have them do unto someone you might be in an alternate universe."  I am perfectly happy to have people do unto me right now exactly as I am doing unto them.  They don't get legal sanction for same-sex unions, and neither do I.  I'm completely content with that _quid pro quo_.



The idea that you have been a participant in this discussion prior to my "inapppropriate [sic] comment" is not something I am acquainted with. In fact, I don't believe you were. But if you were, deducing that that comment was to you or was directed toward anyone other than those who felt it necessary to spew diatribe whilst quoting the Bible, is an idiotic and asinine deduction. Of course, coming from someone who thinks themselves  astute, I am neither surprised nor willing to retract. 

And for someone who "never misspells," I suggest you write a letter to Merriam-Webster and tell them to spell "inappropriate"  like you, the genius, have spelled it: "inapppropriate."



> I did comprehend it.  You apparently didn't, which is why it was necessary for me to tell you twice that it's between him and you, and has no place in a post directed at me.



No, you comprehend it now that I have explained it as though I were speaking with a child. What I'm responding to now is a pitifully lame attempt to save face. 



> If you can't manage to remember that there's more than one person here, perhaps you should find a less taxing hobby.  We'll understand.  Maybe something in knitting or scrapbooking?



Again, I don't believe you were a participant in this discussion. But if it wasn't obvious who I was speaking to with that comment, hence my quoting them, then I don't know what to tell you. 



> From the utter randomness of your posts, I would deduce that you were always told that you should call EVERYTHING a spade, including rakes and wheelbarrows, on the off-chance that you might be correct on one out of every fifty garden implements.



Randomness? LOL. That's quite funny coming from a babbling ignoramus like yourself. 



> Of course, it does leave people wondering why you're allowed out without your protective helmet and babysitter, but I for one applaud your efforts at mainstreaming.



See above. 



> Well, I admit it would be a lot harder to "ignore" this alleged objective research if you ever actually produced it.  At this point, I'm assuming that you use the phrase "objective research" to mean "my ability to claim it exists over and over", since that appears to be the only substantiation you have.



I have produced it - several times. I'm not about to go hunt it up because you decided to open your mouth a bit too soon. I posted an APA link and a National Geographic link. The APA link explains - in detail - why they have come to the conclusion they have. The National Geographic link explains how homosexuality is prevalent in the animal kingdom, thus having a strong evolutionary impact. 



> How adorable.  The little monkey is so cute when he capers and dances, and he looks almost human in that cunning little cap and vest, doesn't he?
> 
> Thanks for the Bible lesson, Billy Graham.  It almost sounds as though you talked to someone who once knew someone else who read the Bible as a child.  Very authoritative.



Do you always resort to idiocy when you're proved wrong?



> I'm sure it _would _appear that way to your imagination.  For those of us with normal mental capacity, however, walking requires no contemplation at all.  Again, though, I applaud your valiant attempts at mainstreaming.



Oh, the irony. 



> Not at all.  It requires very little deductive reasoning to understand you.  You're about as unpredictable as a volume of "Fun With Dick and Jane", although your plotline is less complex.



I'm beginning to see a pattern. A post devoid of anything substantive. 



> You'd have to think if you were me.  If you didn't think, you'd still be yourself.



No, I'd have to learn how to be a bigoted ignoramus. 



> I don't forget them.  I just don't happen to think they require comment, generally speaking.  I suppose I COULD employ your method of simply throwing a dart at a board to choose my responses, but that would seem so imitative.



Why am I not surprised at this stupid statement. You missed the point. 



> I know exactly what you were saying and who you were responding to.  It's just damned hard to make anything intelligent out of such idiotic material to work with.  I don't WANT to waste my time having to ask you why you don't seem to realize that there are multiple, separate individuals posting on this board, but if you WILL insist on posting as though we're all the same person, what else can I do?



And it was quite obvious who I was referring to, you putz. That's why I quoted them. We were carrying on a conversation for much of the morning, one you were not included in. It is copiously lucid to anyone with a brain; someone not trying to woo the crowd with pseudo-intellectual rants. 



> I was actually commenting on the part where you presumed to make statements as to the specific sins, dear.  Don't worry, though.  We all understand how hard you're struggling with this adult conversation thing, and I promise, we're really, really impressed with your progress.



I did no such thing. Your feudal attempts to save face are now rather banal. 



> Perhaps you could cite for me the section of the Constitution that specifies that only secularists are allowed to influence public debate and political affairs, then.  I swear, I'm just not having any luck with finding the clause that says, "All religious people have to shut up and give up their civil rights".



Again, you missed the whole point. See the Fourteenth Amendment, please. 



> I'm not sure what "bell" your standard practice of throwing out random words that bear no relation to the topic is supposed to ring.  I'm certainly very proud of you that you've managed to memorize the name of a legal case, but I'm sorry to have to tell you that your big achievement there doesn't make it the correct response to every situation.



Oh, so you mean you have no idea what I said because you're a blithering ignoramus? Ok.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 16, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> The idea that you have been a participant in this discussion prior to my "inapppropriate [sic] comment" is not something I am acquainted with. In fact, I don't believe you were. But if you were, deducing that that comment was to you or was directed toward anyone other than those who felt it necessary to spew diatribe whilst quoting the Bible, is an idiotic and asinine deduction. Of course, coming from someone who thinks themselves  astute, I am neither surprised nor willing to retract.
> 
> And for someone who "never misspells," I suggest you write a letter to Merriam-Webster and tell them to spell "inappropriate"  like you, the genius, have spelled it: "inapppropriate."
> 
> ...



Okay, honey, this was very cute and amusing for a while, but now you and your hurdy-gurdy need to run along and entertain someone else, because I've wasted enough time watching you dance and I DID come here to talk to grown-ups.  Run along and play, and maybe Momma will take you out for an ice cream later.  There's a good boy.  

Or, to put it another way, dismissed.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 16, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Okay, honey, this was very cute and amusing for a while, but now you and your hurdy-gurdy need to run along and entertain someone else, because I've wasted enough time watching you dance and I DID come here to talk to grown-ups.  Run along and play, and maybe Momma will take you out for an ice cream later.  There's a good boy.
> 
> Or, to put it another way, dismissed.



Typical. No response. What a fucking surprise. Perhaps you could go make an ass of yourself in another thread - with someone else.


----------



## YWN666 (Nov 17, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Talk around it all you want, but the bible says that homos are an abomination to him and should be stoned to death. Period
> 
> Any christian who sticks up for homos is going against god and the bible. Period




That's what you godbots have been suckered to believe.  If it weren't so disturbing, I would find it comical that you people can talk about stoning innocent people to death and then claim to take the moral high road and expect everyone to knock down the church doors wanting to sign up.  You folks are very poor salesmen for your cause.


----------



## WhiteLion (Nov 17, 2008)

YWN666 said:


> That's what you godbots have been suckered to believe.  If it weren't so disturbing, I would find it comical that you people can talk about stoning innocent people to death and then claim to take the moral high road and expect everyone to knock down the church doors wanting to sign up.  You folks are very poor salesmen for your cause.


Actually it was the modern secularist psychiatric associations that first labeled homosexuals as mentally sick and in need of much treatment in which had no relation to religious theology ideologies. However it was sanition reasoning for public sakes to prevent nasty and highly contagious diseases like Anal Staphylococcus, not to mention various strains of AIDs E coli combos and the innocents caught in the crossfire... Little known secret everytime they come close to an immunization for AIDs type viruses a new and stronger version of the sexual disease crops up, its a known fact that viral diseases are becoming immune to medications like antibiotics and variants thereof... You cant fool mother nature BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 17, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> It would solve the homo problem very quickly!!



So......your solution for homosexuality is to kill them all?  

Hmm........you believe the Holocaust was a hoax, you want to eradicate an entire segment of people (of which about 10 percent of the population is gay), and you're also a failed Christian converted to Islam.

Got a Nazi flag in your living room?


----------



## Turboswede (Nov 17, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> So......your solution for homosexuality is to kill them all?
> 
> Hmm........you believe the Holocaust was a hoax, you want to eradicate an entire segment of people (of which about 10 percent of the population is gay), and you're also a failed Christian converted to Islam.
> 
> Got a Nazi flag in your living room?



Don't pay any attention, they just are happy to see a sign of the End of Days


----------



## WhiteLion (Nov 17, 2008)

Turboswede said:


> Don't pay any attention, they just are happy to see a sign of the End of Days


Auh the End of Days means the coming of the Son of GOD JESUS THE CHRIST... HE will settle the score quikly, in a twinkling of an eye.. The BIBLE says theyll cry out for the rocks to fall on them but the rocks will flea??MOOT!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 17, 2008)

Turboswede said:


> Don't pay any attention, they just are happy to see a sign of the End of Days



Hunh?  There's no such thing as the "end of days".  What part of that do you not get?  First, there is the current time we are in, then, Yeshua comes back and brings in the World to Come, which means a joining of Heaven and Earth, whereupon Earth becomes part of Heaven.

Ya gotta read to the end of the book dude.


----------



## WhiteLion (Nov 17, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Hunh?  There's no such thing as the "end of days".  What part of that do you not get?  First, there is the current time we are in, then, Yeshua comes back and brings in the World to Come, which means a joining of Heaven and Earth, whereupon Earth becomes part of Heaven.
> 
> Ya gotta read to the end of the book dude.



Deuteronomy 4:30 "When you are in distress and all these things have come upon you, in the *end of days* you will return to the LORD your God and listen to His voice. Wake-up and sm sm smell the coffee puke deck...
End of days, last days, end of time, etc.,etc.....
Deuteronomy 31:29 for I have known that after my death ye do very corruptly, and have turned aside out of the way which I commanded you, and evil hath met you in the latter *end of the days*, because ye do the evil thing in the eyes of Jehovah, to make Him angry with the work of your hands.'
Want more or ya wanna host that smokewagon boy....


----------



## Turboswede (Nov 17, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Hunh?  There's no such thing as the "end of days".  What part of that do you not get?  First, there is the current time we are in, then, Yeshua comes back and brings in the World to Come, which means a joining of Heaven and Earth, whereupon Earth becomes part of Heaven.
> 
> Ya gotta read to the end of the book dude.



Well the folks that believe that this is all tied to the wrath of god sure seem to believe in Armageddon.


----------



## AllieBaba (Nov 17, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Hunh?  There's no such thing as the "end of days".  What part of that do you not get?  First, there is the current time we are in, then, Yeshua comes back and brings in the World to Come, which means a joining of Heaven and Earth, whereupon Earth becomes part of Heaven.
> 
> Ya gotta read to the end of the book dude.



You remain an idiot. I really wish you'd study a little before you attempt to take on people in discussions about the bible. You're confusing your own idiotic imaginings and mixing it up with the slight understanding of the bible.

Jesus will come and battle with Satan and the demons and usher in 1000 years of peace on earth. That's not exactly a joining of Heaven and Earth, nor will Earth become a part of heaven. Jesus will rule ON EARTH during that time.


----------



## AllieBaba (Nov 17, 2008)

Turboswede said:


> Well the folks that believe that this is all tied to the wrath of god sure seem to believe in Armageddon.



Armageddon is a place. 
The Apocolypse is an occurrence. I'm assuming you meant Apocolypse.

Which is "the revealing" and is used to refer to Christ's return to earth.

Get your terms right, pseudo intellectual.

I love it when scoffers who have limited understanding of the bible pretend to know what the  hell they're talking about.


----------



## WhiteLion (Nov 17, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Armageddon is a place.
> The Apocolypse is an occurrence. I'm assuming you meant Apocolypse.
> 
> Which is "the revealing" and is used to refer to Christ's return to earth.
> ...


In the Valley of Megiddo, where human blood will be high as a horses bridle, Jesus the Christ Lion of the Tribe of Judha will BUST the skies like unto a massive sonic boom and the voice of a trumpet and the screach of an archangel and all of Satans armies will turn thier weapons on HIM only to fail impotently and their eyes will melt back into their heads and their tongues will stick to the roofs of their mouths and melt to a soulish blob of goo... and Jesus the Christ will reign with a rod of Iron for a 1000 years better known as post tribulation the 1000 year reign...
However 7 years pryor Christ will return to get his bride the Church this's known as pre-tribulation. 1 Thessalonians 4:17Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.


----------



## AllieBaba (Nov 17, 2008)

Now watch the loons take all that and filter it through their retardo-hats, and produce ultra-crap.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 17, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> You remain an idiot. I really wish you'd study a little before you attempt to take on people in discussions about the bible. You're confusing your own idiotic imaginings and mixing it up with the slight understanding of the bible.
> 
> Jesus will come and battle with Satan and the demons and usher in 1000 years of peace on earth. That's not exactly a joining of Heaven and Earth, nor will Earth become a part of heaven. Jesus will rule ON EARTH during that time.



You know AlwaysBabbling.....that is what the Christian version says, but, like everything else in this world, something gets lost in the translation.

You really ought to look into Jewish theology sometime.  I mean, after all, that is where your group got their stuff from.

And, after Jesus comes back, yes, He will rule on this earth for 1,000 years, but, that is where you guys stop.  In the Torah, after the 1,000 years, Heaven and Earth are joined.

If you're only checking into half of it, you miss a LOT.


----------



## AllieBaba (Nov 17, 2008)

Case in point.
Thanks for proving you wear a retardo hat and spew ultra crap, bud.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 17, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Case in point.
> Thanks for proving you wear a retardo hat and spew ultra crap, bud.



I bet you're just a peach in the sack, ain't ya?

Oh wait......I forgot.....you're divorced.  Hmmm....explains a lot.  He couldn't live with you either?


----------



## AllieBaba (Nov 17, 2008)

That's apropos of..what? 

Oh, I know. You have nothing intelligent to say, so you revert to junior high insults. Pathetic even for you.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 17, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> That's apropos of..what?
> 
> Oh, I know. You have nothing intelligent to say, so you revert to junior high insults. Pathetic even for you.



I'm not the one that started off with the tinfoil hat BITCH.

Or did you not remember what I quoted when I said that?

Ya know.....come to think of it.....I wouldn't fuck you for practice.  I'd rather beat off with broken glass and nails.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 17, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Ya know.....come to think of it.....I wouldn't fuck you for practice.  I'd rather beat off with broken glass and nails.


You are really one sick guy!

And then you want to quote Torah and have people listen to you


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 17, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> You are really one sick guy!
> 
> And then you want to quote Torah and have people listen to you



No asshole......I never said that I was anything other than a Biker Sailor.  However.....just because I do things you may not approve of Sucking Moron, unlike you, I have an open mind.

Never failed as a Christian either asshole.

And.....when I'm attacked, I attack back, otherwise I'm pretty civil.  Remember the thread of mind about Yeshua?  Even though I felt like ripping you a new one, I didn't.

See?


----------



## WhiteLion (Nov 17, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Armageddon is a place.
> The Apocolypse is an occurrence. I'm assuming you meant Apocolypse.
> 
> Which is "the revealing" and is used to refer to Christ's return to earth.
> ...


Apocolypse is better known in theological circles as Mid or middle tribulation the judgements 7 Seals, 7 Trumpets and 7 Bowls. 
These things will happen after the *bride of Christ* is removed these will never face GODs judgement 1 Thessalonians 4:17, the Apocolyptic events of Mid Tribulation the 7 Seals are broken in that they are open ended introductions of what's to come the 4 horseman of this event. 
The 7 Trumpets(trumpets are devices used to call or warn) events are GODs warnings for mankind to change thru climatic and geological catastrophies some call these global warming or climate change or whatever the hell they calling it now, but man will not heed, but instead create a one world government. 
The 7 Viles or Bowl(bowls , viles are used to contain liquid fully in this context) judgements are GODs no holds bar anger against unrepented man for the killing and beheading of HIS saints, could be anything from astrological catastrophies(astroids, meteors size of Hawaii) to everything in between and below...
In the end, the end of the 7 year tribulation or Apocolypse during the battle of Armageddon the anti-christ and the whole world will turn against Isreal after fighting one another over Isreali real estate the blood bath will be high as a horses bridle, then Christ will return and all nations will attempt to turn there weapons on Christ, nukes and all, but it will fail miserably and the Lion of the Tribe of Judha will wipe'm out in a flash of lightning in a twinkling of an eye its over... the anti-christ , the false prophet will be cast in the lake of that burns forever with fire and brimstone. Satan will be cast into the bottomless pit for a 1000 years this's better known as the millennial reign...Christ and the beleivers of all the ages will reign with HIM during this time...
After the 1000 year reign Satan will be losed for a short period of time to decieve once more, but in short will ultimately meet his demise Christ...At this point and time, time will be no more, Satan, the heavens, and the earth, are destroyed. Then comes the White THRONE JUDGEMENT the finale judgement of evil doers all the ages whom rejected GOD and HIS SON JESUS THE CHRIST...GOD will destroy the heavens and the earth and all things will be renewed, a new heaven and a new earth in one.. and so shall they be with GOD for eternity never more to be harrassed and harranged by evil forces again....
Actually the Bible does say that no man knoweth the hour nor the day of the return of Christ...
However Sir Issac Newton spent the last 20 years of his life calculating Jesus return, his calculations are the year 2060 so it could be anytime between now and 2060...


----------



## AllieBaba (Nov 17, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> I'm not the one that started off with the tinfoil hat BITCH.
> 
> Or did you not remember what I quoted when I said that?
> 
> Ya know.....come to think of it.....I wouldn't fuck you for practice.  I'd rather beat off with broken glass and nails.



Oh please, let's talk tinfoil hats.

Care to share some of your musings about how you're Christ's little brother again, and how Noah was raped by his daughters...and how Christians only follow Christ because they expect miracles?

And please stop fantasizing about sex with me. While it's totally in character with your bizarro character, it's making me sick.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 17, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Oh please, let's talk tinfoil hats.
> 
> Care to share some of your musings about how you're Christ's little brother again, and how Noah was raped by his daughters...and how Christians only follow Christ because they expect miracles?
> 
> And please stop fantasizing about sex with me. While it's totally in character with your bizarro character, it's making me sick.



I said we ALL were.

Too bad you're His retarded little sister.

Pity.  Really.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 18, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> It would solve the homo problem very quickly!!



Sorry, while Mr. Bass disagrees with gay marriages and agrees that the homosexual lifestyle is sinful, disgusting, immoral and contra to the Bible, stoning and or killing homosexuals because of their immoral sexually deviant lifestyle is just as sinful as being gay itself. Man has no right to decide who gets killed and who dies, God is the only one that has that right and when the time comes homosexuals will reap the reward they have sown. Would you like it if gays went around putting people like you to death because you're Muslim? Think about that.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 18, 2008)

I'm kinda curious what has been going on with you Bass.  First your avatar was Idi Amin who was a dictator of the worst variety, now, you've gone to having a big voluptuous woman.

What.......you got tired of being in the closet and are now opening it a crack?


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 18, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> I'm kinda curious what has been going on with you Bass.  First your avatar was Idi Amin who was a dictator of the worst variety, now, you've gone to having a big voluptuous woman.
> 
> What.......you got tired of being in the closet and are now opening it a crack?



that woman in the avatar is Teena Marie, the only white woman the Bass would ever be interested in, if she was younger. Yu still dropping your drawers for the butt boys on the boat? LMAO!


----------



## Shogun (Nov 18, 2008)

oh how cute...  The Bass lusting after a white chick. 


now THAT novel.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 18, 2008)

Bass is a racist; he doesn't like white people. He just objectifies all women, and found a white one he likes.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 18, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> Bass is a racist; he doesn't like white people. He just objectifies all women, and found a white one he likes.



bass isn't a racist for liking Teena Marie, if he was then millions of black fans of Teena Marie are racist. Find one post has put down white people.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 18, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> bass isn't a racist for liking Teena Marie, if he was then millions of black fans of Teena Marie are racist. Find one post has put down white people.



Try reading what I said - carefully.

Wait, sorry. I forgot. The schooling thing. Duh.


----------



## Billy Bunny (Nov 18, 2008)

This thread is full of faggots and faggot lovers who want to b fucked up the ass and like watching men get fucked up the ass. If you defend faggots you defend men fucking me up the asshole and ought to have you dick cut off and shoved up the faggot asses, you can have all the dick you want then.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 18, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> bass isn't a racist for liking Teena Marie, if he was then millions of black fans of Teena Marie are racist. Find one post has put down white people.



Hey Bass.  They were talking about the relationship between blacks and gays this weekend on liberal tax radio.  I guess the black community, even though 40% of you are incapable of seeing the similarities of your struggle compared to the gay struggle, 60% of black people do support gay rights.  

Rumor was going around that blacks cost gays Prop 8 in California.  Well i guess that might not be true.  I hope not.

Oh, and before I went hunting on Friday, I watched Jerry Springer and there were tons of transvestite black guys/women on the show.  I thought of you.  And the one dude they brought out to break the news that he was in love with a man!!!  Oh boy.  I thought he was going to cold cock her. 

Some of them were pretty hot too.  It's amazing.  

But there are gay black men.  Lots of them.  LOL.  I know you hate it.!!!!


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 18, 2008)

Billy Bunny said:


> This thread is full of republicans0 and republican lovers who want to b fucked up the ass and like watching men get fucked up the ass. If you defend republicans you defend men fucking me up the asshole and ought to have you dick cut off and shoved up the republican asses, you can have all the dick you want then.



If we were in prison together for life, it'd be your ass that got beat up.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 18, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Hey Bass.  They were talking about the relationship between blacks and gays this weekend on liberal tax radio.  I guess the black community, even though 40% of you are incapable of seeing the similarities of your struggle compared to the gay struggle, 60% of black people do support gay rights.
> 
> Rumor was going around that blacks cost gays Prop 8 in California.  Well i guess that might not be true.  I hope not.
> 
> ...



Black sodomites are out there, no one ever said they aren't, there just isn't that many o them like everyone believes. Most are in places like San Francisc and in places like Florida, but here in Mississippi there isn't one black sodomite here that the has has seen, not one.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 18, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> Bass is a racist; he doesn't like white people. He just objectifies all women, and found a white one he likes.


I have never seen Mr. Bass make a racist post.

Yet people here call him racist all of the time.

It makes NO sense!!!


----------



## Shogun (Nov 18, 2008)

sounds like someone doeth protest too much.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 18, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> I have never seen Mr. Bass make a racist post.
> 
> Yet people here call him racist all of the time.
> 
> It makes NO sense!!!



I've seen him make lots of racists posts.  Perhaps you just don't see them because you fawn over his posts much in the same way Mani;s posts make Ravi leave a slug trail.


Then again, it's not like you are any kind of bellweather by any means in this forum.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 18, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> I have never seen Mr. Bass make a racist post.
> 
> Yet people here call him racist all of the time.
> 
> It makes NO sense!!!



Yeah.....this from the mental midget who claims the Holocaust is a hoax.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 18, 2008)

Shogun said:


> I've seen him make lots of racists posts.  Perhaps you just don't see them because you fawn over his posts much in the same way Mani;s posts make Ravi leave a slug trail.
> 
> 
> Then again, it's not like you are any kind of bellweather by any means in this forum.



You sound like a woman on the rag Shogun, point out any racist post the Bass has made.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 18, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> You sound like a woman on the rag Shogun, point out any racist post the Bass has made.



what, exactly, does a woman on the rag sound like, dude?  Maybe we can add sexist to your collection of titles.. Hell, it doesn't take a brain surgeon, or in your case a fry station worker, to read the white-hating vitriol in your posts.  It's about as evident as your take on gays from your carbon copy threads about homosexuals.


If you can hate you can be hated, motherfucker.  PUt that in your crack pipe and smoke it, Toby.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 18, 2008)

Shogun said:


> what, exactly, does a woman on the rag sound like, dude?  Maybe we can add sexist to your collection of titles.. Hell, it doesn't take a brain surgeon, or in your case a fry station worker, to read the white-hating vitriol in your posts.  It's about as evident as your take on gays from your carbon copy threads about homosexuals.
> 
> 
> If you can hate you can be hated, motherfucker.  PUt that in your crack pipe and smoke it, Toby.



Actually, as a woman, I don't see anything sexist about pointing out that menstrual periods make women really grouchy and bitchy.  It's a legitimate medical condition that can be treated by a doctor.  Hell, most gynecologists have brochures on the subject.

My husband said the other day that PMS and pregnancy and the subsequent hormonal upheavals they cause are proof that women should never be allowed to be in charge of anything other than making babies and caring for them.  I responded with, "That only works if men get off their lazy asses and provide for women properly so they don't HAVE to work."


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 18, 2008)

Shogun said:


> what, exactly, does a woman on the rag sound like, dude?  Maybe we can add sexist to your collection of titles.. Hell, it doesn't take a brain surgeon, or in your case a fry station worker, to read the white-hating vitriol in your posts.  It's about as evident as your take on gays from your carbon copy threads about homosexuals.
> 
> 
> If you can hate you can be hated, motherfucker.  PUt that in your crack pipe and smoke it, Toby.



Mr Bass never hates but always gets hated on, so much jealousy, hate and envy the Bass gets from his enemies. When you're simply the best thing alive in the world thats the price one pays.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 18, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Black sodomites are out there, no one ever said they aren't, there just isn't that many o them like everyone believes. Most are in places like San Francisc and in places like Florida, but here in Mississippi there isn't one black sodomite here that the has has seen, not one.



That's too bad, because Mississippi is probably a fun word for gay people to say.

Oh, my brothers wife has a gay cousin.  He's never admitted it and they don't believe it, but me and my brother know he's gay.  He's got feminine characteristics.  He took us to gay places in ny for dessert and for entertainment.  One place was called Lips.  Drag Queens serve you dinner and lip sinc to Bette Midler.  He was maticulous about his clothing and place.  All the women in our family try to set him up with women and it is so funny how he is never interested.

I'm single and sometimes I'm not interested and sometimes the girl they try to set me up with isn't interested.  But with him it's always him that isn't interested.  

My sister in law gets sick everytime we bring it up.  I keep telling her, "who cares, he's a great guy and you love him, right"?  

But homophobes have a lot to get over.

And these are good people who are discriminating against their own family.  

We just aren't evolved enough yet to see that gays deserve all the same rights/benefits that straights get.

PS.  My brother is a HR VP for a company.  He just got gays health insurance.  He said the old HR guys fought him on it every step of the way.  My brother said to the guy, "Hey Bob, I want you to imagine that I left my family for my gay lover and now I want him to have health insurance".

The guys said, "come on, stop being funny", and my brother said, "I'm not kidding, that's a real scenerio".  And the old timers can't stand doing what is right. 

I love it that a new generation is coming up and we are better than the people we are replacing.  Just like Obama is better than the Bush/McCain/Hillarys.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 18, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> That's too bad, because Mississippi is probably a fun word for gay people to say.
> 
> Oh, my brothers wife has a gay cousin.  He's never admitted it and they don't believe it, but me and my brother know he's gay.  He's got feminine characteristics.  He took us to gay places in ny for dessert and for entertainment.  One place was called Lips.  Drag Queens serve you dinner and lip sinc to Bette Midler.  He was maticulous about his clothing and place.  All the women in our family try to set him up with women and it is so funny how he is never interested.
> 
> ...



Ah, the arrogance of youth.  "We are so much better and more evolved than you, and we've come up with all these wonderful new ideas you never thought of."  Uh huh.

I just console myself with the thought that my parents' generation had to put up with us when WE were obnoxious, know-it-all, conceited brats, and we got over it, too.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 18, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Mr Bass never hates but always gets hated on, so much jealousy, hate and envy the Bass gets from his enemies. When you're simply the best thing alive in the world thats the price one pays.



You know.....I've seen this behavior exhibited by another narcissist.

His name was Hitler.

No wonder Bass thinks Sucking Moron is such a great guy.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 18, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> You know.....I've seen this behavior exhibited by another narcissist.
> 
> His name was Hitler.
> 
> No wonder Bass thinks Sucking Moron is such a great guy.



When you're taught from day one how great and successful you are and how much greater you could be what else is their to think about? You can hate on Mr Bass all you like, there' no stopping him.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 18, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> When you're taught from day one how great and successful you are and how much greater you could be what else is their to think about? You can hate on Mr Bass all you like, there' no stopping him.



No, because you hide behind a med board like a bitch dude.

Hard to catch a rat like you in the military.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 18, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Mr Bass never hates but always gets hated on, so much jealousy, hate and envy the Bass gets from his enemies. When you're simply the best thing alive in the world thats the price one pays.



what the hell is there to be jealous of?    Dude, I don't WANT to live off of food stamps and fat back.  

*When you're simply the best thing alive in the world thats the price one pays.*




yea, dude.. you keep thinking that.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 18, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Actually, as a woman, I don't see anything sexist about pointing out that menstrual periods make women really grouchy and bitchy.  It's a legitimate medical condition that can be treated by a doctor.  Hell, most gynecologists have brochures on the subject.
> 
> My husband said the other day that PMS and pregnancy and the subsequent hormonal upheavals they cause are proof that women should never be allowed to be in charge of anything other than making babies and caring for them.  I responded with, "That only works if men get off their lazy asses and provide for women properly so they don't HAVE to work."



i'll keep that in mind the next time you make a contentious argument here in the forums.  I'm betting you do not have the consensus of your ovarian sisterhood.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 18, 2008)

Shogun said:


> what the hell is there to be jealous of?    Dude, I don't WANT to live off of food stamps and fat back.
> 
> *When you're simply the best thing alive in the world thats the price one pays.*
> 
> ...



You want to be as good as the Bass so bad yet because you can't you wish to bring him down to your level. You aren't the only jealous angry white male who hates on the Bass, lol.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 18, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ah, the arrogance of youth.  "We are so much better and more evolved than you, and we've come up with all these wonderful new ideas you never thought of."  Uh huh.
> 
> I just console myself with the thought that my parents' generation had to put up with us when WE were obnoxious, know-it-all, conceited brats, and we got over it, too.



Unfortunately, your generation is the one that fucked the world up.  Every other generation's goal is that the next generation does better than they do.  Unfortunately, that won't be possible for the generation that follows you because you sold America to foreigners and put us so far into debt, we had to take a giant step backward under your Bushanomics policies.  In 8 years you destroyed what makes America great.  Congrats.

Sort of like you are the new Nixon's, only we got rid of Nixon.  They fucked up the world with Viet Nam and it took Kennedy to fix the mess you got us in back then too.

Think about how you or your parents thought Elvis girating was too much.  See how out of the loop you turned out to be?  You can't stop the youth from changing.  They'll never want to be like you.  And typically, they want to be better than you.  They rarely want to take a step backward.

That's why the moral minority makes me sick.  No one wants America to be liek they want America to be.  Sure some people want to teach intelligent design in school, but most want to teach evolution.  Sure some want to only teach abstenance only, but then that doesn't work.  Sure some of you want to ban video games and kick howard stern off the air, but then most of us want the choice and freedom to watch what we want and play what we want.  Sure some of you are anti pot and anti gambling, but all that stuff is changing.  

We are becoming more and more liberal with each generation.  Sure we took a couple steps back under Bush, but that was not how the majority of Americans feel and not what we want.  

Conservatives want to stay the same.  It is natural for the youth to be progressive and liberal.  And it scares you.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 18, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> No, because you hide behind a med board like a bitch dude.
> 
> Hard to catch a rat like you in the military.




There's no hiding, if the AF says the condition Mr Bass has isn't tolerable to have on duty he will get properly compensated.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 18, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Conservatives want to stay the same.  It is natural for the youth to be progressive and liberal.  And it scares you.


So you think that for the youth to start packing each others fudge is a huge step in progressive and liberal evolution!!!!


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 18, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> So you think that for the youth to start packing each others fudge is a huge step in progressive and liberal evolution!!!!



Yes, matter of fact I do.  I think it is great that they don't have to hide who they are.  I think it's great you can't fire them for being gay.  You can't kill/hurt them for being gay.  

So Sunni, is all this talk making you horny?  Do you want me to cum pack your fudge?  

Because the youth aren't packing fudge.  They're just more acceptable of people who do like to pack it.

But if letting gays marry and have health insurance is making you horny, I guess I can bend you over.  If you really want me to.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 18, 2008)

Why is the youth so hung up on protecting sick homosexual perverts?


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 18, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Why is the youth so hung up on protecting sick homosexual perverts?



Because if you aren't picking on them, you are picking on Muslims, or blacks, or mexicans, or jews, or women, or poor people.

Why are people your age so racist?  Why would it bother you if your son or daughter came home with a black boyfriend?  

The kids now a days don't have the baggage you have.  They weren't brainwashed by your parents, who are even less evolved than you.  You are better than your parents.  Not quite where you need to be, but more than your parents.

To your parents, you are a liberal.  Or, you have become more conservative in your old age maybe?  I don't know.  I'd have to know more about you.

But I know all the shit people like you said about gays are not true.  They won't make me gay, they haven't ruined marriage, and to be honest, the bible was used back in the 60's to show that God didn't approve of that either, so I really don't buy what the bible says.

And every gay community is a successful community.  Your home values go down when theirs goes up.

So they aren't bothering anyone.  They aren't throwing it in your face.

Let's just say, I know I am right on this one and I know you old timers are wrong.  You old timers are never right when it comes to shit like this.  

It isn't the end of society.  It is just the beginning.  Gays get to be gay and you and I can be straight.  And no one bothers the other for being who they are.  And we all get equal rights.

YOu can't marry a dog, your brother or a dead man, so don't use those tired arguments on me either.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 18, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Why is the youth so hung up on protecting sick homosexual perverts?



Why are you so hung up on being an arrogant, racist, homophobic, asshole?


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 18, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Why is the youth so hung up on protecting sick homosexual perverts?



Because they know right from wrong.

Do you lick your wife from her ass to her poontang?  Because I know some christians who think you and I are perverts for doing that?  Especially at the same time. 

Why do we give tax breaks to married couples that don't have kids?  If you won't give gay couples the tax breaks because they don't have kids, then take away the breaks to liza minelli and her queer husband.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 18, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Why are people your age so racist?  Why would it bother you if your son or daughter came home with a black boyfriend?


Actually, it wouldn't bother me a bit. Seeing how my daughter is half black.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 18, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Actually, it wouldn't bother me a bit. Seeing how my daughter is half black.



How's the slavery thing working out?


----------



## Shogun (Nov 18, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> You want to be as good as the Bass so bad yet because you can't you wish to bring him down to your level. You aren't the only jealous angry white male who hates on the Bass, lol.



Are you kidding me?  I can already afford rims without having to rob a liquor store, dude.  Trust me, no one on this forum is jealous of a schizophrenic, negrocentric ghetto fabulous malcom x wannabe.  for real, i'll go buy real cheese with REAL money, dude.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 18, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Are you kidding me?  I can already afford rims without having to rob a liquor store, dude.  Trust me, no one on this forum is jealous of a schizophrenic, negrocentric ghetto fabulous malcom x wannabe.  for real, i'll go buy real cheese with REAL money, dude.



Brie or Roquefort?


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 18, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> How's the slavery thing working out?


ABikerSailor you always try to goad me with racist talk. That's really beneath you.

You are a smart enough guy to defend your position without resorting to racist innuendos like Shogun spews.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 18, 2008)

Well.....let's look at the facts.......

You were a white christian that failed in their faith, and converted to Islam, and married a black woman.  You have an unnatural fascination with the Bass, who is black, and you've got an arrogant attitude.

Sounds like a "massa" to me.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 18, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Actually, it wouldn't bother me a bit. Seeing how my daughter is half black.



I'm willing to bet most anti gay people don't know any gay people.  Not enough to care about them.  I do.  And I don't care that they like butt sex.  That's there thing.

I bet I'd be surprised to be a fly on your wall you freak.  

The fact is, there is no such thing as normal.  People you would least expect do some pretty crazy shit.  We just don't know about it.  And we should't.  Unfortunately, gay couples can't hide their freakyness because you just know that they are having butt sex and man on man oral, and to you that's wrong.  But to them it's not.  Live and let live.

And I never mind lesbo sex.  Do you?  Be honest.

What about your straight neighbors who only have butt sex and don't have any kids?  Oh that's none of your business?  EXACTLY!!


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 18, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> And I never mind lesbo sex.  Do you?  Be honest.


I never could figure out why so many straight guys want to watch 2 mentally ill women have sex!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 18, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> I'm willing to bet most anti gay people don't know any gay people.  Not enough to care about them.  I do.  And I don't care that they like butt sex.  That's there thing.
> 
> I bet I'd be surprised to be a fly on your wall you freak.
> 
> ...



Did you know that there is NO MENTION AT ALL in the Bible against lesbianism?  The only thing that the Bible really specifies is no sodomy, which means anal sex.

The heteros having anal are much more wrong than the lesbians who are doing 69.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 18, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Are you kidding me?  I can already afford rims without having to rob a liquor store, dude.  Trust me, no one on this forum is jealous of a schizophrenic, negrocentric ghetto fabulous malcom x wannabe.  for real, i'll go buy real cheese with REAL money, dude.



Liquor store robberies and free cheese? 



Delusion: : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary ; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 18, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> You were a white christian that failed in their faith, and converted to Islam, and married a black woman.


Maybe you are a racist. By saying that you equate a white man marrying a black woman as somehow a failure.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 18, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Maybe you are a racist. By saying that you equate a white man marrying a black woman as somehow a failure.



No jackass......I said that that, combined with the rest of your sorry life kinda makes me think that you and whoever end up role playing with you and your straw hat, and them in their torn clothes.

Mandingo comes to mind.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 18, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Did you know that there is NO MENTION AT ALL in the Bible against lesbianism



You are wrong as usual ABickerSailor.


Rom 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman "


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 18, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> No jackass......I said that that, combined with the rest of your sorry life kinda makes me think that you and whoever end up role playing with you and your straw hat, and them in their torn clothes.
> 
> Mandingo comes to mind.


True, I am built like a white Mandingo!!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 18, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> True, I am built like a white Mandingo!!



No, you're built like a Sucking Moron.

"C'n I haves some mo Massa"?


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 18, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Did you know that there is NO MENTION AT ALL in the Bible against lesbianism?  The only thing that the Bible really specifies is no sodomy, which means anal sex.
> 
> The heteros having anal are much more wrong than the lesbians who are doing 69.



In Luke 17:34-37 

"I tell you, on that night there will be two men in one bed; one will be taken, and the other will be left. There will be two women grinding at the same place; one will be taken, the other will be left. 

Some bibles have been altered by the church and they changed the meaning of this.  Let me explain what Jesus meant.  

You sin, I sin, and gay sex might be a sin.  If it were all about sin, none of us would go to heaven.  

So, two gay dudes might be in bed together, one of them believes in Jesus and the other does.  So one of them will go to heaven and one of them might not.  And here Jesus explicitly describes two women sissoring each other's timbers.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 18, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> In Luke 17:34-37
> 
> "I tell you, on that night there will be two men in one bed; one will be taken, and the other will be left. There will be two women grinding at the same place; one will be taken, the other will be left.
> 
> ...



I thought that was a reference to the end times.


----------



## WhiteLion (Nov 18, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> I thought that was a reference to the end times.


ABikerSailor your one sick deck puke, you sacreligious idiot.... this's what the scripture say...
Matthew 24:39-42 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Two women shall be grinding *at the mill*; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.


----------



## CactusCarlos (Nov 18, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Did you know that there is NO MENTION AT ALL in the Bible against lesbianism?  The only thing that the Bible really specifies is no sodomy, which means anal sex.



This is God's standard.  Anything that deviates from it is not permissable, including lesbianism:



> Mark 10:6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a] 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,* 8and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." *


*

And sodomy doesn't just mean anal sex

Sodomy:  term of religious origin referring to oral or anal sexual intercourse between persons or sexual intercourse between a person and an animal.

Sodomy: anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex 

Sodomy: anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.*


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 18, 2008)

I love how all the bigots in this thread scream racism anytime they get what they give. Somehow you think calling someone a ****** is worse than calling someone a faggot? I don't think so.

As Shogun said, your sorry asses don't corner the market on discrimination. I'm not a fan of hateful remarks, but I understand where Shogun is coming from. You get what you give, "dark spot."


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 18, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> I love how all the bigots in this thread scream racism anytime they get what they give. Somehow you think calling someone a ****** is worse than calling someone a faggot? I don't think so.
> 
> As Shogun said, your sorry asses don't corner the market on discrimination. I'm not a fan of hateful remarks, but I understand where Shogun is coming from. You get what you give, "dark spot."




Trying fight what one perceives as "hate" with racist hate to make a point is retarded, especially considering Shogun's statement that any black who doesn't agree with gay marriage is a ******, how in the hell is any one promoting or being a hatemonger for not agreeing with gay marriage, especially when it is there religious beliefs that dictate such things? Christians and we who follow the Bible are held to the standards of what is acceptable to society but are held to what the Word of God says, so when you hate us you hate the Word, who Jesus and when you hate Jesus you hate He who sent Him into world, God the Father, as simple as that.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 18, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Are you kidding me?  I can already afford rims without having to rob a liquor store, dude.  Trust me, no one on this forum is jealous of a schizophrenic, negrocentric ghetto fabulous malcom x wannabe.  for real, i'll go buy real cheese with REAL money, dude.




Let Mr Bass make another thing clear to you jackass, Mr bass has the balls and courage to stand up anywhere, anytime and say he does not agree with gay marriage based on his religious principles, in front of anybody. You "Mr I'm not racist" do not have the balls and or courage to stand up in front of a group of black people call them ******* if they do not accept gay marriage because you know would get a beat down and you act of trying to use racism as a means of countering those of us blacks who don't accept gay marriage would not hold up.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 18, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Trying fight what one perceives as "hate" with racist hate to make a point is retarded, especially considering Shogun's statement that any black who doesn't agree with gay marriage is a ******, how in the hell is any one promoting or being a hatemonger for not agreeing with gay marriage, especially when it is there religious beliefs that dictate such things? Christians and we who follow the Bible are held to the standards of what is acceptable to society but are held to what the Word of God says, so when you hate us you hate the Word, who Jesus and when you hate Jesus you hate He who sent Him into world, God the Father, as simple as that.



And the Bible was used by some to keep you pickin' cotton. 

Fortunately, it didn't work. 

But disagreeing with someone's actions because of your religion is fine. But your religion, one we share, does not teach you to hate; that is exactly what you are doing.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 18, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> And the Bible was used by some to keep you pickin' cotton.
> 
> Fortunately, it didn't work.
> 
> But disagreeing with someone's actions because of your religion is fine. But your religion, one we share, does not teach you to hate; that is exactly what you are doing.



The Bible says NOTHING about *BLACKS* specifically having to be slaves however it does state without fail that homosexuality is a sin, period. You are using the standard of white racists as justification for something, not the Bible itself. Being against the homosexual lifestyle and gay marriage is not hate you retarded moron, and no where here has Mr Bass promoted hate, he even stated to Sunni Man that he was wrong saying that gays should be stoned and killed. Disagreeing with a lifestyle is *NOT* hate, point out where the hate is at jackass, using your logic a parent who chastise their child for doing something is a hater. The logic is hate the sin itself, not the person, if a relative of the Bass' kills someone, Mr Bass can hate the fact that his relative killed someone[the sin of killing itself] without hating the relative. What is there not to understand about that retard? The "if you don't accept homosexuality you hate the gay person" argument is illogical.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 19, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> The Bible says NOTHING about *BLACKS* specifically having to be slaves however it does state without fail that homosexuality is a sin, period. You are using the standard of white racists as justification for something, not the Bible itself.



I'm simply stating a fact: the Bible can and has been contorted to fit personal biases. 



> Being against the homosexual lifestyle and gay marriage is not hate you retarded moron, and no where here has Mr Bass promoted hate, he even stated to Sunni Man that he was wrong saying that gays should be stoned and killed. Disagreeing with a lifestyle is *NOT* hate, point out where the hate is at jackass, using your logic a parent who chastise their child for doing something is a hater. The logic is hate the sin itself, not the person, if a relative of the Bass' kills someone, Mr Bass can hate the fact that his relative killed someone[the sin of killing itself] without hating the relative. What is there not to understand about that retard? The "if you don't accept homosexuality you hate the gay person" argument is illogical.



You're being hateful right now, niglet. You've repeatedly referred to homosexuals in a derogatory manner, and you know it. Your ardent opposition to homosexuality is rather absurd, because no one sin is worse than another. Had you actually read the Bible, you might have known that. 

You claim there are no black sodomites in Mississippi, yet if your niglet wife has ever given you a blow job, you're both sodomites, darky. You laud African'ts like Idi Amin who fucking killed people!!! 

You're the biggest hypocrite here, Angus. You scream racism anytime someone gives you a dose of your own medicine.

How monumentally indicative of farm equipment. 

Look here, Billy Reuben, if you want to express a particular distaste for the homosexual lifestyle, fine. But you don't have to be hateful about it, Lips. 

Go preach your hate and bigotry elsewhere, Cargo.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 19, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> I'm simply stating a fact: the Bible can and has been contorted to fit personal biases.



That people twist the Bible doesn't mean the Bible is wrong, thats on the people who twist it. When people say homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so, thats not twisting the Bible, its states so in the Bible unequivocally and very clearly.





> You're being hateful right now, niglet. You've repeatedly referred to homosexuals in a derogatory manner, and you know it. Your ardent opposition to homosexuality is rather absurd, because no one sin is worse than another. Had you actually read the Bible, you might have known that.



niglet?? Mr Bass is too smooth to respond to flame bait insults, that will not work any more.  Mr Bass has never stated that homosexuality and or any other sin in more or less worse than another, all sin is sin. If you want to oppose the Bas try addressing things he actually has said instead of chewing on straws. If you read the Bible you would understand why Mr Bass opposes homosexuality and the gay lifestyle, which is based solely on gay sex acts.



> You claim there are no black sodomites in Mississippi, yet if your niglet wife has ever given you a blow job, you're both sodomites, darky. You laud African'ts like Idi Amin who fucking killed people!!!



For one, Mr Bass has no wife and sodomites are homosexuals who outright live that lifestyle openly. There are no black sodomites that the Bass knows of in Mississippi. Again, your flame bait posts will not get the desired effect. You support religious zealots like Huckabee as a potential saviour for the GOP yet you're sitting here trying to lecture the Bass about people twisting the bible and Bible toting bigotry? What a hypocrite.



> You're the biggest hypocrite here, Angus. You scream racism anytime someone gives you a dose of your own medicine.
> .



Racism and being against the gay lifestyle because of religious reasons is not the same you idiot.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 19, 2008)

When you attack homosexuals the way you do; when you remain blissfully ignorant, attempting to wash away the "sins" of opposite-sex couples who engage in "immoral, sexual" congress so you can attack homosexuals without being hypocritical, you're being hateful. Period. 

Hating someone for something they have no control over is comparable to racism, you putz. 

sod&#8901;om&#8901;y&#8194; &#8194;/&#712;s&#594;d&#601;mi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation  [sod-uh-mee] Show IPA Pronunciation  

&#8211;noun 1*. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex. *2. copulation with a member of the same sex. 
3. bestiality (def. 4).​
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sodomy


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 19, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> When you attack homosexuals the way you do; when you remain blisfully ignorant, attempting to wash away the "sins" of opposite-sex couples who engage in "immoral sexual" congress just so you can attack homosexuals without being hypocritical, you're being hateful. Period. And it is the same as racism, you moron. You're hating someone because of a genetic predispostion.



Strawman, when did the Bass every say that sex immorality by heterosexuals is ok b ut only homosexuality is wrong you idiot? having to chew on straws again? There is no evidence of a genetic predisposition for being a sodomite, none. There is no gay gene, nothing.



> sod&#8901;om&#8901;y&#8194; &#8194;/&#712;s&#594;d&#601;mi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation  [sod-uh-mee] Show IPA Pronunciation
> 
> noun 1*. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex. *2. copulation with a member of the same sex.
> 3. bestiality (def. 4).



Sodomite as define in the Bib le refers to homosexuals, the modern day meaning on the word is not the same as the biblical use of the word sodomite, you dumb sodomite.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 19, 2008)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrV6SFWRS9c&feature=related]YouTube - More reasons why homosexuality IS WRONG[/ame]


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 19, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Strawman, when did the Bass every say that sex immorality by heterosexuals is ok b ut only homosexuality is wrong you idiot? having to chew on straws again? There is no evidence of a genetic predisposition for being a sodomite, none. There is no gay gene, nothing.



You're rather ignorant, I have noticed. 

I do believe I already posted evidence for my assertion on this matter. Please see the APA and National Geographic links, if your cognitive abilities will allow you to comprehend. 



> Sodomite as define in the Bib le refers to homosexuals, the modern day meaning on the word is not the same as the biblical use of the word sodomite, you dumb sodomite.



No, it isn't, you ignoramus. In Leviticus, the reference was to same-sex sodomy, but the definition of sodomy in the Bible is exactly the definition still in use today. 

Is Heterosexual Sodomy A Sin? | The Purple Pew


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 19, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> You're rather ignorant, I have noticed.
> 
> I do believe I already posted evidence for my assertion on this matter. Please see the APA and National Geographic links, if your cognitive abilities will allow you to comprehend.



The APA has *NO* position about so called genetic predisposition of homosexuality. They stated they don't know what causes it you moron, so you have not shown anything





> No, it isn't, you ignoramus.
> Is Heterosexual Sodomy A Sin? | The Purple Pew




No it isn't moron, please show in the bible that heterosexual sodomy exists in the Biblical sense of the word. Funny how your link come from a homo, LMAO!


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 19, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> YouTube - More reasons why homosexuality IS WRONG



An ignorant hillbilly.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 19, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> The APA has *NO* position about so called genetic predisposition of homosexuality. They stated they don't know what causes it you moron, so you have not shown anything.



The point, you moron, is that homosexuality is not a choice. The APA link, which talks about environment, coupled with the National Geographic link, which talks about an evolutionary impact, should be considered together. I mean, that's why I posted them together, you idiot. 

Trying to explain anything to you people is like having sex on a bed of nails. The excitement - when you people finally catch on - is there still, but the process is painful.



> No it isn't moron, please show in the bible that heterosexual sodomy exists in the Biblical sense of the word.



Read the page. Or, wait, can you folks read yet?


----------



## Billy Bunny (Nov 19, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> An ignorant hillbilly.



Would you fuck another man up the ass or let another man fuck you up the ass? If you wouldn't why are you going to bat for faggots?


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 19, 2008)

Billy Bunny said:


> Would you fuck another man up the ass or let another man fuck you up the ass? If you wouldn't why are you going to bat for faggots?



Because I don't agree with discrimination.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 19, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> The point, you moron, is that homosexuality is not a choice. The APA link, which talks about environment, coupled with the National Geographic link, which talks about an evolutionary impact, should be considered together. I mean, that's why I posted them together, you idiot.



Apparently you didn't read the APA link:


Answers to Your Questions For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality



What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?

*There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.* Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

Come on jackass, now what part of that do you not understand? And being gay is not the equal of being black again from your own APA[not as if the Bass needs their cosign for this anyways]:

"








Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as if it were solely a characteristic of an individual, like biological sex, gender identity, or age. *This perspective is incomplete because sexual orientation is defined in terms of relationships with others. People express their sexual orientation through behaviors with others, including such simple actions as holding hands or kissing. Thus, sexual orientation is closely tied to the intimate personal relationships that meet deeply felt needs for love, attachment, and intimacy.*


Thus quit equating being against homosexuality the same as being against blacks.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 19, 2008)

You really are a dishonest and stupid fuck, aren't you?

Go back and read exactly what I said, then read this:

Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.​
Then, idiot, read the National Geographic link. 

My point: The APA link was to show that homosexuality is not a conscious decision. And that a rather large percentage of psychologists believe nature and nurture are compelling things to be considered. Then we have the National Geographic link, thus amplifying my entire argument: Homosexuality is not a choice. Sort of like being black is not a choice....

Are you beginning to understand now? If not, read my point below. 

The hatred and discrimination is what I'm comparing to racism, you blithering idiot. As I said, if you want to profess a certain distaste for homosexuality on religious grounds, that's certainly a right you possess. However, you do not have the right to be a bigot. As you know, I'm a big fan of Mike Huckabee. He, too, is against same-sex marriage and believes homosexuality is a sin. However, he doesn't focus on homosexuality alone. When he starts speaking religion, he encompasses many, many sins and acts inconsistent with God's teachings - you do not. You are here to profess hate and intolerance. That's my problem with you. 

That and you're absurdly ignorant.


----------



## eots (Nov 19, 2008)

what do you think if next time we elect the first _openly gay Arab-American president
with a history of paling around with porn stars _..that would be kind of cool...then we could _really_ .._see some change_


----------



## Ravi (Nov 19, 2008)

No offense, eots, but how long were you a roadie?


----------



## eots (Nov 19, 2008)

..mostly I played in bar bands. and busking. but drove bus and sold merch mostly for the fun of it ,,40 dollars a day presidium ..10% of the merch ..free pizza and beer.. basically lived as a broke as musician from 1995 to 2OOO.. and did a couple of tours  of about 2 months


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 19, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> I thought that was a reference to the end times.



It is. 

Hey, did you see Newt's latest comments?  What an asshole he is.  What a uniter.  

"I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion." Gingrich also stated: "[W]hen the radicals lost the vote in California, they are determined to impose their will on this country no matter what the popular opinion, no matter what the law of the land."

Media Matters - Gingrich: "[T]here is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us"


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 19, 2008)

PS.  Republicans are fascists.  But, one of the techniques they use to take such labels off themselves is to use it when they describe their enemies.  

I believe they called the people we are fighting in Iraq fascists and now they are calling gays fascists?  That's funny.

Read this and tell me if the GOP aren't fascists.  George W Bush and the 14 points of fascism - Project for the OLD American Century


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 19, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> PS.  Republicans are fascists.  But, one of the techniques they use to take such labels off themselves is to use it when they describe their enemies.
> 
> I believe they called the people we are fighting in Iraq fascists and now they are calling gays fascists?  That's funny.
> 
> Read this and tell me if the GOP aren't fascists.  George W Bush and the 14 points of fascism - Project for the OLD American Century



The GOP, or, neocons? And I think calling them fascist is a little much. And I don't care what Mikey has to say. 

Anyway, as for what Newt said, he was actually, and unfortunately, correct.

Married to the Mob by Michelle Malkin on National Review Online


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> "I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion." Gingrich also stated: "[W]hen the radicals lost the vote in California, they are determined to impose their will on this country no matter what the popular opinion, no matter what the law of the land."


This statement is 100% true. 

The homos have a fascist gay agenda that they want the American public to bow down and accept. The demonstrations in California and other places have shown that the radical homos are NO different than the nazis. They don't care about the Constitution, democracy, or anything else. All these sick degenerates want is to turn the country into another Sodom and Gommorah. Where straights will be considered mentally defective and children of any age can be used for sex.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> This statement is 100% true.
> 
> The homos have a fascist gay agenda that they want the American public to bow down and accept. The demonstrations in California and other places have shown that the radical homos are NO different than the nazis. They don't care about the Constitution, democracy, or anything else. All these sick degenerates want is to turn the country into another Sodom and Gommorah. Where straights will be considered mentally defective and children of any age can be used for sex.



Well Sucking Moron, you've demonstrated that you'd like nothing better than to go back to slavery, so WTF?

By the way, how's that Holocaust research coming?  Did ya prove it's a hoax yet, or are you going to start to understand it was real?


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Well Sucking Moron, you've demonstrated that you'd like nothing better than to go back to slavery, so WTF?
> 
> By the way, how's that Holocaust research coming?  Did ya prove it's a hoax yet, or are you going to start to understand it was real?


Let's try to keep this thread on topic ABikerSailor.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Let's try to keep this thread on topic ABikerSailor.



Fuck off jackass.......this thread is about assholes like you discriminating against others, and, based on what you've posted, ya got a start on your own plantation and you hate Jews.

How is that off topic?


----------



## Dis (Nov 19, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Well Sucking Moron, you've demonstrated that you'd like nothing better than to go back to slavery, so WTF?
> 
> By the way, how's that Holocaust research coming?  Did ya prove it's a hoax yet, or are you going to start to understand it was real?



Hlocaust is another topic in another forum entirely.. Let's try to keep it on topic, and the insults to a minimum so the thread doesn't have to be snipped and/or moved a second or third time.

Thanks.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> This statement is 100% true.
> 
> The homos have a fascist gay agenda that they want the American public to bow down and accept. The demonstrations in California and other places have shown that the radical homos are NO different than the nazis. They don't care about the Constitution, democracy, or anything else. All these sick degenerates want is to turn the country into another Sodom and Gommorah. Where straights will be considered mentally defective and children of any age can be used for sex.



No, you don't care about the constitution.  You prove it by denying gays equal rights.  

And the GOP have a fascist agenda that they want the American public to bow down and accept.  They demonstrated that for 8 years and they showed that they are no different than the NAZI's.  

I guess Lincoln didn't care about democracy when he freed the slaves.  If he did, he would have put it to a vote.  Sometimes mob rules does not work.  Sometimes the masses are wrong.  

That sodom and gamora thing you just said is just rediculous.  What else besides sodomy were people who lived in sodom and gamora times doing that god didn't approve of?  How come you anti gay bashers always ignore the sins you do and you focus on the sins you don't do?  You probably lie, are mean, lust, etc.  Why don't you focus on your own demons?  Fucking freaks.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

Nice mature tantrum you just threw Sealybobo!!


----------



## Shogun (Nov 19, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Let Mr Bass make another thing clear to you jackass, Mr bass has the balls and courage to stand up anywhere, anytime and say he does not agree with gay marriage based on his religious principles, in front of anybody. You "Mr I'm not racist" do not have the balls and or courage to stand up in front of a group of black people call them ******* if they do not accept gay marriage because you know would get a beat down and you act of trying to use racism as a means of countering those of us blacks who don't accept gay marriage would not hold up.



sure you do, porch monkey.  suuuuuuuuuure you do.  It seems you are under the false ideal that you could never get your ass beat into the ground by a group of gay men for being just as hateful as I'm letting you percieve my posts.  I assure you, monkey knuckle, you are about as threatening as a cream puff dollop on the top of a vanilla shake.  Before you go start acting all bad ass you might want to remember that your kind has been dominated by my kind far longer than your brand new self esteem has years on it.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 19, 2008)

The opposition can do nothing except hurl insults because they have no counter argument, none.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 19, 2008)

indeed, because you are known for your insult-less rants about gays, eh oil slick?  Like I said, you might want to reconsider your "everyone is afraid of gathered blacks" opinion given whose people have been dominated by whom for longer than you've enjoyed freedom, you fucking John Deer Tractor 1.0.  If you can't take the hateful nomenclature then perhaps you should put down the crack pipe and reconsider your outlook on America's gay population.  If not, hey.. it's no skin off my back, Toby.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

The bottom line is that homosexuals are sick, nasty, perverts, who randomly spread their vile infections and molest children.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> The bottom line is that homosexuals are sick, nasty, perverts, who randomly spread their vile infections and molest children.



that seems to be your stupid opinion, at least.  Which means a lot around here, lemme tellya.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> The bottom line is that homosexuals are sick, nasty, perverts, who randomly spread their vile infections and molest children.



Listen Sucking Moron......those traits are NOT limited to just homosexuals, it happens with heteros too, or are you that blind?

Nice job tattling by the way, although I think the neg rep that went with it was a bit much you coward.

Oh yeah.....by the way......in the country of your beloved religion (Islam), you DO know what they say right?  "Women are for having children and boys are for pleasure".  How do I know this?  I was deployed over there several times, and that is what I was told by some of the natives.  Additionally, since you like to espouse Christian values, why are you now an Islamist?  AND.......if you're going to spew that kind of crap, then, don't you think that as a good Muslim you should quote the Q'aran?

Or, are you as much of a poser as you are a coward?

(See mods?  I didn't cuss).


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

You are off topic again as usual ABikerSailor


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> You are off topic again as usual ABikerSailor



Hey idiot, how is that off topic?  YOU were the one that said homosexuals were molesting children and spreading disease, I was just responding to you.

Figures.....when you have no response, you either run to a mod to bitch about who just smacked you or tell people that they need to get back on topic.

Tell me Sucking Moron, because you are (supposedly) a doctor, and even though you're a shrink, you should easily be able to come up with some figures that show homosexuals molest more children than heteros (they don't), as well as the fact that they spread more disease than heteros (again....they don't).

Matter of fact, when AIDS first showed up, yeah.....the gay community noticed it spreading through their population.  However, when they figured it out, the gay community helped to spread the word as to how to protect yourself.

Yeah.....tell me again how bad gays are.

And if you could, please use a legitimate source.


----------



## José (Nov 19, 2008)

> Originally posted by *Sunni Man*
> The bottom line is that homosexuals are sick, nasty, perverts, who randomly spread their vile infections and molest children.



AAAhhh... come on, Sunni, you can do better than that.

Take a lesson from Mr. Garrison:

*Mr. Garrison: Gay people, well, gay people are EVIL, evil right down to their cold black hearts which pump not blood like yours or mine, but rather a thick, vomitous oil that oozes through their rotten veins and clots in their pea-sized brains which becomes the cause of their Nazi-esque patterns of violent behavior. Do you understand? *

South Park, Big Gay Al's Big Gay Boat Ride


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

WOW!!! Mr. Garrison is my HERO!!!!!!!


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

I still like these people, They know the truth about the homo menace!

Westboro Baptist Church Home Page


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> I still like these people, They know the truth about the homo menace!
> 
> Westboro Baptist Church Home Page



Oh, you mean the closet homosexual who started a church?

I've heard of him.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> WOW!!! Mr. Garrison is my HERO!!!!!!!




LOL!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> I still like these people, They know the truth about the homo menace!
> 
> Westboro Baptist Church Home Page



Hey, Sucking Moron.....still waiting for your "proof".

BTW.....Westboro Baptist Church and Fred Phelps DON'T qualify.

And you say you're not bigoted......


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> And you say you're not bigoted......


No, I said I am NOT "racist"

But yes, I am highly bigoted against nasty Sodomites and their sick lifestyle.


----------



## Valerie (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> No, I said I am NOT "racist"
> 
> But yes, I am highly bigoted against nasty Sodomites and their sick lifestyle.



  You're like a broken record!


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

Valerie said:


> You're like a broken record!


Can't help it. They keep making the same falsy accusations against me!


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> The bottom line is that homosexuals are sick, nasty, perverts, who randomly spread their vile infections and molest children.



You are probably a horrible person in every aspect of your life.

That and you probably don't know any gay people.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> No, I said I am NOT "racist"
> 
> But yes, I am highly bigoted against nasty Sodomites and their sick lifestyle.



Slightly off topic Sucking Moron, but, you JUST SAID that you are not racist.

Okey dokey......tell us all again how the Holocaust is a hoax.

Back to the subject at hand?  Listen moron, God told us to love one another.

He didn't specify gender.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> You are probably a horrible person in every aspect of your life.
> 
> That and you probably don't know any gay people.


I also don't know any rapists, child molesters, or murderers!!


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> I also don't know any rapists, child molesters, or murderers!!



You are a racist.  No question about it.  It's just not socially acceptable so you hide it.  This is the last place you can say such horrible vile ignorant things.

Anyone this mad about gays secretly wants to suck dick.  Later Mr. Foley or Mr. Craig or whatever your real name is.  

PS.  Not only do you know a murderer, you voted for one.  GW.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> I also don't know any rapists, child molesters, or murderers!!



You don't know any rapists?  Well......you've been telling us what a hot shit psych doc you are, which makes you a therapist.

You ARE The Rapist.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Slightly off topic Sucking Moron, but, you JUST SAID that you are not racist.
> 
> Okey dokey......tell us all again how the Holocaust is a hoax.
> 
> ...


For the 900th time. The Jews are part of a religion, Not a race.

I personally don't love rapists, murderers, or child molesters either.

God calls sodomites an abomination in the Bible and says they should be put to death. (Sounds like he isn't too fond of them).

I agree with God!!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> For the 900th time. The Jews are part of a religion, Not a race.
> 
> I personally don't love rapists, murderers, or child molesters either.
> 
> ...



No, you agree with your twisted, sad, narrow conception of your perception of God.

And yes.....the Jews ARE a race.  Why do you think they called it "genocide" during WWII?  Genocide only applies to wiping out a race dumbass.

BTW....where did you get your degree to become The Rapist, a crackerjack box?


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> PS.  Not only do you know a murderer, you voted for one.  GW.



I can't stand GW. and yes he is awful.

I voted for Obama this election


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> And yes.....the Jews ARE a race.  Why do you think they called it "genocide" during WWII?


Who is they??

The same people who invented the Holohoax????


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Who is they??
> 
> The same people who invented the Holohoax????



You seriously believe the holocaust is a myth? Do you have any facts to support that belief?


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 19, 2008)

Shogun said:


> indeed, because you are known for your insult-less rants about gays, eh oil slick?  Like I said, you might want to reconsider your "everyone is afraid of gathered blacks" opinion given whose people have been dominated by whom for longer than you've enjoyed freedom, you fucking John Deer Tractor 1.0.  If you can't take the hateful nomenclature then perhaps you should put down the crack pipe and reconsider your outlook on America's gay population.  If not, hey.. it's no skin off my back, Toby.



Bottom line jackass, your insults don't constitute a counter argument and or an opposing opinion, it just demonstrates how weak, pathetic, sissified and homofied you are.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> No, you agree with your twisted, sad, narrow conception of your perception of God.


This is in the Bible and is said to be the word of God:

KJV: (King James Version)  Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." 

Do you deny this is in the Bible ABikerSailor?


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> You seriously believe the holocaust is a myth? Do you have any facts to support that belief?


There is a whole thread about the fraud known as the so called Holocaust


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> This is in the Bible and is said to be the word of God:
> 
> KJV: (King James Version)  Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."
> 
> Do you deny this is in the Bible ABikerSailor?



Jesus fulfilled the law. No more killing.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> Jesus fulfilled the law. No more killing.


According to your version of Christian theology not mine.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> This is in the Bible and is said to be the word of God:
> 
> KJV: (King James Version)  Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."
> 
> Do you deny this is in the Bible ABikerSailor?



Like I said, WTF is a muslim doing quoting a Christian book?

Or.....are you a poser Islamist as well?

And....since you claim to be a Muslim, then please explain why you are using a book from the OT that is a manual for JEWISH PRIESTS?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 19, 2008)

By the way....for your edification Sucking Moron The Rapist, lemmie clue ya in to the book you're quoting......



> Leviticus (from Greek &#923;&#949;&#965;&#953;&#964;&#953;&#954;&#972;&#962;, "relating to the Levites"). In Judaism it is third book of the Torah which are the five books of Moses, its transliteration is 'Vayikra'. In the Christian bible it is also the third book of what is referred to as the Old Testament.
> 
> The Book of Leviticus is often described as a set of legal rules, and priestly rituals, but it actually forms the central core of a larger narrative - the Torah or Pentateuch. More accurately, therefore, Leviticus is about the outworking of God's covenant with Israel, set out in Genesis and Exodus - what is seen in the Torah as the consequences of entering into a special relationship with God. These consequences are spelt out in terms of community relationships and behaviour.
> 
> ...



And since you probably don't know what a Levite is.......



> In the Jewish tradition, a Levite (Hebrew: &#1500;&#1461;&#1493;&#1460;&#1497;, Standard Levi Tiberian L&#275;wî ; "Attached") is a member of the Hebrew tribe of Levi. When Joshua led the Israelites into the land of Canaan, the Levites were the only Israelite tribe who received cities but no tribal land "because the Lord the God of Israel himself is their possession".[1] The Tribe of Levi served particular religious duties for the Israelites and had political responsibilities as well. In return, the landed tribes were expected to give tithe to the Levites, particularly the tithe known as the Maaser Rishon or Levite Tithe.



So......let me ask you again......what is a Muslim doing trying to quote a book that was written as a manual for the priestly class of Israel?  If your fellow Muslims saw what you were doing, they would either stone or behead you.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

All Muslims believe in the Torah and the Gospels. 

We are taught to reverence these books as previous revelations leading to the Quran.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 19, 2008)

And no Sucking Moron The Rapist Idiot.....your religion does NOT revere the Torah or the Bible.  They say it's corrupt.

Or do you not even know your own religion?


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 19, 2008)

Still more insults and trolling from the goof troop opposition.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> And no Sucking Moron The Rapist Idiot.....your religion does NOT revere the Torah or the Bible.  They say it's corrupt.


To be specific, Muslims believe in both the Torah and the Gospels. 

But any parts of the Torah or Gospels that conflict with the Quran are to be disreguarded.

Because over the centuries many verses of the Torah and Gospels were changed or tampered with for political reasons. Rendering them to be scripturally corrupt and false.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 19, 2008)

Shows how much you know about the Torah, The Rapist.

The written Torah is the same as it was 3,500 years ago.

It's your religion that is bullshit.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Shows how much you know about the Torah The Rapist.


The Torah is a Rapist????


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 19, 2008)

By the way Sucking Moron The Rapist, 

Have you ever listened to a lecture by an Orthodox Rabbi about the Torah?  I do regularly.  Ever been at a lecture given by a genuine Torah Scholar?  I have, and do frequently.

Obviously you know as much about that as you do about the Holocaust.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Have you ever listened to a lecture by an Orthodox Rabbi about the Torah?  I do regularly.  Ever been at a lecture given by a genuine Torah Scholar?  I have, and do frequently.


Yes, I have been to the Synagogue many times and have participated in the High Holy Days and Passover services.

btw How can you know so much about your religion and yet call people names and act the rabid way you do??


----------



## glockmail (Nov 19, 2008)

> Homosexual activists in California have roughed up an elderly woman who believes in traditional marriage.
> 
> During protests over the past several days, homosexuals angry about the passage of Proposition 8, which reserves marriage licenses for a man and a woman, have hurled the N-word against black persons walking by, marched through police blockades, pounded on doors of businesses, and protested outside churches.
> 
> ...


EURweb.com - GAY ACTIVISTS ROUGH UP ELDERLY WOMAN, USE N-WORD: Incident happened at recent protest of Prop 8 passage.


----------



## seth1492 (Nov 19, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> Two consenting adults engaging in homosexual acts does not harm anyone - period.



Bullcrap.  You are not just complaining about homosexuality you are talking about marriage here.  That is the problem.  Homosexuality is not discriminated, but defining it as marriage is a different thing.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

The true violent and fascist nature of these radical homos is finally being seen up close by the public!!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Yes, I have been to the Synagogue many times and have participated in the High Holy Days and Passover services.
> 
> btw How can you know so much about your religion and yet call people names and act the rabid way you do??



How can you claim to be such a devout man (who supposedly believes in what the Torah has also), yet claim the Holocaust didn't exist.

Tell ya what there brain surgeon, next time you go to Temple, tell your Jewish friends that the Holocaust was a hoax.

I give 'em 5 min before they beat you to death.

Sucking Moron, The Rapist Extraordinaire, you're so full of shit you could supply a fertilizer factory.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> The true violent and fascist nature of these radical homos is finally being seen up close by the public!!



Now you're starting to sound like your fellow radical Muslim brothers.

Made your bomb vest yet?


----------



## Shogun (Nov 19, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Still more insults and trolling from the goof troop opposition.



you sure are one to talk, eh monkey lips?


----------



## Ravi (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> I also don't know any rapists, child molesters, or murderers!!


Do you work for one of those groups that "cures" gays? You've said several times you work in the mental health field in Boston.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> How can you claim to be such a devout man (who supposedly believes in what the Torah has also), yet claim the Holocaust didn't exist.
> 
> Tell ya what there brain surgeon, next time you go to Temple, tell your Jewish friends that the Holocaust was a hoax.


Some of the most out spoken denyers of the Holohoax are Jews.

I had no idea that one of the signs of a devout man is belief in the so called Holocaust?


----------



## glockmail (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> The true violent and fascist nature of these radical homos is finally being seen up close by the public!!


"This screaming and shouting, name-calling and pushing by homosexual activists is not unlike a small child throwing a fit because he doesn't get his way," said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, a leading California-based pro-family organization that supports marriage for one man and one woman. "The public is getting a clue that homosexual activists don't like democracy and are willing to trample anyone and anything that gets in their way."


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Do you work for one of those groups that "cures" gays?


No, as far as I know there aren't any in this area except the Christian group Exodus. In this is a part of the country they Love homos

Exodus International - Home


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Some of the most out spoken denyers of the Holohoax are Jews.
> 
> I had no idea that one of the signs of a devout man is belief in the so called Holocaust?



Some of the most outspoken *DENIERS* of the Holocaust are Jews?

Yeah.....find one that has a family member who went through it or went through it themselves.  You'll be lucky if they don't shoot you.  And by the way, it's not so much the Jews as it is the offshoot called the Zionists.

Not as smart as you thought you were eh The Rapist Sucking Moron?

And....the sign of a devout man is that they always look for, and speak, the truth.

You on the other hand don't.

Wish I had the address of your practice.  I'd like to turn you in for being a bigot and a racist.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> And....the sign of a devout man is that they always look for, and speak, the truth.


Thank You ABikerSailor!!

That is something I strive very hard to do!!!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Thank You ABikerSailor!!
> 
> That is something I strive very hard to do!!!



You haven't told the truth YET on these boards 

Let me know when you do.........


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> You haven't told the truth YET on these boards
> 
> Let me know when you do.........


 ABikerSailor is a heterosexual.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor is a heterosexual.



1 out of 10,000........keep trying you may break even.

Now say it with me, gays are not bad, and the Holocaust occurred.

C'mon The Rapist, you can do it.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 19, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> By the way Sucking Moron The Rapist,
> 
> Have you ever listened to a lecture by an Orthodox Rabbi about the Torah?  I do regularly.  Ever been at a lecture given by a genuine Torah Scholar?  I have, and do frequently.
> 
> Obviously you know as much about that as you do about the Holocaust.



Why dos the opposition insist on trolling with insults?


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Now say it with me, gays are not bad, and the Holocaust occurred.


Sorry, but I can not tell a lie


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> The true violent and fascist nature of these radical homos is finally being seen up close by the public!!



Sort of like how you guys lied about being pro life and it turns out you are murderers who don't value life at all.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Why dos the opposition insist on trolling with insults?


That's all he knows how to do. God forbid he would debate the issues!!


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Sort of like how you guys lied about being pro life and it turns out you are murderers who don't value life at all.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 19, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> 1 out of 10,000........keep trying you may break even.
> 
> Now say it with me, gays are not bad, and the Holocaust occurred.
> 
> C'mon The Rapist, you can do it.



homosexuality is bad and those who support gay sex acts are bad, no you say it with the Bass.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Sorry, but I can not tell a lie



You did earlier dipstick........remember when you said that Fred Phelps and his Westboro church had good information on gays?

That was a lie.

Sucking Moron The Rapist, please don't try to pawn yourself off as George Washington either.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> You did earlier dipstick........remember when you said that Fred Phelps and his Westboro church had good information on gays?
> 
> That was a lie.


Not a lie, just a difference of opinion. I think they tell the truth about sodomites.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 19, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Why dos the opposition insist on trolling with insults?



Thats a pretty ironic statement given your input on homosexuality.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> That's all he knows how to do. God forbid he would debate the issues!!



you sure are one to talk!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Not a lie, just a difference of opinion. I think they tell the truth about sodomites.



Either you're (a) in denial, (b) uninformed or (c) too stupid to be allowed to breathe.  My money is on "c".

Ever eaten pussy?  Ever gotten a blowjob?  If so, you're a sodomite also idiot.

At least, according to YOUR false religion.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Ever eaten pussy?  Ever gotten a blowjob?  If so, you're a sodomite also idiot.
> 
> At least, according to YOUR false religion.


That's news to me? 

But I am open to learning new information.

Please provide evidence of this from Islamic scriptures.

Thank You


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> That's news to me?
> 
> But I am open to learning new information.
> 
> ...



Cant have it both ways , you've been arguing it from a Christian standpoint with Bible verses.  What?  You expect me to know YOUR religion also?  Nope.....know enough about it to know it is a full-fledged lie.  Besides, I kinda doubt YOU could find 'em either, seeing as you don't know shit about Christianity either.

Nope....you started arguing it from a Christian standpoint, and according to Christians, sodomy is defined as anything other than vaginal sex, missionary style.  If _your_ wife is on top?  Well...according to Christianity, that's sodomy also.

Try again.

_Keep the insults confined to Sunni Man, rather than spreading them around to his family._


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 19, 2008)

Shogun said:


> i'll keep that in mind the next time you make a contentious argument here in the forums.  I'm betting you do not have the consensus of your ovarian sisterhood.



You know who needs a consensus?  People who are too chickenshit to stand for their beliefs on their own.

And feel free to try anything you think will work while arguing with me.  Just remember that while women have PMS one week per month, men have testosterone poisoning 365 days a year.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 19, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> You know who needs a consensus?  People who are too chickenshit to stand for their beliefs on their own.
> 
> And feel free to try anything you think will work while arguing with me.  Just remember that while women have PMS one week per month, men have testosterone poisoning 365 days a year.



your personal beliefs mean two things: jack and shit.  Any questions?


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 19, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Thats a pretty ironic statement given your input on homosexuality.




You can't even make a conherent, valid counter argument you imbecile, you're a troll yourself.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 19, 2008)

Shogun said:


> your personal beliefs mean two things: jack and shit.  Any questions?




Thats the same way the Bass feels about your trolling, insult filled posts, why you persist in making the same lame so-called counter argument[you hhaven't made on really] shows just how retarded you are. Even gays don't racially insult blacks who disagree with their lifestyle you know why? It totally invalidates whatever argument they're trying to make, since you're mentally retarded anyways its no surprise you don't see the fallaciousness in your own arguments.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 19, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Unfortunately, your generation is the one that fucked the world up.



"My generation"?  And which generation is that, Junior?  And if you're thinking the rivers ran with milk and honey until my alleged generation came along, that just goes to show how really ignorant and uneducated today's youth are.



sealybobo said:


> Every other generation's goal is that the next generation does better than they do.



And they inevitably grow up and realize that an excess of arrogance and a lack of experience do not equate to a superiority of morality.  In other words, you're no smarter, better, or more enlightened than any of the generations ahead of you, and probably less so than several of them, and you're going to do the exact same things everyone else did, and have to listen to the same uninformed bullshit from YOUR kids.



sealybobo said:


> Unfortunately, that won't be possible for the generation that follows you because you sold America to foreigners and put us so far into debt, we had to take a giant step backward under your Bushanomics policies.  In 8 years you destroyed what makes America great.  Congrats.



Well, at least your generation has quickly mastered the "Make up excuses for our failure so that we don't have to do anything but bitch from the get-go" technique.  Leftists didn't teach you twerp kids any history, but they sure taught you how to be wastes of space.



sealybobo said:


> Sort of like you are the new Nixon's, only we got rid of Nixon.  They fucked up the world with Viet Nam and it took Kennedy to fix the mess you got us in back then too.



Who is this "we" who got rid of Nixon?  Unless I'm mistaken, you weren't around then, and if you were, I doubt you were a Republican.  Those who learned history - aka those who didn't attend liberal public schools - know that it was the Republican Party that made Nixon resign.

Kennedy fixed WHAT mess?  He wasn't President long enough to do anything.  And by the way, dumbass, I believe Vietnam ended the same year I was born, so it sounds monumentally stupid for you to talk about "my generation" and then clearly reveal that you have no frigging clue how old I even am.  Why don't you blame me for slavery and the Great Depression, while you're at it?



sealybobo said:


> Think about how you or your parents thought Elvis girating was too much.  See how out of the loop you turned out to be?  You can't stop the youth from changing.  They'll never want to be like you.  And typically, they want to be better than you.  They rarely want to take a step backward.



Ah, yes.  Those people were so wrong about the immorality of popular music.  It CERTAINLY wasn't any slippery slope leading to singers parading around in bondage gear on-stage, or satanic lyrics, or rap music glorifying the objectification of women and the killing of police officers . . . Whatever could they have been thinking?

Why would I want to stop you from changing?  Like all adults, I'm PRAYING for you to do it quickly, so I don't have to keep listening to your hot air.  I just thank God I'm not your parents, so I don't have to pay your bills while you pontificate on your wonderfulness.



sealybobo said:


> That's why the moral minority makes me sick.  No one wants America to be liek they want America to be.  Sure some people want to teach intelligent design in school, but most want to teach evolution.  Sure some want to only teach abstenance only, but then that doesn't work.  Sure some of you want to ban video games and kick howard stern off the air, but then most of us want the choice and freedom to watch what we want and play what we want.  Sure some of you are anti pot and anti gambling, but all that stuff is changing.



You flatter yourself to think that the childish nonsense that so obsesses your little high school brain matters a hill of beans to the grown-up world.  My biggest problem with video games is how many of your generation seems to think it's an adequate substitute for getting a job and moving out of Mommy's basement.



sealybobo said:


> We are becoming more and more liberal with each generation.  Sure we took a couple steps back under Bush, but that was not how the majority of Americans feel and not what we want.



LOL  Pull your head out of your navel-gazing, little one.  ALL children like you are liberal . . . until they become adults.  Just because you're the future of America doesn't mean you're America NOW.

Only an arrogant, self-absorbed child could look at a nation of 300,000,000 people and think that he represents all of them.



sealybobo said:


> Conservatives want to stay the same.  It is natural for the youth to be progressive and liberal.  And it scares you.



It doesn't scare me for children to be inexperienced, moronic twerps.  That's what they're designed for.  What scares me is how many of you think childhood is a life choice.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 19, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Because they know right from wrong.
> 
> Do you lick your wife from her ass to her poontang?  Because I know some christians who think you and I are perverts for doing that?  Especially at the same time.
> 
> Why do we give tax breaks to married couples that don't have kids?  If you won't give gay couples the tax breaks because they don't have kids, then take away the breaks to liza minelli and her queer husband.



All right, little boy.  Run along now, because the grown-ups are talking, and you should really save your "Look how foul-mouthed and offensive I can be!  Boy, am I impressive!" rebellion rant for your family's Thanksgiving dinner.  I'm not your momma, and I see no reason to put up with the faulty job she did in teaching you manners.

Dismissed.


----------



## sky dancer (Nov 19, 2008)

Angry.  So angry.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 19, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Thats the same way the Bass feels about your trolling, insult filled posts, why you persist in making the same lame so-called counter argument[you hhaven't made on really] shows just how retarded you are. Even gays don't racially insult blacks who disagree with their lifestyle you know why? It totally invalidates whatever argument they're trying to make, since you're mentally retarded anyways its no surprise you don't see the fallaciousness in your own arguments.



I guess it's fortunate for me that even less people give a fuck about your opinion of my posts than they do about your entire forum input since your first day here, eh?




NOW you speak for GAYS, eh?    Indeed, darkjuice, tell me more about how throwing insults around invalidates an argument with another insult steeped post!







BRILLIANT!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 19, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Did you know that there is NO MENTION AT ALL in the Bible against lesbianism?  The only thing that the Bible really specifies is no sodomy, which means anal sex.
> 
> The heteros having anal are much more wrong than the lesbians who are doing 69.



Sorry, but you're wrong on both counts.  That cute little attempt at hairsplitting only works on people who don't know what words mean.  Lesbians are, by definition, homosexuals.  Go look it up.  And the Bible specifically mentions homosexuality, not just sodomy and not just male homosexuality.  It even specifically mentions women in regards to "unnatural sexual acts".

So don't even try it on with me.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 19, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Slightly off topic Sucking Moron, but, you JUST SAID that you are not racist.
> 
> Okey dokey......tell us all again how the Holocaust is a hoax.
> 
> ...



I realize you're a man, but you ARE aware, I hope, that "love one another" is not a euphemism for having sex, right?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 19, 2008)

Shogun said:


> your personal beliefs mean two things: jack and shit.  Any questions?



Yes.  Who do you think you're impressing?

"I'm sitting here talking to you and attacking what you say . . . because your opinions don't mean anything!"

I would say that I'm very sorry that I made you feel so defensive over your cowardice and need for affirmation, but I'm really not.

Run along.  Life is too short to waste talking to the testicularly-challenged.  Dismissed.


----------



## sky dancer (Nov 19, 2008)

Why can't this topic be discussed without all the anger?


----------



## glockmail (Nov 19, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Why can't this topic be discussed without all the anger?


Because we have three immature liberals here: bikesailer, shogun, and bobo.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 19, 2008)

Shogun said:


> I guess it's fortunate for me that even less people give a fuck about your opinion of my posts than they do about your entire forum input since your first day here, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, you speak for gays, Mr Bass just exploded your dumb argument, gays make different ways of arguing, do things the obvious screwed up way.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 19, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Yes.  Who do you think you're impressing?
> 
> "I'm sitting here talking to you and attacking what you say . . . because your opinions don't mean anything!"
> 
> ...



por que?  Weren't you the one who decided to butt in and speak for all the women in America regarding the use of menstruation as an excuse to act like a bitch?  First, I wasn't talking to you to begin with.  Second, your input was beyond stupid insomuch that you do not, in fact, speak for women in general.  Third, you didn't make anyone feel anything by piping in with the veracity of a toothless dentist.  You might want to remember, YOU are jumping into a conversation that IM having, not the other way around.


Indeed, one certainly can see how short (I'm pretty sure you meant Sad) your life is each time you take the time to go through the entire fucking thread and reply to posts that had your labia minora tied in a slipknot.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 19, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Because we have three immature liberals here: bikesailer, shogun, and bobo.



way to pop in from the peanut gallery, pussy.  



impressive!


----------



## Shogun (Nov 19, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> No, you speak for gays, Mr Bass just exploded your dumb argument, gays make different ways of arguing, do things the obvious screwed up way.



the only ting you exploded is your felony criminal background, dude.  Indeed, we've already seen a few gays let you know how stupid your kuntakinte act is, Toby.   Hey, maybe if we are lucky you can post another laughable ironic request regarding shit talking while taking the effort to talk shit!


----------



## glockmail (Nov 19, 2008)

Shogun said:


> way to pop in from the peanut gallery, pussy.
> 
> 
> 
> impressive!


 Still waiting for you to attempt to pin me, skinny boy.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/897077-post18.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/897195-post26.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/897214-post28.html


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 19, 2008)

Shogun said:


> the only ting you exploded is your felony criminal background, dude.  Indeed, we've already seen a few gays let you know how stupid your kuntakinte act is, Toby.   Hey, maybe if we are lucky you can post another laughable ironic request regarding shit talking while taking the effort to talk shit!




Criminal background?  

Delusion : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary ; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs

delusion implies an inability to distinguish between what is real and what only seems to be real, often as the result of a disordered state of mind


----------



## Shogun (Nov 19, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Still waiting for you to attempt to pin me, skinny boy.
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/897077-post18.html
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/897195-post26.html
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/897214-post28.html




I bet you would make contact with a younger male a large part of your half-lucid geriatric daydream, dude.  I guess youll just have to find yourself some other white ****** to rub up against instead of focusing all your withering energy on an impossible achievement like me, yo.

yo yo yo, homDAWG.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 19, 2008)

glockmail said:


> *Still waiting for you to attempt to pin me, skinny boy*.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 19, 2008)

Shogun said:


> I bet you would make contact with a younger male a large part of your half-lucid geriatric daydream, dude.  I guess *youll just have to find yourself some other white ****** *to rub up against instead of focusing all your withering energy on an impossible achievement like me, yo.
> 
> yo yo yo, homDAWG.


 I knew you'd woos out.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 19, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Criminal background?
> 
> Delusion : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary ; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs
> 
> delusion implies an inability to distinguish between what is real and what only seems to be real, often as the result of a disordered state of mind



ONE MORE DEPOSIT IN CHARLES's IRONY ACCOUNT!


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 19, 2008)

Shogun said:


> I bet you would make contact with a younger male a large part of your half-lucid geriatric daydream, dude.  I guess youll just have to find yourself some other white ****** to rub up against instead of focusing all your withering energy on an impossible achievement like me, yo.
> 
> yo yo yo, homDAWG.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 19, 2008)

Shogun said:


> ONE MORE DEPOSIT IN CHARLES's IRONY ACCOUNT!





Delusion : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary ; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs

delusion implies an inability to distinguish between what is real and what only seems to be real, often as the result of a disordered state of mind


----------



## Shogun (Nov 19, 2008)

glockmail said:


> I knew you'd woos out.



what are you trying to set up a date or something you fucking wierdo?  I don't know what you thought would happen but im just the kind of guy to meet strange gay old men for some thigh wrestling just because you want a last tango before keeling over.  Jeez.. you sound like the very reason Chris Hanson might wanna start staking out nursing homes and busting guys who bring geritol to the party instead of mikes hard lemonade.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 19, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


>



NICE!  now we have our local malcom x wannabe using terms for WHITE ******!




hey, maybe you should cry about white people using the word ****** now!  Show us what kind of an ironic superstar you can be.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 19, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Delusion : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary ; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs
> 
> delusion implies an inability to distinguish between what is real and what only seems to be real, often as the result of a disordered state of mind



wow.  that was a pretty stupid retort the first 300 times you used it.. despite your own third person posts no less!


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 19, 2008)

Shogun said:


> wow.  that was a pretty stupid retort the first 300 times you used it.. despite your own third person posts no less!




Delusion : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary ; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs

delusion implies an inability to distinguish between what is real and what only seems to be real, often as the result of a disordered state of mind


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 19, 2008)

Shogun said:


> NICE!  now we have our local malcom x wannabe using terms for WHITE ******!
> 
> 
> 
> ...





des·per·a·tion: a state of hopelessness leading to rashness


----------



## Shogun (Nov 19, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Delusion : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary ; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs
> 
> delusion implies an inability to distinguish between what is real and what only seems to be real, often as the result of a disordered state of mind



If thats all you got I suggest youget back to the field, slave.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 19, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> des·per·a·tion: a state of hopelessness leading to rashness



Well, at least we know the Mississippi State Penitentiary has a dictionary!


----------



## sky dancer (Nov 19, 2008)

Why don't you two go back to the sandbox and battle it out?


----------



## glockmail (Nov 19, 2008)

Shogun said:


> what are you trying to set up a date or something you fucking wierdo?  I don't know what you thought would happen but im just the kind of guy to meet strange gay old men for some thigh wrestling just because you want a last tango before keeling over.  Jeez.. you sound like the very reason Chris Hanson might wanna start staking out nursing homes and busting guys who bring geritol to the party instead of mikes hard lemonade.


You made a challenge which involved wrestling which I accepted then you woosed out. Now you're having homosexual fantasies.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Why don't you two go back to the sandbox and battle it out?


They have basically ruined the thread


----------



## glockmail (Nov 19, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Why don't you two go back to the sandbox and battle it out?


Nice flower.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 19, 2008)

84 Year-Old Multiple War Veteran Smacks Down Teen Who Attempts To Rob Him By Sister Toldjah - Right Wing News (Conservative News and Views)


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 19, 2008)

Shogun said:


> If thats all you got I suggest youget back to the field, slave.





frustration:the feeling that accompanies an experience of being thwarted in attaining your goals; a feeling of annoyance at being hindered or criticized; "her constant complaints were the main source of his frustration"


----------



## Shogun (Nov 19, 2008)

glockmail said:


> You made a challenge which involved wrestling which I accepted then you woosed out. Now you're having homosexual fantasies.



how the hell do you suggest wrestling over the internet, jello-for-brains?  sheesh.  I bet horseless carriages and those new fangled electric lights have you similarly confused...


----------



## Shogun (Nov 19, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> frustration:the feeling that accompanies an experience of being thwarted in attaining your goals; a feeling of annoyance at being hindered or criticized; "her constant complaints were the main source of his frustration"



im sure Frustration is exactly what you feel each time you see a white dude hugging up on all those white women you wish would give you the time of day instead of all those ghetto hooker baby mamma's you've collected.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> They have basically ruined the thread



Riiiight.......like you've been helping?

Way to pimp the mods there Sucking Moron The Rapist.  I knew you were a pussy boy with no spine.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 19, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> frustration:the feeling that accompanies an experience of being thwarted in attaining your goals; a feeling of annoyance at being hindered or criticized; "her constant complaints were the main source of his frustration"



Hey Ass Chucker......what'cha doing?  Showing us all the word a day calendar that you received for your prison care package?


----------



## sky dancer (Nov 19, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Nice flower.




I like it.


----------



## sky dancer (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> They have basically ruined the thread




They make you look like Casper Milquetoast.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 19, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> They make you look like Casper Milquetoast.



Nope.....Sucking Moron The Rapist (he's a therapist, which is why I call him that), isn't a Milquetoast.  He's much more cowardly than that because he's actually a Quisling.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> They make you look like Casper Milquetoast.


Yea. I'm a mild moderate compared to those guys!!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Yea. I'm a mild moderate compared to those guys!!



No....you're a Quisling.

Look it up if you don't understand......


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> I like it.


What kind of flower is it?


----------



## sky dancer (Nov 19, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> No....you're a Quisling.
> 
> Look it up if you don't understand......



I looked up the term and it means 'betrayer' or traitor.  I don't think it fits.


----------



## sky dancer (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> What kind of flower is it?


A pretty one?

LOL.  I don't know.  I just saw it and liked it.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> A pretty one?
> 
> LOL.  I don't know.  I just saw it and liked it.


It looks like a...........oh never mind.....


----------



## sky dancer (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> It looks like a...........oh never mind.....



Like I said, I saw it and liked it.  Flowers like these more than likely inspired the works of the artist, Judy Chicago.

Do you think it would be banned as a avatar at PF?


----------



## glockmail (Nov 19, 2008)

Shogun said:


> how the hell do you suggest wrestling over the internet, jello-for-brains?  sheesh.  I bet horseless carriages and those new fangled electric lights have you similarly confused...


 To reiterate:
"Here we do it in the river. Cold water, about 2' deep at Shallowford on the Yadkin. Its got a bedrock bottom and fast current. Got the name as a natural place to cross with horses and wagons. Tire the boy out and get his head under; he's got to try and breathe. Once he fills we toss him up on the bank head down and let him drain. No one will do that mouth to mouth shit here, but someone might squeeze him a bit, so its mostly up to him if he wakes up or not. If he does we let him go home. If not we dig take him up to the high spot, dig a deep hole with a backhoe, up to 20' so the dogs can't smell him, and then be done with him."


----------



## glockmail (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> It looks like a...........oh never mind.....


 Like what?


----------



## xsited1 (Nov 19, 2008)

Most gays and blacks vote Democratic.  This is pretty funny.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 19, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> I looked up the term and it means 'betrayer' or traitor.  I don't think it fits.



It also means snitch.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Do you think it would be banned as a avatar at PF?


The Mod nazis at Political Forum ban according to who the poster is who puts it up. Not the content of the avatar.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> They have basically ruined the thread



Not for me.  I did what I always do with foulmouthed children who are acting out:  I ignored them.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 19, 2008)

xsited1 said:


> Most gays and blacks vote Democratic.  This is pretty funny.



What is, exactly?


----------



## Ravi (Nov 19, 2008)

xsited1 said:


> Most gays and blacks vote Democratic.  This is pretty funny.


I agree, it is funny. At the same time I've lost a lot of respect for black people.


----------



## GigiBowman (Nov 19, 2008)

Charlie Bass, you are a good lookin' woman lol


----------



## sky dancer (Nov 19, 2008)

Ravi said:


> I agree, it is funny. At the same time I've lost a lot of respect for black people.



Why have you lost respect for black people?


----------



## sky dancer (Nov 19, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> It also means snitch.



Well, I don't think that one fits either.  Not that I agree with Sunni Man's views.  He was considered a badazz at another forum, but here he looks tame.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 19, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Why have you lost respect for black people?


Because the majority of them have voted for something that is, IMO, a civil right and has no business being voted on.


----------



## sky dancer (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> The Mod nazis at Political Forum ban according to who the poster is who puts it up. Not the content of the avatar.


When are you putting up an avatar Sunni Man?

How about a fudgesicle?


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> When are you putting up an avatar Sunni Man?


I am not computer savy enough to do it. I tried on a couple of forums, but failed and gave up.


----------



## sky dancer (Nov 19, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> I am not computer savy enough to do it. I tried on a couple of forums, but failed and gave up.



Don't you have mypictures?  It's easy.


----------



## sky dancer (Nov 19, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Because the majority of them have voted for something that is, IMO, a civil right and has no business being voted on.



Proposition 8?


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 19, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Don't you have mypictures?  It's easy.


Is that on the computer or is it a site?


----------



## Ravi (Nov 19, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Proposition 8?


Yes, and in my state it was #2...which actually turned out to be much worse because it outlawed civil unions as well.


----------



## sky dancer (Nov 19, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Yes, and in my state it was #2...which actually turned out to be much worse because it outlawed civil unions as well.



That sucks.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 19, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Yes, and in my state it was #2...which actually turned out to be much worse because it outlawed civil unions as well.



You know....we've come through 8 years of hate, discord, fear and a severe lack of love.

Why NOT allow the gays to get married?


----------



## xsited1 (Nov 19, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> What is, exactly?



Ravi beat me to the punch.  For most Democrats, this is a civil rights issue.  Blacks were denied civil rights for years and now they're denying similar rights to gays.


----------



## sky dancer (Nov 19, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> You know....we've come through 8 years of hate, discord, fear and a severe lack of love.
> 
> Why NOT allow the gays to get married?


I'm with you, Rob.  The time has come.  Marriage equality is the civil rights issue in America at this time.


----------



## WhiteLion (Nov 19, 2008)

xsited1 said:


> Ravi beat me to the punch.  For most Democrats, this is a civil rights issue.  Blacks were denied civil rights for years and now they're denying similar rights to gays.


Negros were born black and couldnt help the fact, thereby deservent of the civil rights movement and the civil rights they now enjoy. Gays on the other hand were not born gay and are not even a race, its a expression of licentious deviant behavior, therefore civil rights shouldnt even be a question here. Gays dont riot in the deep south they know better than that BS........ THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA HAS SPOKEN END OF DISCUSSION!!!


----------



## disciple2184 (Nov 19, 2008)

Blacks should understand their fight and address their own intolerance.


----------



## disciple2184 (Nov 19, 2008)

WhiteLion said:


> Negros were born black and couldnt help the fact, thereby deservent of the civil rights movement and the civil rights they now enjoy. Gays on the other hand were not born gay and are not even a race, its a expression of licentious deviant behavior, therefore civil rights shouldnt even be a question here. Gays dont riot in the deep south they know better than that BS........ THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA HAS SPOKEN END OF DISCUSSION!!!



Homosexuality has been here since early antiquity and its not going away, so trying to  inhibit their behavior will only fester it.  Pass it and move on already; we have more important things to address.


----------



## sky dancer (Nov 19, 2008)

disciple2184 said:


> Homosexuality has been here since early antiquity and its not going away, so trying to  inhibit their behavior will only fester it.  Pass it and move on already; we have more important things to address.



Exactly.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

disciple2184 said:


> *Homosexuality* has been here since early antiquity and its not going away, so trying to  inhibit their behavior will only fester it.


*Child molestation* has been here since early antiquity and its not going away, so trying to  inhibit their behavior will only fester it.

*Rape* has been here since early antiquity and its not going away, so trying to inhibit their behavior will only fester it.

*Murder* has been here since early antiquity and its not going away, so trying to inhibit their behavior will only fester it.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

disciple2184 said:


> Blacks should understand their fight and address their own intolerance.


The blacks were not intolerant. 

They just recognized perversion and voted against it.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> *Child molestation* has been here since early antiquity and its not going away, so trying to  inhibit their behavior will only fester it.
> 
> *Rape* has been here since early antiquity and its not going away, so trying to inhibit their behavior will only fester it.
> 
> *Murder* has been here since early antiquity and its not going away, so trying to inhibit their behavior will only fester it.



Hey idiot.....those things you just listed are violent and anti-social things that one person does to another.

Being gay is that bad HOW?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> The blacks were not intolerant.
> 
> They just recognized perversion and voted against it.



For a white boy you sure are stupid Sucking Moron The Rapist.  Blacks are MORE intolerant of more things than they're not.  Not only are they intolerant of whites, but they are ALSO intolerant of other blacks darker than they are.

Where did you get your education?  A crackerjack box?


----------



## xsited1 (Nov 20, 2008)

WhiteLion said:


> Negros were born black and couldnt help the fact, thereby deservent of the civil rights movement and the civil rights they now enjoy. Gays on the other hand were not born gay and are not even a race, its a expression of licentious deviant behavior, therefore civil rights shouldnt even be a question here. Gays dont riot in the deep south they know better than that BS........ THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA HAS SPOKEN END OF DISCUSSION!!!



Medical researchers are still trying to determine if homosexuals are born gay.  Some studies seem to indicate that there could be a chemical imbalance in the brain which could make them more susceptible to homosexual behavior.  If that's true, perhaps a cure can be found.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 20, 2008)

xsited1 said:


> Medical researchers are still trying to determine if homosexuals are born gay.  Some studies seem to indicate that there could be a chemical imbalance in the brain which could make them more susceptible to homosexual behavior.  If that's true, perhaps a cure can be found.



Actually, research has shown that gay males when compared with straight males are different not only hormonally, but also in the way that their brain functions.  Same thing for gay vs straight women.

Nope......it's a combination of birth and environment, but birth plays a major role.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 20, 2008)

Have they found the gay gene yet? Nope?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 20, 2008)

Actually, they've found some markers for the hormone imbalances.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 20, 2008)

And how do these markers get passed on?


----------



## xsited1 (Nov 20, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Actually, research has shown that gay males when compared with straight males are different not only hormonally, but also in the way that their brain functions.  Same thing for gay vs straight women.
> 
> Nope......it's a combination of birth and environment, but birth plays a major role.



The research I've seen seems to indicate that the hormonal differences are what cause the brain to function differently.  Any links you may have would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 20, 2008)

xsited1 said:


> Medical researchers are still trying to determine if homosexuals are born gay.  Some studies seem to indicate that there could be a chemical imbalance in the brain which could make them more susceptible to homosexual behavior.  If that's true, perhaps a cure can be found.



If this research is at all true, then the APA (American Psychological Association) doesn't know of it. 

Is homosexuality a mental disorder?

No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. *Both* heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality.

Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html​
It's not something that can be cured. As the National Geographic article provided notes, homosexuality is prevalent in the animal kingdom. It is a natural aspect of animal sexuality. Why are some people gay? Nobody really knows. They suspect, however, it is a combination of nature (evolution) and nurture (early environment). Either way, it is not a disorder. Why are more people straight than gay? Nobody knows, really. Culture would be my guess. There are some species that spend their lives with a partner of the same-sex, but when the females are ovulating, they get together and mate. Once the mating is done, they go back to their same-sex partner. 

There are many unanswered questions. We can be sure of these points, however: 1) Homosexuality is not a mental disorder, nor something that requires a cure; 2) It is prevalent in the animal kingdom, so it's simply a natural part of animal sexuality. 

That's the science. Deny it and you're a bigot. Period. Too much research has been done, at least as far as the APA is concerned, to intelligently deny it. I don't care what NARTH says or what Focus on the Family says or any other Christian organization says. I simply do not care; they are not credible. They are operating with a motive.

Personally, I would not engage in homosexual activity. It's not something that appeals to me, and it is a sin according to my religion. But I will not force my religion on someone else; this is not a Christian nation. I don't have the right to force my belief on anyone. Secondly, God would not approve. That's why we have Free Will. He does not force us to follow His laws, love Him, et cetera... Imagine if you forced someone to love you. What kind of love is that? It's not love. 

If you can't understand something, don't criticize it.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 20, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> If this research is at all true, then the APA (American Psychological Association) doesn't know of it. .....


 The APA has been forced to swallow the homosexual agenda and therefore cannot be relied upon for accurate information on his issue.


----------



## sky dancer (Nov 20, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Hey idiot.....those things you just listed are violent and anti-social things that one person does to another.
> 
> Being gay is that bad HOW?




Sunni Man is yanking your chain, so to speak.  He's good at it.  He takes the most extreme stance he can--saying that gays and lesbians are rapists, child molestors and murderers and then waits for people to take the bait.

Then he sits back and yucks yucks by himself in SM land.  Oh, I guess not entirely by himself, there are a couple of other knuckleheads here who join him.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 20, 2008)

glockmail said:


> The APA has been forced to swallow the homosexual agenda and therefore cannot be relied upon for accurate information on his issue.



And National Geographic? Oxford? Harvard? All the evolutionary biologists quoted in the NG article?

And prove the APA has been "forced to swallow the homosexual agenda." Then, please, explain what the "homosexual agenda" is.


----------



## xsited1 (Nov 20, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> If this research is at all true, then the APA (American Psychological Association) doesn't know of it.



Thanks, but sometimes the APA ignores some research to promote a political agenda.  I tend to look at unbiased sources.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Actually, they've found some markers for the hormone imbalances.


So in essence, homosexuals are mentally ill and need treatment. That's good to know!!


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 20, 2008)

xsited1 said:


> Thanks, but sometimes the APA ignores some research to promote a political agenda.  I tend to look at unbiased sources.



First of all, no they don't. Secondly, so do I. I don't rely on the APA alone. I rely on several different scholars, including James Bull, biologist at the University of Texas who found a correlation between homosexuality and X-lineage. I rely on National Geographic and the several evolutionary biologists they quote; I rely on Wyatt Hoback, a psychologist who has done research independent from the APA and has concluded the same thing they have. I rely on the research done by Karen Hooker - research, by the way, that led the APA to remove homosexuality from their list of psychological disorders. And I rely on several institutions and scholars. You do not. You rely on nothing. You've not provided a single shred of evidence to back up anything you say. In fact, none of you bigots have.

The only evidence you could provide, however, is something by NARTH. That's fine, but they are not credible. Their bullshit has been refuted time and again.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> So in essence, homosexuals are mentally ill and need treatment. That's good to know!!



No, you idiot, what?  Are you looking for more minds to go peeking in so that you can sow the seeds of your own intolerance and bigotry into others?  Nice.....self replicating stupidity.

Homosexuals are NOT mentally ill, nor are they anything else close minded mental midgets like yourself and Nailed Cock.

For someone with a degree, you sure are stupid.  But, since I see you on here all the time, that makes me think you're not employed, and therefore lying about being a therapist.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 20, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Have they found the gay gene yet? Nope?



Actually, yes, they have.


----------



## xsited1 (Nov 20, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> First of all, no they don't.



Incorrect.  In the late 1960s and early 1970s activists campaigned against the DSM classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder, protesting at APA offices and at annual meetings from 1970 to 1973. In 1973 the Board of Trustees voted to remove homosexuality as a disorder category from the DSM, a decision ratified by a majority (58%) of the general APA membership the following year. A category of "sexual orientation disturbance" was introduced in its place in 1974, and then replaced in the 1980 DSM-III with ego-dystonic homosexuality. Controversy ensued when it was removed in 1987, going against the standard still used by the World Health Organization's ICD-10, the Chinese Classification and Diagnostic Criteria of Mental Disorders and the The Medical Council of India. There is also controversy regarding the new category of "sexual disorder not otherwise specified" which can include a state of distress about one's sexual orientation, as well as the diagnosis of "gender identity disorder".




> Secondly, so do I. I don't rely on the APA alone. I rely on several different scholars, including James Bull, biologist at the University of Texas who found a correlation between homosexuality and X-lineage. I rely on National Geographic and the several evolutionary biologists they quote; I rely on Wyatt Hoback, a psychologist who has done research independent from the APA and has concluded the same thing they have. I rely on the research done by Karen Hooker - research, by the way, that led the APA to remove homosexuality from their list of psychological disorders. And I rely on several institutions and scholars. You do not. You rely on nothing. You've not provided a single shred of evidence to back up anything you say. In fact, none of you bigots have.
> 
> The only evidence you could provide, however, is something by NARTH. That's fine, but they are not credible. Their bullshit has been refuted time and again.



You say I rely on nothing and call me a bigot.  It's quite obvious that you have an agenda.  I'm just looking for facts, while you are just looking for studies which support your position.

Good day.


----------



## xsited1 (Nov 20, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> Actually, yes, they have.



No, they haven't.  I implore you to seek the truth rather than what you want the truth to be.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 20, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> Actually, yes, they have.



I heard something about them finding it also.  Can you provide a link Mac?


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> Actually, yes, they have.


Please provide link for this homo gene

Thank You


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> I heard something about them finding it also.  Can you provide a link Mac?


Think about it.

If there was a homo gene.

Then there would be NO homos!!

Because through evolutionary process. And not reproducing. 

Homos would have gone extinct a long time ago!!

Believe me, I wish there was a homo gene


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 20, 2008)

xsited1 said:


> Incorrect. In the late 1960s and early 1970s activists campaigned against the DSM classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder, protesting at APA offices and at annual meetings from 1970 to 1973. In 1973 the Board of Trustees voted to remove homosexuality as a disorder category from the DSM, a decision ratified by a majority (58%) of the general APA membership the following year. A category of "sexual orientation disturbance" was introduced in its place in 1974, and then replaced in the 1980 DSM-III with ego-dystonic homosexuality. Controversy ensued when it was removed in 1987, going against the standard still used by the World Health Organization's ICD-10, the Chinese Classification and Diagnostic Criteria of Mental Disorders and the The Medical Council of India. There is also controversy regarding the new category of "sexual disorder not otherwise specified" which can include a state of distress about one's sexual orientation, as well as the diagnosis of "gender identity disorder".



Oh, wow - you can Google. Too bad you pulled your bull shit from some Christian organization. You clearly have absolutely no clue what you are talking about, so allow me to help educate you.

In 1957, the National Institute of Mental Health afforded a grant to psychologist Karen Hooker to conduct psychological tests to determine if homosexuality was a component of an unknown mental disorder, or if it was a social characteristic. After years of extensive research, psychologist Karen Hooker - and many others - concluded that there was "no correlation between social determinism and homosexuality." _This_ research is the reason the APA removed homosexuality from their list of mental disorders. Not because they were pressured. That's a lie that has to be true in order for your bigoted worldview to have any merit whatsoever.

Also, you operate under the impression that the APA is the only psychological association that does not classify homosexuality as a mental disorder. Pity you are unaware of the Royal College of Psychiatrists' position, which, consequently, is the same as the APA's: Homosexuality is not a mental disorder. 

In light of comments made on The Nolan Show today, the Royal College of Psychiatrists wishes to clarify that homosexuality is not regarded as a psychiatric disorder.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists holds the view that lesbian, gay and bisexual people should be regarded as valued members of society who have exactly similar rights and responsibilities as all other citizens. This includes equal access to health care, the rights and responsibilities involved in a civil partnership, the rights and responsibilities involved in procreating and bringing up children, freedom to practice a religion as a lay person or religious leader, freedom from harassment or discrimination in any sphere and a right to protection from therapies that are potentially damaging, particularly those that purport to change sexual orientation.

 In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association concluded there was no scientific evidence that homosexuality was a disorder and removed it from its diagnostic glossary of mental disorders. The International Classification of Diseases of the World Health Organisation followed suit in 1992. 

There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment. However, the experiences of discrimination in society and possible rejection by friends, families and others, such as employers, means that some lesbian, gay and bisexual people experience a greater than expected prevalence of mental health and substance misuse problems.

Although there have been claims by conservative political groups in the USA that this higher prevalence of mental health difficulties is confirmation that homosexuality is itself a mental disorder, there is no evidence whatever to substantiate such a claim. 

Northern Ireland​
Now, you ignoramus, are you going to tell me that the Royal College succumbed to pressure, too? How about the World Health Organization? Did they?



> You say I rely on nothing and call me a bigot.  It's quite obvious that you have an agenda.  I'm just looking for facts, while you are just looking for studies which support your position.
> 
> Good day.



You rely on absolutely nothing. You do no research at all, because had you done any, you might not have to be talked to as if you were a child.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 20, 2008)

xsited1 said:


> No, they haven't.  I implore you to seek the truth rather than what you want the truth to be.



Yes, they have. I implore you to actually read a book. 

And when you clowns ask questions the way you do - "Have they found a gay gene?" - you're being dishonest. They will never find a single gene that is responsible for someone being gay, straight, or bisexual. However, there is much evidence to suggest that homosexuality is genetic. 

In the study, researchers analyzed the genetic makeup of 456 men from 146 families with two or more gay brothers.

The genetic scans showed a clustering of the same genetic pattern among the gay men on three chromosomes -- chromosomes 7, 8, and 10. These common genetic patterns were shared by 60% of the gay men in the study. This is slightly more than the 50% expected by chance alone.

*The regions on chromosome 7 and 8 were associated with male sexual orientation regardless of whether the man got them from his mother or father.* The regions on chromosome 10 were only associated with male sexual orientation if they were inherited from the mother.

Is There a 'Gay Gene'?​
They already know that homosexuality is genetic. It's still being disputed, but there is too much evidence to suggest that, in part, it is. Right now they're simply searching for THAT gene, but many scientists have already concluded that there will be no single gene. It's a combinational correlation.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Think about it.
> 
> If there was a homo gene.
> 
> ...



Just like you know nothing about being human, or mental health, it's also obvious that you know nothing about genes.

But then again.....what else can one expect from a close minded bigot?


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 20, 2008)

My parents told me that back when they were in elementary school (in the 50s), if a child wrote with his left hand the school would make him write with is right hand, because they believed left-handed people to be abnormal. In fact, my mother was put through this training at her school. Every day she was forced to stay after class and practice writing with her right hand. Groups like NARTH who try and "treat" and "convert" homosexuals and the ignorance they operate with can be compared to that.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

ABikerSailor, homos don't reproduce (except mud babies)

If there was a homo gene

Homos carrying this gene would have gone extinct a long time ago


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> My parents told me that back when they were in elementary school (in the 50s), if a child wrote with his left hand the school would make him write with is right hand, because they believed left-handed people to be abnormal. In fact, my mother was put through this training at her school. Every day she was forced to stay after class and practice writing with her right hand. Groups like NARTH who try and "treat" and "convert" homosexuals and the ignorance they operate with can be compared to that.


Being left handed is a genetic predisposition that a person has no control over.

Homosexuality is a choice.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Being left handed is a genetic predisposition that a person has no control over.
> 
> Homosexuality is a choice.



Sunnni, I have refuted your claims time and again. I'm about ready to put your ignorant ass on ignore. Homosexuality is not a choice. And why you, an ignoramus, would be against them - is beyond me. You have no choice but to be an ignoramus. Similarly, they have no choice but to be gay. 

You folks are alike; that is, one in your fight for equality.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor, homos don't reproduce (except mud babies)
> 
> If there was a homo gene
> 
> Homos carrying this gene would have gone extinct a long time ago



Did you read ANYTHING that Mac had posted?  Obviously not, otherwise you would not have made such a bigoted, arrogantly STUPID comment.

I won't go into it further Sucking Moron The Rapist.  You're too stupid to recognize your own ignorance.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor, homos don't reproduce (except mud babies)
> 
> If there was a homo gene
> 
> Homos carrying this gene would have gone extinct a long time ago



I see you have no concept of genetics.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Being left handed is a genetic predisposition that a person has no control over.
> 
> Homosexuality is a choice.



Yet another high flying stupid comment.

Do your parents know you're playing on the computer?


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> I see you have no concept of genetics.



So you are saying that genetics plays No part in the evolutionary process?


----------



## WhiteLion (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Think about it.
> 
> If there was a homo gene.
> 
> ...


True , same goes for evolution theorist back when they were claiming mankind descended from apes, something called co-existance they realized how dumb it looked, in that if man did descend from apes there would be no apes today, it was paradoxal to say the least. So evolutionist came up with branching which is normal creationism process in the first place (DOH?)...


----------



## xsited1 (Nov 20, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> Now, you ignoramus, are you going to tell me that the Royal College succumbed to pressure, too? How about the World Health Organization? Did they?
> 
> 
> 
> You rely on absolutely nothing. You do no research at all, because had you done any, you might not have to be talked to as if you were a child.



For others who are interested, there is much pure research to peruse and just as much biased research.  Here's a great place to start:

Is There a "Gay Gene"?

There is no help for you, Macintosh.  You are stuck in believing only what you want to believe.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> So you are saying that genetics plays No part in the evolutionary process?



Not what I said at all. I was responding to your asinine remark that if homosexuality was genetic there would be no homosexuals. That's a fucked up conclusion on several different levels.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 20, 2008)

xsited1 said:


> For others who are interested, there is much pure research to peruse and just as much biased research.  Here's a great place to start:
> 
> Is There a "Gay Gene"?
> 
> There is no help for you, Macintosh.  You are stuck in believing only what you want to believe.



LOL. I told you the bigots would begin providing NARTH links. It's a group comprised of Christians who fancy themselves as freethinking psychologists. They are not credible. Their claims have been refuted time and again.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 20, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> ....
> 
> And prove the APA has been "forced to swallow the homosexual agenda." Then, please, explain what the "homosexual agenda" is.


 I've already show you that, and you chose to ignore the truth as usual. The gay agenda is to propagate their numbers, since they can't do it naturally.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 20, 2008)

glockmail said:


> I've already show you that, and you chose to ignore the truth as usual. The gay agenda is to propagate their numbers, since they can't do it naturally.



O.K., sickandtiredofliblies (I know it's you from PF, BTW. I liked you over there, but here...I don't know), then you must believe the Royal College and the WHO were influenced by the gay agenda, right?

And if so, succumbing to the pressure of a small group of people - homosexuals - would deliver what benefits?


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> Not what I said at all. I was responding to your asinine remark that if homosexuality was genetic there would be no homosexuals. That's a fucked up conclusion on several different levels.


Any species that doesn't reproduce goes extinct. Period


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Any species that doesn't reproduce goes extinct. Period



Wow, you're ignorant.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 20, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> O.K., sickandtiredofliblies, (I know it's you from PF, BTW. I liked you over there, but here...I don't know), then you must believe the Royal College and the WHO were influenced by the gay agenda, right?
> 
> And if so, succumbing to the pressure of a small group of people - homosexuals - would deliver what benefits?



You're obviously delirious about this other poster that you admire. 

Liberal organizations support the gay agenda because they have a common goal to denigrate and tear down society.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> Wow, you're ignorant.


A well thought out and scientific response to back up your position


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

glockmail said:


> The gay agenda is to propagate their numbers, since they can't do it naturally.


That's why the radical homo agenda targets children to be indoctrinated and recruited into the preverted sodomite lifestyle.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 20, 2008)

glockmail said:


> You're obviously delirious about this other poster that you admire.



It's you. The other dude always said liberals were liars and lauded Clint Eastwood. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool me at all. 



> Liberal organizations support the gay agenda because they have a common goal to denigrate and tear down society.



LOL. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> That's why the radical homo agenda targets children to be indoctrinated and recruited into the preverted sodomite lifestyle.


 Not even radicals. I know a gal who, along with her "wife", adopted two kids and they go to my Catholic church.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 20, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> It's you. The other dude always said liberals were liars and lauded Clint Eastwood. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool me at all......



 Oh this is going to be great. Now you have to prove your accusation. Submit evidence, or lose credibility.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Not even radicals. I know a gal who, along with her "wife", adopted two kids and they go to my Catholic church.


That's so sad.........

Allowing children to be adopted by homos is a terrible form of child abuse


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> A well thought out and scientific response to back up your position



I find it terribly difficult to believe that you're a psychologist. Typically, psychologists stay up to date on scientific research that seeks to answer questions. 

They've come up with an explanation for why male homosexuals do not go extinct, but they are still working on females. 

Homosexuality in males may be caused in part by genes that can increase fertility in females, according to a new study.

The findings may help solve the puzzle of why, if homosexuality is hereditary, it hasn't already disappeared from the gene pool, since gay people are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals.

A team of researchers found that some female relatives of gay men tend to have more children than average. The scientists used a computer model to explain how two genes passed on through the maternal line could produce this effect.

In 2004 the researchers studied about 200 Italian families and found that the mothers, maternal aunts and maternal grandmothers of gay men are more fecund, or fruitful, than average. Recently, they tried to explain their findings with a number of genetic models, and found one that fit the bill.

"This is the first time that a model fits all our empirical data," said Andrea Camperio-Ciani, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Padova in Italy who led the study. "These genes work in a sexually antagonistic way  that means that when they're represented in a female, they increase fecundity , and when they're represented in a male, they decrease fecundity. It's a trait that benefits one sex at the cost of the other."​
And to amplify a point I made earlier:

"I think it's almost beyond a doubt that genes have some influence," said Ray Blanchard, a researcher at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, who studies the effect of birth order in predicting whether a male will be born homosexual. "My personal view is that there is probably more than one biological mechanism contributing toward homosexuality. I think it's also safe to say that there is at least one non-genetic influence."​
And to address the validity of the Italian model:

Eric Vilain, a professor of human genetics at the University of California, Los Angeles, has studied possible biological factors influencing homosexuality. He said the system studied by the Italian team seems plausible, but that it's too soon to be convinced.​
And also:

Research by Paul Vasey, a psychologist at the University of Lethbridge in Canada, and his graduate student, Doug VanderLaan, provides preliminary support for the Italian team's results. The scientists studied homosexual men in Independent Samoa, known locally as fa'afafine ("in the manner of a woman"). They found that the mothers of fa'afafine produce more offspring than the mothers of heterosexual men in that society.​
And finally:

"I think this is an example where the results of scientific research can have important social implications," Camperio-Ciani said. "You have all this antagonism against homosexuality because they say it's against nature because it doesn't lead to reproduction. We found out this is not true because homosexuality is just one of the consequences of strategies for making females more fecund."​
Why Gays Don't Go Extinct | LiveScience

There are many, many unanswered questions. However, I believe I have provided ample evidence for my contention: Homosexuality is not a choice, nor a mental disorder. It is a combination of nature and nurture. 

That, X, is research. I do quite a bit of it before drawing conclusions. You do not. You champion ideology rather than common sense. I do not, for if I did, I would not be a Republican in support of gay rights.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 20, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Oh this is going to be great. Now you have to prove your accusation. Submit evidence, or lose credibility.



I think you two are the same person. You both claim liberals are liars - incessantly - and you both laud Clinton Eastwood. In fact, the dude's avatar is a picture of Clint Eastwood. I don't think my deduction is unreasonable.

It doesn't matter. I thought the guy was reasonable and intelligent. I just didn't have the pleasure of hearing him rant about homosexuality - until now.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 20, 2008)

xsited1 said:


> For others who are interested, there is much pure research to peruse and just as much biased research.  Here's a great place to start:
> 
> Is There a "Gay Gene"?
> 
> There is no help for you, Macintosh.  You are stuck in believing only what you want to believe.




narth, eh?


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

Macintosh all the researchers in your study can say is: *we think, maybe, or studies suggest.*

The fact is gays can only make "mud babies" and they don't reproduce.

A genetic dead end!!! (pardon the pun)


----------



## glockmail (Nov 20, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> I think you two are the same person. You both claim liberals are liars - incessantly - and you both laud Clinton Eastwood. In fact, the dude's avatar is a picture of Clint Eastwood. I don't think my deduction is unreasonable.
> 
> It doesn't matter. I thought the guy was reasonable and intelligent. I just didn't have the pleasure of hearing him rant about homosexuality - until now.


 Again, submit evidence and prove your accusation, or lose credibility.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> That's so sad.........
> 
> Allowing children to be adopted by homos is a terrible form of child abuse



More ignorance.

Can lesbians and gay men be good parents?

Many lesbians and gay men are parents; others wish to be parents. In the 2000 U.S. Census, 33% of female same-sex couple households and 22% of male same-sex couple households reported at least one child under the age of 18 living in the home. Although comparable data are not available, many single lesbians and gay men are also parents, and many same-sex couples are part-time parents to children whose primary residence is elsewhere.

As the social visibility and legal status of lesbian and gay parents have increased, some people have raised concerns about the well-being of children in these families. Most of these questions are based on negative stereotypes about lesbians and gay men. The majority of research on this topic asks whether children raised by lesbian and gay parents are at a disadvantage when compared to children raised by heterosexual parents. The most common questions and answers to them are these:

1. Do children of lesbian and gay parents have more problems with sexual identity than do children of heterosexual parents? For instance, do these children develop problems in gender identity and/or in gender role behavior?

The answer from research is clear: sexual and gender identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same way among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents. Few studies are available regarding children of gay fathers.

2. Do children raised by lesbian or gay parents have problems in personal development in areas other than sexual identity? For example, are the children of lesbian or gay parents more vulnerable to mental breakdown, do they have more behavior problems, or are they less psychologically healthy than other children? 

Again, studies of personality, self-concept, and behavior problems show few differences between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual parents. Few studies are available regarding children of gay fathers.

3. Are children of lesbian and gay parents likely to have problems with social relationships? For example, will they be teased or otherwise mistreated by their peers? 

Once more, evidence indicates that children of lesbian and gay parents have normal social relationships with their peers and adults. The picture that emerges from this research shows that children of gay and lesbian parents enjoy a social life that is typical of their age group in terms of involvement with peers, parents, family members, and friends.

4. Are these children more likely to be sexually abused by a parent or by a parents friends or acquaintances? 

There is no scientific support for fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by their parents or their parents gay, lesbian, or bisexual friends or acquaintances.

In summary, social science has shown that the concerns often raised about children of lesbian and gay parentsconcerns that are generally grounded in prejudice against and stereotypes about gay peopleare unfounded. Overall, the research indicates that the children of lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from the children of heterosexual parents in their development, adjustment, or overall well-being.
​
An attenuated answer.

Can Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals Be Good Parents?

Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a parent's sexual orientation does not indicate their children's.

Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals molest children.​
APA Help Center - Health & Emotional Wellness - "Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality"

Sunni is a disgusting and vile component of the hate and intolerance that has spread throughout our society. People like him are inherently evil, and, in my opinion, will never be afforded a glorious afterlife. In fact, I imagine they will burn in hell. Right where they belong.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 20, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Again, submit evidence and prove your accusation, or lose credibility.



Don't need to submit evidence. I believe, that is, it is my opinion, that you two are the same person. I'm not saying without doubt you are. It's a reasonable deduction that requires no evidence. 

And I've submitted evidence for all of my contentions. You and your bigot friends have not. Well, save the moron who linked up NARTH. LMAO. So, uh, if anyone's credibility should come into question, it certainly won't be mine.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Macintosh all the researchers in your study can say is: *we think, maybe, or studies suggest.*
> 
> The fact is gays can only make "mud babies" and they don't reproduce.
> 
> A genetic dead end!!! (pardon the pun)



The reason for the "we think, maybe, studies suggest" is because it is science. Apparently you don't understand science. There are few facts, only theories. Evolution is still a theory. But a scientific theory is markedly different than a theory as commoners know it. As a psychologist, you ought know that.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 20, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> Don't need to submit evidence. I believe, that is, it is my opinion, that you two are the same person. I'm not saying without doubt you are. It's a reasonable deduction that requires no evidence.
> 
> And I've submitted evidence for all of my contentions. You and your bigot friends have not. Well, save the moron who linked up NARTH. LMAO. So, uh, if anyone's credibility should come into question, it certainly won't be mine.



So now we go from I know it's you (post 490) and Its you.you cant fool me at all. (post 496) to I think you two are the same person. I don't think my deduction is unreasonable.(post 501), then finally to Don't need to submit evidence. I believe, that is, it is my opinion, that you two are the same person. I'm not saying without doubt you are. It's a reasonable deduction that requires no evidence. 

 Typical Liberal. Can never back up your accusations, and when called on it, try and weasel out. Yall are never man enough to admit that you fucked up.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 20, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> The reason for the "we think, maybe, studies suggest" is because it is science. Apparently you don't understand science. There are few facts, only theories. ....


 Wow. Talk about not understanding science....


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> The reason for the "we think, maybe, studies suggest" is because it is science. Apparently you don't understand science. There are few facts, only theories. Evolution is still a theory. But a scientific theory is markedly different than a theory as commoners know it. As a psychologist, you ought know that.


Even "commoners", as you so condescendingly put it. 

Know that homo sex will NOTcreate a baby.

Never has, Never will

Heck, even scientists know that much!!


----------



## xsited1 (Nov 20, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> Not what I said at all. I was responding to your asinine remark that if homosexuality was genetic there would be no homosexuals. That's a fucked up conclusion on several different levels.



You've got some serious anger issues.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 20, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Wow. Talk about not understanding science....



Care to elaborate? Or did you just feel the need to inject curiously unfounded insults in some pitiful attempt to sace face?

Ya see, you and your bigot buddies know you had you intellectual asses handed to you this morning, so now - of course - the collective modus operandi is to muck up the thread, hoping outsiders will see your pitifully lame remarks for more than what they are. You are dependent on the reader's stupidity.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 20, 2008)

glock, are you really anyone who should be talking about a credibility deficit with as many times as I've punked you out on providing evidence for whatever thread i'm dominating you in?

really?


Don't you think this is kinda like a fat man lecturing someone on hogging all the fucking food?


----------



## Shogun (Nov 20, 2008)

glock, are you really anyone who should be talking about a credibility deficit with as many times as I've punked you out on providing evidence for whatever thread i'm dominating you in?

really?


Don't you think this is kinda like a fat man lecturing someone on hogging all the fucking food?


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 20, 2008)

glockmail said:


> So now we go from &#8220;I know it's you&#8221; (post 490) and &#8220;It&#8217;s you&#8230;.you can&#8217;t fool me at all.&#8221; (post 496) to &#8220;I think you two are the same person. &#8230;I don't think my deduction is unreasonable.&#8221;(post 501), then finally to &#8220;Don't need to submit evidence. I believe, that is, it is my opinion, that you two are the same person. I'm not saying without doubt you are. It's a reasonable deduction that requires no evidence.&#8221;
> 
> Typical Liberal. Can never back up your accusations, and when called on it, try and weasel out. Y&#8217;all are never man enough to admit that you fucked up.



How, pray tell, is it an accusation? If anything, given my comments about this other person, you should consider it an opinion of endearment. 

I do seriously believe you two are the same person. It's an opinion. I'm not sure what evidence you would like me to provide. I can, however, link you up to his profile so you can see his avatar and moniker. Would you like me to? 

And me -- a liberal? ROTFFLMFAO!!!! Riiiiight. I despise liberals - collectively. Individually? I like some and dislike others. As a group, I despise them.



> Even "commoners", as you so condescendingly put it.
> 
> Know that homo sex will NOTcreate a baby.
> 
> ...



And sex is not simply for procreation. Commoners know that, too.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 20, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> How, pray tell, is it an accusation? If anything, given my comments about this other person, you should consider it an opinion of endearment.
> 
> I do seriously believe you two are the same person. It's an opinion. I'm not sure what evidence you would like me to provide. I can, however, link you up to his profile so you can see his avatar and moniker. Would you like me to?
> 
> .....


  My how precious, as I was waiting for this. You fucked up, so now you claim that your accusation isn't an accusation. If only you could redefine the English language at your pleasure. 

By all means, provide evidence of your non-accusation!


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> And sex is not simply for procreation. Commoners know that, too.



True, but it is the only way that we survive as a species. 

Homo sex does NOT procreate. 

No procreation = extinction


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 20, 2008)

Man.....you idiots are STILL wrapped up in this.

Well.....nothing like watching closed minds roll around aimlessly like marbles.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 20, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Man.....you idiots are STILL wrapped up in this.
> 
> Well.....nothing like watching closed minds roll around aimlessly like marbles.


 So how's you mum?


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

I guess I won ABikerSailor. The homo lovers have fled the area!!!


----------



## glockmail (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> I guess I won ABikerSailor. The *homo lovers* have fled the area!!!


You are in error kind sir. They hate the homos. The proof for this is that they routinely use homosexuality as an insult for anyone who disagrees with them. But they love the sin of homosexuality for the degradation that it does to society. The correct term is is therefore _homosexual enablers_.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 20, 2008)

glockmail said:


> You are in error kind sir. They hate the homos. The proof for this is that they routinely use homosexuality as an insult for anyone who disagrees with them. But they love the sin of homosexuality for the degradation that it does to society. The correct term is is therefore _homosexual enablers_.



Hmmm......sound like you, Sunni and Bass, don't it there jackass?  I've seen you do MANY times on here the very things you accuse others.

Man.....I don't envy you......must be hard going through life so blind.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

glockmail said:


> You are in error kind sir. They hate the homos. The proof for this is that they routinely use homosexuality as an insult for anyone who disagrees with them. But they love the sin of homosexuality for the degradation that it does to society. The correct term is is therefore _homosexual enablers_.


I stand corrected!! Thanks Glockmail


----------



## glockmail (Nov 20, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Hmmm......sound like you, Sunni and Bass, don't it there jackass?  I've seen you do MANY times on here the very things you accuse others.
> 
> .....


 Perhaps you could prove your latest accusation along with the one that you made yesterday. My prediction though is that you won't be able to back it up, just like before.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> I stand corrected!! Thanks Glockmail


No problem, Amigo.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 20, 2008)

Nothing like watching a bunch of homophobes kiss each other's ass like Glock and Sucking Moron do.

Hey guys......maybe you should get into movies.  Gay porno may be appropriate for both of you.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 20, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Nothing like watching a bunch of homophobes kiss each other's ass like Glock and Sucking Moron do.
> 
> Hey guys......maybe you should get into movies.  Gay porno may be appropriate for both of you.



Man, how quickly my post 521 is proven true: "They hate the homos. The proof for this is that they routinely use homosexuality as an insult for anyone who disagrees with them."


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 20, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Man, how quickly my post 521 is proven true: "They hate the homos. The proof for this is that they routinely use homosexuality as an insult for anyone who disagrees with them."



Hey, you're the one that's been giving Sucking Moron the "low five".


----------



## glockmail (Nov 20, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Hey, you're the one that's been giving Sucking Moron the "low five".


 Another homosexual reference? Wow- you're the gift that keeps on giving.


----------



## Vintij (Nov 20, 2008)

Guys, I dont understand why so many people waste energy with stuff like this. Just stop paying attention to people who are clearly not to be taken seriously. 

Barrack Obama himself said in his book audacity of hope that "I find it hard to take these people seriously" in reference to sean hannity and rush limbaugh commentators without credibility. 


This is the exact same thing, where exactly is the credibility in ANY of glocks arguments, let alone this one. Do not reward departures from common sense with a legitimate response, it validates their arguments and makes them feel like they are actually making some sort of sense.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 20, 2008)

Vintij said:


> Guys, I dont understand why so many people waste energy with stuff like this. Just stop paying attention to people who are clearly not to be taken seriously.
> 
> Barrack Obama himself said in his book audacity of hope that "I find it hard to take these people seriously" in reference to sean hannity and rush limbaugh commentators without credibility.
> 
> ...



Well Vintij, sometimes ya gotta take time out for those window lickers on the short bus.  Builds good karma to acknowledge those with special needs.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 20, 2008)

Vintij said:


> .....
> 
> Barrack Obama himself ......


 Words of blessed wisdom from the _Messiah_.


----------



## Vintij (Nov 20, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Words of blessed wisdom from the _Messiah_.



No, words of PRESIDENT ELECT obama who HIMSELF was thrashed and trashed by your hero commentators. I referenced him and his book to expose the correlation between the nonsensical arguments that you put forth, and the similarities of those commentators who say the same things you are saying about gays and sin.....etc. Except now that the country has spoken and they are in the minority, their ratings are dwindling. Much like your credibility.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 20, 2008)

Vintij said:


> No, words of PRESIDENT ELECT obama who HIMSELF was thrashed and trashed by your hero commentators. I referenced him and his book to expose the correlation between the nonsensical arguments that you put forth, and the similarities of those commentators who say the same things you are saying about gays and sin.....etc. Except now that the country has spoken and they are in the minority, their ratings are dwindling. Much like your credibility.



  Dwindling?  I thought it was almost gone!


----------



## Vintij (Nov 20, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Dwindling?  I thought it was almost gone!



Dwindling to near nothingness except for the one or two illiterate folks in the bag who take those commentators like hannity serious enough to give him two television shows based on current evens or "news" and one radio show with zero college degrees in journalism, or anything at all for that matter. He is an uneducated college drop out with mediocre high school grades, how is he reporting the news or commenting on ANYTHING at all and taken seriously?


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

Vintij said:


> No, words of PRESIDENT ELECT obama who HIMSELF was thrashed and trashed by your hero commentators.


Don't jump on me! Heck, I voted for Obama.

Limbaugh and Hanity are are just laughable entertainment.

That aside, homos really are nasty disease carrying perverts who should be locked for the good of society!!!


----------



## Vintij (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Don't jump on me! Heck, I voted for Obama.
> 
> Limbaugh and Hanity are are just laughable entertainment.
> 
> That aside, homos really are nasty disease carrying perverts who should be locked for the good of society!!!




Thankn you for furthering my point, they are "laughable entertainment" which is exactly what you and Glockmail are. Thank you for finally admitting the truth.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

Vintij said:


> Thankn you for furthering my point, they are "laughable entertainment" which is exactly what you and Glockmail are. Thank you for finally admitting the truth.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 20, 2008)

Sucking Moron The Rapist has that same look on his face that a dog does when you move their food dish.


----------



## sky dancer (Nov 20, 2008)

I don't even believe Sunni Man's views any more.  They're too out there.  He's just messin' with you for entertainment.


----------



## Vintij (Nov 20, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> I don't even believe Sunni Man's views any more.  They're too out there.  He's just messin' with you for entertainment.




I noticed this after reading a few of his posts but I do think he should come out and admit that this is a gimmick for satiricial purposes only. I dont understand why he likes it when people view him as the scum of the earth. The scary part is that some people agree with his views which are meant to be jokes.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

Like these people??

Westboro Baptist Church Home Page


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 20, 2008)

Vintij said:


> I noticed this after reading a few of his posts but I do think he should come out and admit that this is a gimmick for satiricial purposes only. I dont understand why he likes it when people view him as the scum of the earth. The scary part is that some people agree with his views which are meant to be jokes.



Yesterday Randi Rhodes on Nova M Radio was pointing out that back during the civil rights movement, a few states were letting bi racial couples get married.  But what happened when those bi racial couples moved to a state like West Virginia where they did not recognize bi racial marriages?

I guess they would break into the bi racial couples homes in hopes of catching them in the act of making love.  If they caught them, I don't know what happened.  They probably got lynched.

Anyways, Randi also said something pretty profound.  She said, "Notice when homophobes think of gays they always think about the sex acts.  They never think about the love those two people share, or the bond they have, or the fact that those two people truly love each other".

Homophobes first thought is always about the sexual acts.  They are the perverts.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

Vintij said:


> but I do think he should come out and admit that this is a gimmick for satiricial purposes only.


So the voters of California defeated Prop 8 just for satire????


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 20, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Yesterday Randi Rhodes on Nova M Radio was pointing out that back during the civil rights movement, a few states were letting bi racial couples get married.  But what happened when those bi racial couples moved to a state like West Virginia where they did not recognize bi racial marriages?
> 
> I guess they would break into the bi racial couples homes in hopes of catching them in the act of making love.  If they caught them, I don't know what happened.  They probably got lynched.
> 
> ...



You're right.  I've known several gay people over my years.  Matter of fact on of places I lived, I rented a room from 2 lesbians, one of whom had a gay cousin.  I'd talked to them quite a bit, and one of the things that they kept bringing up is that homophobes are always scared that the gays are going to bend them over and start having their way with them.  Unfortunately for the phobes, most of them are not good looking and generally have lousy personalities, and women wouldn't look at them, so why should the gay men?  I mean.....most gay men are better looking than most straight guys, because of the competition in their dating circles.  

Personally, if you ask me, it's ego driven fear.  They (the homophobes) think just because they have an anus they are attractive to gays, when in reality, they (the homophobes) aren't really attractive to anyone else, they're just looking for something to feed their ego.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Anyways, Randi also said something pretty profound.  She said, "Notice when homophobes think of gays they always think about the sex acts.  They never think about the love those two people share, or the bond they have, or the fact that those two people truly love each other


The wacko Randi Rhodes was just reading the same script that NAMBLA says about men and boys.

Only she just replaced men and boys with homosexual.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> So the voters of California defeated Prop 8 just for satire????



And the California Supreme Court will find that Prop 8 is unconstitutional for satire?  

My dad is against gay marriage, because he was raised to think gay is wrong.  What does he know?  He's an old fart.

Anyways, I explained that just because his religion and his beliefs say they are wrong, that doesn't give us/him the right to deny them the rights that straight couples get.

"It'll cost us in healthcare".  

So what?  

"They can't have kids".  

Neither can Liza Manelli and her gay husband.  

You may not like interacial couples or gay couples.  That's completely irrelivent.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> The wacko Randi Rhodes was just reading the same script that NAMBLA says about men and boys.
> 
> Only she just replaced the wording to homosexual.



It's illegal to have sex with minors and relatives.  Do you have sex with underaged women or your sister?  

And it is typical to call someone you don't agree with a wacko.  

Rush is a wacko.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 20, 2008)

Well, shit Sealy, if we were to base marriage simply on who could and could not have children, that would leave A LOT of couples out.

Nope....procreation as justification for marriage?  That's rationalization and justification, which is mental masturbation, because you're only fucking yourself.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 20, 2008)

Well, shit Sealy, if we were to base marriage simply on who could and could not have children, that would leave A LOT of couples out.

Nope....procreation as justification for marriage?  That's rationalization and justification, which is mental masturbation, because you're only fucking yourself.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 20, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> You're right.  I've known several gay people over my years.  Matter of fact on of places I lived, I rented a room from 2 lesbians, one of whom had a gay cousin.  I'd talked to them quite a bit, and one of the things that they kept bringing up is that homophobes are always scared that the gays are going to bend them over and start having their way with them.  Unfortunately for the phobes, most of them are not good looking and generally have lousy personalities, and women wouldn't look at them, so why should the gay men?  I mean.....most gay men are better looking than most straight guys, because of the competition in their dating circles.
> 
> Personally, if you ask me, it's ego driven fear.  They (the homophobes) think just because they have an anus they are attractive to gays, when in reality, they (the homophobes) aren't really attractive to anyone else, they're just looking for something to feed their ego.



Same with women who are anti abortion.  Ever notice that none of the women picketing an abortion clinic are fuckable?


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> I mean.....most gay men are better looking than most straight guys, because of the competition in their dating circles.


Finally, you have one foot out of the closet.

Doesn't surprise me though.

Not the way you stick up for gays and all


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 20, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Well, shit Sealy, if we were to base marriage simply on who could and could not have children, that would leave A LOT of couples out.
> 
> Nope....procreation as justification for marriage?  That's rationalization and justification, which is mental masturbation, because you're only fucking yourself.



I just can't believe people can not see right and wrong on this issue.  

I think people would see this clearer if gay people didn't insist on calling it marriage.  They're worried seperate will not be equal.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Rush is a wacko.


Rush is just as wacky as Randi Rhodes. They are two sides of the same coin.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Finally, you have one foot out of the closet.
> 
> Doesn't surprise me though.
> 
> Not the way you stick up for gays and all



I stick up for gays and blacks.  That doesn't make me gay or black stupid.  

The way I see it, if you bible thumping ignorant bastards are going to pick on them for not being like you, who's next?  

I stick up for muslims, blacks, women, animals, gays, mexicans, because we are all in this together.  

I think you know we are right but you fear admitting it will make you gay. 

Trust me dude, you are already as gay as Larry Craig and Mark Foley.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> My dad is against gay marriage, because he was raised to think gay is wrong.  What does he know?  He's an old fart.


You should be ashamed of disrespecting your father like that


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Rush is just as wacky as Randi Rhodes. They are two sides of the same coin.



If one side of the coin is correct and the other side is wrong, I'll agree.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> You should be ashamed of disrespecting your father like that



He'll live.  He knows I love him.  He also knows I'm an extreme liberal.  He and my mom lean left, but they are more moderate/independent because they are old school.

On some things they, the old timers, are right, but on this one they are wrong.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 20, 2008)

Vintij said:


> No, words of PRESIDENT ELECT obama who HIMSELF was thrashed and trashed by your hero commentators. I referenced him and his book to expose the correlation between the nonsensical arguments that you put forth, and the similarities of those commentators who say the same things you are saying about gays and sin.....etc. Except now that the country has spoken and they are in the minority, *their ratings are dwindling*. Much like your credibility.


  You parrot the liberal media who has hoped for this for two decades now. Your Messiah has mentioned Hannity so many times during his campaigns that it is obvious he has him very much on his tiny brain- the exact opposite from his statement in his book.


----------



## Vintij (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> You should be ashamed of disrespecting your father like that




Voters are not institutions of interpretation. If this were true we would have VOTED on civil rights for blacks, we would have voted for women to have the right to work and elect a president, we would have voted for religion to be taught in schools. You will see in only a few months time, that this again will be overturned by the true interpretations of the constitution, you know the ones who actually went to school and dedicated their lives to protecting it, not the half witted voters who dont even know how to cast a fucking ballot half the time, they need help with the simplest of tasks, yet demand the power to amend the state and federal constitution? 

Let me ask you a question, are you relgious?


----------



## Vintij (Nov 20, 2008)

glockmail said:


> You parrot the liberal media who has hoped for this for two decades now. Your Messiah has mentioned Hannity so many times during his campaigns that it is obvious he has him very much on his tiny brain- the exact opposite from his statement in his book.



Well, I dont recall his name being mentioned once in the campaign. Do show me if you have information that speaks otherwise.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 20, 2008)

Vintij said:


> Voters are not intitutions of interpretation. If this were true we would have VOTED on civil rights for blacks, we would have voted for women to have the right to work and elect a president, we would have voted for religion to be taught as schools. You will see in only a few months time, that this again will be overturned by the true interpretations of the constitution, you know the ones who actually went to school and dedicated their lives to protecting it, not the half witted voters who dont even know how to cast a fucking ballot half the time, they need help with the simplest of tasks, yet demand the power to amend the state and federal constitution?



HA!    Great post.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> You should be ashamed of disrespecting your father like that



Okay Sucking Moron.....lemmie ask you a question......

You've stated repeatedly over and over on this message board that you are not racist, and that you don't like racists (even though your posts would beg to differ).  Now.....my primary caregivers while growing up were my grandparents, whom were exceedingly racist.  Matter of fact, when I went to the Navy, my grandparents told me 'you're going to meet some of the best people in your life while in the military.  Feel free to bring anyone home, just make sure they're white'.  Now.....I've never really seen someone's skin color as much as what they do and how they act.  If I was to say that my grandparents were wrong for being racist, and then said it's because they're old farts, is that disrespect also?

If you say yes, you're an idiot with a very narrow view.  If you say no, then you're a hypocrite.

Which is it?


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

Vintij said:


> Voters are not intitutions of interpretation. If this were true we would have VOTED on civil rights for blacks, we would have voted for women to have the right to work and elect a president, we would have voted for religion to be taught as schools. You will see in only a few months time, that this again will be overturned by the true interpretations of the constitution, you know the ones who actually went to school and dedicated their lives to protecting it, not the half witted voters who dont even know how to cast a fucking ballot half the time, they need help with the simplest of tasks, yet demand the power to amend the state and federal constitution?


This is still a Democracy? Right?

Meaning one person, one vote. Correct?

Not a Totalitarian State, where the government decides for the people. Correct??

Just thought I would check and see if our form of government had changed


----------



## glockmail (Nov 20, 2008)

Vintij said:


> Well, I dont recall his name being mentioned once in the campaign. Do show me if you have information that speaks otherwise.



Here's just one. Hannity's got a collection that he plays at the start of his show.



> (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JON STEWART, HOST, COMEDY CHANNEL'S "THE DAILY SHOW": Any of this fear stuff, do you think it's stuck with the electorate? Are you finding that on the trail?
> 
> SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: You know, it just hasn't. I mean, I think that there's a certain segment of hard-core Sean Hannity fans that probably wouldn't want to go and have a beer with me.
> 
> There's no doubt about that.


 Obama Mentions Hannity Again | Article from Hannity & Colmes (Fox News Network) | HighBeam Research


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> This is still a Democracy? Right?
> 
> Meaning one person, one vote. Correct?
> 
> ...



It HAS changed.  The taxpayers didn't want the bailout but they did it anyway under the leadership of Bush Jr.  Same thing with GM, and they're still trying to push it through ANYWAY!

Or, did you forget that the government is now working on owning the banks and GM?

Like I said......I pay taxes out of my retirement check, so I want to see my shares of stock as soon as this goes through (if it goes through).

Nope......Bush Jr. is working on totalitarian government.  Need I remind you about the wire taps?  Shit.....this keeps up we'll be Russia's little brother.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Okay Sucking Moron.....lemmie ask you a question......
> 
> You've stated repeatedly over and over on this message board that you are not racist, and that you don't like racists (even though your posts would beg to differ).  Now.....my primary caregivers while growing up were my grandparents, whom were exceedingly racist.  Matter of fact, when I went to the Navy, my grandparents told me 'you're going to meet some of the best people in your life while in the military.  Feel free to bring anyone home, just make sure they're white'.  Now.....I've never really seen someone's skin color as much as what they do and how they act.  If I was to say that my grandparents were wrong for being racist, and then said it's because they're old farts, is that disrespect also?
> 
> ...


According to my religion. You are never to disrespect or argue with your parents. Period

The Prophet said: "Even if God turns your parent into a donkey. You are not to ride him".

In other words. God will deal with your parents. It is not your place to admonish them or to abuse them in any way.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> According to my religion. You are never to disrespect or argue with your parents. Period
> 
> The Prophet said: "Even if God turns your parent into a donkey. You are not to ride him".
> 
> In other words. God will deal with your parents. It is not your place to admonish them or to abuse them in any way.



For a gay basher like yourself, that sure doesn't seem like you follow it much.

Same thing with all the other stuff you do you head case quack.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Nope......Bush Jr. is working on totalitarian government.  Need I remind you about the wire taps?  Shit.....this keeps up we'll be Russia's little brother.


On this I agree with you. Bush and the boys have shreaded the Constitution.


----------



## Vintij (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> This is still a Democracy? Right?
> 
> Meaning one person, one vote. Correct?
> 
> ...



Yea, a democracy not an Anarchy. Thats why we have ELECTED officials who appoint members of the supreme court. Key word, ELECTED officials that we voted in who we entrust with the responsibility of appointing someone with an extensive background in law to interpret our constitution. Since when was democracy defined as society rules and governes all executive and legislative activities? That is called an "egalitarian" society, and since we are not in the tribal ages anymore we must have a system of rule for our heavily populated, industrialized nation. This is why we ELECT our officials and leaders to appoint people who protect the constitution, not only from foreign interpretations but from our own domestic stupidity as well. 

I think you need to educate yourself on the meaning of democracy, and all other types of government while your at it.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

Vintij said:


> Yea, a democracy not an Anarchy. Thats why we have ELECTED officials who appoint members of the supreme court. Key word, ELECTED officials that we voted in who we entrust with the responsibility of appointing someone with an extensive background in law to interpret our constitution. Since when was democracy defined as society rules and governes all executive and legislative activities? That is called an "egalitarian" society, and since we are not in the tribal ages anymore we must have a system of rule for our heavily populated, industrialized nation. This is why we ELECT our officials and leaders to appoint people who protect the constitution, not only from foreign interpretations but from our own domestic stupidity as well.



Laws are to be decided by a vote of the Electrate. (the people)

Not dictated from the bench of the Judicary


----------



## Vintij (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> According to my religion. You are never to disrespect or argue with your parents. Period
> 
> The Prophet said: "Even if God turns your parent into a donkey. You are not to ride him".
> 
> In other words. God will deal with your parents. It is not your place to admonish them or to abuse them in any way.





Well I find it very funny that the very people who quote the bible on homosexual sin as a justification for prop 8, are the same ones who breed illigitimate children or are illigitimate children themselves. According to their own bible that they cite, they themselves are going to hell. 

lol

The irony.


----------



## Vintij (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Laws are to be decided by a vote of the Electrate. (the people)
> 
> Not dictated from the bench of the Judicary



lol

In what country is this? Please do tell me. What country are you talking about, in which the PEOPLE pass legislation and not the legislators and the executive branch. 


The PEOPLE, can have their voice heard by simply electing different legislators.....its the best form of democracy we have, but I dont recall it ever being legal for a body of people to vote on FEDERAL laws. States are different because they have more freedom to legislate whatever they want but even states have a supreme court to interpret state constitution to mimick the federal constitution as much as possible. It dont matter how many times you vote on anything, the supreme court can and always will have the power to amend it as long as we have a democracy.  That is their job, not the peoples job. The peoples job is to voice their opinions, freely pursue happiness, believe in whatever they want and vote for our leaders......It is NOT the peoples job to change our constitution EVER. If this were true, all anyone has to do is convince millions of people that god should be taught in schools......oh wait that DID happen and it was shot down.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

Vintij said:


> Well I find it very funny that the very people who quote the bible on homosexual sin as a justification for prop 8, are the same ones who breed illigitimate children or are illigitimate children themselves.


So you are saying that all people who voted down Prop 8 were born illigetimatly and their children are also illigetimate?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Laws are to be decided by a vote of the Electrate. (the people)
> 
> Not dictated from the bench of the Judicary



REALLY?  Might wanna talk about that with Bush Jr.  The only reason he appointed who he did was so that the Bush Jr. (and the GOP) could finally overturn those laws that he didn't like and also would allow Bush Jr. and Cheney to repeatedly wipe their butts with the Constitution.

Think Roe Vs. Wade.

Oh yeah....it also made it easier for him to pardon Rove and Libby.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

Vintij said:


> The PEOPLE, can have their voice heard by simply electing different legislators.....its the best form of democracy we have, but I dont recall it ever being legal for a body of people to vote on FEDERAL laws. States are different because they have more freedom to legislate whatever they want but even states have a supreme court to interpret state constitution to mimick the federal constitution as much as possible. It dont matter how many times you vote on anything, the supreme court can and always will have the power to amend it as long as we have a democracy.


The PEOPLE voted down Prop 8.

Now the homos want the Judicary to over ride the will of the people.

If the Judicary can just dictate everything from the bench.

Then why even have a vote???


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> The PEOPLE voted down Prop 8.
> 
> Now the homos want the Judicary to over ride the will of the people.
> 
> ...



Kinda like what Bush Jr. has been doing with Roe vs. Wade?  Bush was using the Judiciary Federal Branch to override the will of the people.  Ever hear of Alberto Gonzales?


----------



## sky dancer (Nov 20, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> You're right.  I've known several gay people over my years.  Matter of fact on of places I lived, I rented a room from 2 lesbians, one of whom had a gay cousin.  I'd talked to them quite a bit, and one of the things that they kept bringing up is that homophobes are always scared that the gays are going to bend them over and start having their way with them.  Unfortunately for the phobes, most of them are not good looking and generally have lousy personalities, and women wouldn't look at them, so why should the gay men?  I mean.....most gay men are better looking than most straight guys, because of the competition in their dating circles.
> 
> Personally, if you ask me, it's ego driven fear.  They (the homophobes) think just because they have an anus they are attractive to gays, when in reality, they (the homophobes) aren't really attractive to anyone else, they're just looking for something to feed their ego.




I think the homophobes are afraid of homosexuality in themselves.  They are obsessed with anal intercourse--continually making references to it in their condemnation of gays.

Funny thing is that anal intercourse also happens with heterosexuals.

Men who are secure in their sexuality are unconcerned about what goes on in other peoples bedrooms.  They are way more interested in what's happening in their own.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Kinda like what Bush Jr. has been doing with Roe vs. Wade?  Bush was using the Judiciary Federal Branch to override the will of the people.  Ever hear of Alberto Gonzales?


Alberto Gonzales is a sick puke.

In my opinion Bush and Chaney headed up an organized terrorist crime ring.

They should be arrested and brought before the world court and charged with crimes against humanity.


----------



## Vintij (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> The PEOPLE voted down Prop 8.
> 
> Now the homos want the Judicary to over ride the will of the people.
> 
> ...



What do you mean why have a vote? There are literally dozens of stupid props put on the ballot every single year, this does not mean we should stop voting on them. Literally anyone from anywhere with any background can petition to put WHATEVER they want on the ballot, they can literally put slavery back on the ballot if they got enough signatures........this does not mean it will go through or that it is the right thing to do, THATS exactly why we have the state supreme court to make sure that things do not get out of hand and stray too far from the original constitution.  

Do you understand now? 

It is legal to gather millions of signatures from people who want slavery back again, and it is legal to put it on the ballot......it is even legal if you somehow convince enough people that it would be worth voting for......THIS is why the supreme court is put in place and picked out by people who we elect, to make sure this type of stuff does not happen. 

Same thing for prop 8, which violates the 14th amendment (equal protection) under the federal constitution.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> I think the homophobes are afraid of homosexuality in themselves.  They are obsessed with anal intercourse--continually making references to it in their condemnation of gays.
> 
> Funny thing is that anal intercourse also happens with heterosexuals.
> 
> Men who are secure in their sexuality are unconcerned about what goes on in other peoples bedrooms.  They are way more interested in what's happening in their own.


As for me, I am worried about the safety of my children and the moral decline that homosexuality has brought into our society. Not what they are doing to each other.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 20, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Men who are secure in their sexuality are unconcerned about what goes on in other peoples bedrooms.  They are way more interested in what's happening in their own.





*EXACTLY!*


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

Vintij said:


> Same thing for prop 8, which violates the 14th amendment (equal protection) under the federal constitution.


Homos already have "equal protection" under the law. 

Prop 8 does not violate the 14th amendment.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> As for me, I am worried about the safety of my children and the moral decline that homosexuality has brought into our society. Not what they are doing to each other.



Yeah.....ya gotta watch out for that moral decline brought on by them there homos!/sarcasm

Never mind the moral decline brought on by divorce, war, lying politicians, sex on television, gang expansion all over the US (even by foreign gangs, ever heard of MS13?).  Let's also forget about all the sleazy tactics used by our politicians to lie and denigrate their opponents.

Nope.....gotta worry about the queers, never mind about all the other immorality going on, as long as we get rid of those damn dirty homos, everything will be back to Ward Cleaver times./sarcasm.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Men who are secure in their sexuality are unconcerned about what goes on in other peoples bedrooms.  They are way more interested in what's happening in their own.


So you are saying that the majority of men in California voted down Prop 8 because they are insecure about their sexuality??


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> So you are saying that the majority of men in California voted down Prop 8 because they are insecure about their sexuality??



You know, I like when you use the cuckoo icon.  It lets us know that you've got another insane thought that you just put down.

The tactics of focusing in on just one thing without checking everything else going on?  It's apparent dude......you can't see the forest because the trees are in your way.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Never mind the moral decline brought on by divorce, war, lying politicians, sex on television, gang expansion all over the US (even by foreign gangs, ever heard of MS13?).  Let's also forget about all the sleazy tactics used by our politicians to lie and denigrate their opponents.


All of the other things you mentioned are bad also. 

But the homos are actively pursuing an agenda for the destruction of our morals and values.


----------



## Vintij (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Homos already have "equal protection" under the law.
> 
> Prop 8 does not violate the 14th amendment.



No they do not, civil partnerships are not the same as marriage. There are 1,042 rights that married couples have......domestic partnerships have a little over half of the same rights. Not only that, but more importantly marriage is universal while domestic partnerships are only recognized in the state they are performed.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

Vintij said:


> No they do not, civil partnerships are not the same as marriage. There are 1,042 rights that married couples have......domestic partnerships have a little over half of the same rights. Not only that, but more importantly marriage is universal while domestic partnerships are only recognized in the state they are performed.


Homos are still protected under the 14th amendment and their rights are still there ubder the law.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> All of the other things you mentioned are bad also.
> 
> But the homos are actively pursuing an agenda for the destruction of our morals and values.



You must just be acting stupid, because I can't really believe anyone that is capable of using the 'net can be that dumb.  

I'll ask you plainly then........do you think that if we shipped off all the homosexuals over to another country, all the things wrong with THIS one would be magically fixed overnight?

If so........say goodbye to your interior decorators and fashion designers.

Start wearing shapeless clothes in a dull house.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> I'll ask you plainly then........do you think that if we shipped off all the homosexuals over to another country, all the things wrong with THIS one would be magically fixed overnight?
> 
> If so........say goodbye to your interior decorators and fashion designers.
> 
> Start wearing shapeless clothes in a dull house.


I want them to be arrested and put into institutions. So that they can recieve mental health therapy to help cure them of thier illness. It's really the most humane thing to do for them given their sad situation.

btw I designed and built my own house with out the help of a fudge packer.

And I have enough color sense to have my FXST custom painted and chromed without a limp wristed homo telling me what to do.

So I really don't see why you think sodomites have the market cornered on style, color, or fashon.


----------



## YWN666 (Nov 20, 2008)

Vintij said:


> Voters are not institutions of interpretation. If this were true we would have VOTED on civil rights for blacks, we would have voted for women to have the right to work and elect a president, we would have voted for religion to be taught in schools. You will see in only a few months time, that this again will be overturned by the true interpretations of the constitution, you know the ones who actually went to school and dedicated their lives to protecting it, not the half witted voters who dont even know how to cast a fucking ballot half the time, they need help with the simplest of tasks, yet demand the power to amend the state and federal constitution?
> 
> Let me ask you a question, are you relgious?



I think a good number of American voters are as dumb as a stump.
Mindless rhetoric works like a charm on these people.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> I want them to be arrested and put into institutions. So that they can recieve mental health therapy to help cure them of thier illness. It's really the most humane thing to do for them given their sad situation.



Know who else said that?  Hitler.  No wonder you think the Holocaust was a hoax. 

Just pegged ya dude.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Know who else said that?  Hitler.  No wonder you think the Holocaust was a hoax.


Not everything Hitler did was bad.

He created jobs for people and got the economy going.

Also, he built the first national Interstate system called the Autobaun

America's Interstate roads are patterned after his example.

Poor guy just got a little carried away later in life. You know, with the rule the world thing!


----------



## glockmail (Nov 20, 2008)

Vintij said:


> No they do not, civil partnerships are not the same as marriage. There are 1,042 rights that married couples have......domestic partnerships have a little over half of the same rights. Not only that, but more importantly marriage is universal while domestic partnerships are only recognized in the state they are performed.


 Other adults that make poor choices don't enjoy the same rights as I do either. Noe should they.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 20, 2008)

Vintij said:


> Voters are not institutions of interpretation. If this were true we would have VOTED on civil rights for blacks, we would have voted for women to have the right to work and elect a president, we would have voted for religion to be taught in schools. You will see in only a few months time, that this again will be overturned by the true interpretations of the constitution, you know the ones who actually went to school and dedicated their lives to protecting it, not the half witted voters who dont even know how to cast a fucking ballot half the time, they need help with the simplest of tasks, yet demand the power to amend the state and federal constitution? ...


 Yeah, if we can just get rid of Democracy altogether and let the elitists rule over us peons.


----------



## Vintij (Nov 20, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Yeah, if we can just get rid of Democracy altogether and let the elitists rule over us peons.



?

You mean the elitists that YOU vote for. Like John Mccain worth over 14 million dollars, is that elitism?  

Would you rather have dense people like yourself in office? Exactly. 

The peoples right to vote makes this a democracy not the right to interpret the constitution. That would make no sense at all. I mean sure you can interpret it any way you want....but you cant make laws based on regular peoples opinions of the constitution. Those "elitists" are the ones that do it not you. Thats why they vote every other day and we dont. Because we elect them because they are smarter than us and know what the founding fathers wanted.


Memo to Glock and Sunni, If you dont like supreme court decisions......then dont vote for the officials who appoint them you dimwits. You think these supreme court judges are ascribed to these positions? I think not, they are appointed by the officials we elect, sept for the regional judges....we actually elect them. So if you dont like a decision, dont vote for these judges because decision making is their jobs.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

Vintij said:


> Because we elect them because they are smarter than us and know what the founding fathers wanted.


Speak for your self.

I vote to elect them because they want the job. (I don't)

Not because I think they are smarter than me!!


----------



## Vintij (Nov 20, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Speak for your self.
> 
> I vote to elect them because they want the job. (I don't)
> 
> Not because I think they are smarter than me!!



Tell that to your friend GLOCK, he claimed that so called "elitists" are in charge of the courts. I guess you cant agree on this one, you and I agree that they are NOT elitists while Glocks false claim is that they are and that the "people" should be in charge of supreme court desicions.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 20, 2008)

Vintij said:


> Tell that to your friend GLOCK, he claimed that so called "elitists" are in charge of the courts. I guess you cant agree on this one, you and I agree that they are NOT elitists while Glocks false claim is that they are and that the "people" should be in charge of supreme court desicions.


We elect our Leaders, but the high court Justices are appointed.

They are appointed because of their political orientation. Plus it's for life.

And that's the problem.

After a while, they seem to forget who they are, and become crazed with power. 

Some people call it being elitist. I call it a God syndrome


----------



## WhiteLion (Nov 21, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> We elect our Leaders, but the high court Justices are appointed.
> 
> They are appointed because of their political orientation. Plus it's for life.
> 
> ...


Not to worry, the activist communist judges will over-ride Prop8 and the will of the people of California hide an watch... The sicko homos rioting in California remind me of this story below...

*Sodom and Gomorrah *

And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

-- Genesis 18: 20-21 (KJV)
Sometimes men just push the Lord too far. This time the evildoers are the denizens of Sodom, a city on the plains of Jordan near the Dead Sea. We arrive in the neighborhood with Abraham, who, after being chosen by God to beget a "great nation," leaves his home in Mesopotamia for a new land to the west (Genesis 12 and 17). Abraham settles in the hills of Canaan, but his nephew Lot prefers the urban culture of the plains. So he pitches his tent in Sodom -- a poor choice, as it turns out, since "the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly" (Genesis 13: 13). 

Exactly what manner of sinners they were we must infer from J's hints, which are pretty much limited to one verse (Genesis 19: 5). There, as two visitors (angels in disguise) dine with Lot, the men of Sodom circle the house. "Where are the men which came in to thee this night?" they want to know; "bring them out to us, that we may know them." 

Now, we all know what they mean by "know," and so did Lot. Rather than allow guests to suffer such indignities, he offers his two virgin daughters in the angels' stead. The mob isn't having any of this, however; they begin breaking down Lot's door, until the angels reveal their identity by striking the perpetrators blind. But Lot's manners do confirm the angels' opinion of his "righteousness." 

From this one incident derives the English usage of "sodomy," "sodomite," etc., although the Bible suggests that the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah goes well beyond homosexual acts. (Inhospitality appears to be a graver sin.) "Sodomy," meaning "unnatural sexual intercourse" dates back to the late thirteenth century, before Genesis had been fully translated into English, and "sodomite" in the sense of "sexual pervert" even predates "Sodomite" in the more primitive sense, "inhabitant of Sodom."


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 21, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Not everything Hitler did was bad.
> 
> He created jobs for people and got the economy going.
> 
> ...



So the people he killed were just inconsequential, right?  And, the Jews were well taken care of in labor camps, right?

You are either the dumbest, or one of the most evil SOB's that I've ever seen.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 21, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> So the people he killed were just inconsequential, right?  And, the Jews were well taken care of in labor camps, right?
> 
> You are either the dumbest, or one of the most evil SOB's that I've ever seen.


What's wrong with having a little humor? 

Everythings not always so black and white!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 21, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> What's wrong with having a little humor?
> 
> Everythings not always so black and white!



Speaking as someone who has been in war zones, and seen the results of dictators as they kill others in their pursuit of power and greed, I see damn little to be laughing about when it comes to senseless death.

You, on the other hand, are someone who has probably never had to really work hard for anything, or even have much hardship in your life.  You failed as a christian, and turned to Islam.  You've also obviously got a college degree since you claim to be a therapist, so therefore, you came from money and currently still have it.

You've also got a great deal of disdain and disrespect for your fellow man, which is what makes it so hard for me to believe that you are a therapist, because most that I've known, (and I've known a few), are kind and caring people, rather than arrogant bastards like you appear to be.  Making fun of the Holocaust, or not even believing it's real?  Saying that Hitler was a good guy?

You're not a human, you're a monster.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 21, 2008)

Growing up I used to watch a documentary on TV called "Hogans Hero's"

It was all about the Nazi's during WWII

I learrned alot about the true history of that time period.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 21, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Growing up I used to watch a documentary on TV called "Hogans Hero's"
> 
> It was all about the Nazi's during WWII
> 
> I learrned alot about the true history of that time period.



Didn't learn to spell, and your WWII history lessons came from Hogan's Heros.  Riiiiiiiight...........

Me?  I prefer facts, that's why I watch the History Channel.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 21, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> You, on the other hand, are someone who has probably never had to really work hard for anything, or even have much hardship in your life.   You've also obviously got a college degree since you claim to be a therapist, so therefore, you came from money and currently still have it.


I wish what you were saying was true. I was born an Army brat and definatly we wern't rich. Left home at 17 without finishing high school. Worked construction untill I got drafted for Vietnam. at 19

2 years later I was Honorably Discharged and had gotten my GED while in the service. I was soo broke that I applied for the GI Bill to go to collage. I barely passed the entrance exam. I started studying everything I could so I wouldn't flunk out the first semester. I read the Websters Collage Dictionary from cover to cover, to increase my vocabulary. (some times I can't believe I was crazy enough to do that, but I did!)

The war had been a traumatic experiance for me. So I want to find out what made people tick. When I started taking Psychology and Sociology courses. I knew I had found my field of study. Between the GI Bill ($230 dollars per month) and working nights and weekends. I put myself thru university and recieved my degrees.

No ABikerSailor, I wasn't born with the silver spoon. I had to earn it the hard way.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 21, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Me?  I prefer facts, that's why I watch the History Channel.


I love the History Channel!! 

The only time I don't watch it is when they have shows about UFO's, Big Foot, The Holocaust, Lock Ness Monster, or other such non sense.


----------



## Vintij (Nov 22, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> I love the History Channel!!
> 
> The only time I don't watch it is when they have shows about UFO's, Big Foot, The Holocaust, Lock Ness Monster, or other such non sense.



lol, thats funny because your friend just cited "national geographic" on the other thread. Clearly you know something he does not. Which I agree with, television shows are not legitimate sources. Like I told you a million times, If it is not scrutinized by the experts within the scientific community on the subject, it is not a legitimate source. Simple as that. Anyone who says otherwise, loves credulity.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 22, 2008)

xsited1 said:


> Ravi beat me to the punch.  For most Democrats, this is a civil rights issue.  Blacks were denied civil rights for years and now they're denying similar rights to gays.



I have to correct you.  For most SUPPORTERS of homosexual "marriage", it's a civil rights issue.  I think the fact that it keeps getting shot down by voters in huge numbers every single time it hits a ballot shows that it's NOT a civil rights issue for most Democrats.  And clearly, blacks do not consider it either a civil rights issue OR similar to their own civil rights struggle.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 22, 2008)

disciple2184 said:


> Blacks should understand their fight and address their own intolerance.



Why is it the job of blacks to share your view, rather than your job to understand theirs?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 22, 2008)

disciple2184 said:


> Homosexuality has been here since early antiquity and its not going away, so trying to  inhibit their behavior will only fester it.  Pass it and move on already; we have more important things to address.



I love it.  "I don't agree with you, so the solution is to just discard the clearly-spoken will of the people, everyone do what I think, and then move on to MY priorities."

Would it shock you to consider that not everyone shares your view of what is "important"?  Has it impinged on your consciousness at all that, far from "just passing" what you want, the majority of voters have made it clear that they want the opposite?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 22, 2008)

xsited1 said:


> Medical researchers are still trying to determine if homosexuals are born gay.  Some studies seem to indicate that there could be a chemical imbalance in the brain which could make them more susceptible to homosexual behavior.  If that's true, perhaps a cure can be found.



"Born gay" or not, homosexuality still isn't analogous to race.  All "being born that way" would indicate is that it's analogous to schizophrenia, or a tendency toward alcoholism.

I have never understood why so many people think "born that way" somehow makes something good or desirable.  Human beings are born with flaws all the time.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 22, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Think about it.
> 
> If there was a homo gene.
> 
> ...



Not necessarily.  It could be a mutated gene of some sort, or some kind of spontaneous genetic damage that occurs.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 22, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Not even radicals. I know a gal who, along with her "wife", adopted two kids and they go to my Catholic church.



Well, studies show that children raised by two homosexual parents, regardless of whether the children are the biological offspring of one of the parents or are adopted, show a much greater tendency to identify as homosexual themselves.

So that would indicate that it's not all biological, but also has an environmental aspect as well.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 22, 2008)

Vintij said:


> Dwindling to near nothingness except for the one or two illiterate folks in the bag who take those commentators like hannity serious enough to give him two television shows based on current evens or "news" and one radio show with zero college degrees in journalism, or anything at all for that matter. He is an uneducated college drop out with mediocre high school grades, how is he reporting the news or commenting on ANYTHING at all and taken seriously?



I'm sorry, but I'm sitting here, reading your post and wondering how and where you acquired the _chutzpah _to denigrate anyone else's education or literacy.

If I were you, I would be lying very, very low on the subject of education.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 22, 2008)

Vintij said:


> Yea, a democracy not an Anarchy. Thats why we have ELECTED officials who appoint members of the supreme court.



What's the Supreme Court got to do with passing laws?  Last time I read the Constitution, they aren't a part of that process.



Vintij said:


> Key word, ELECTED officials that we voted in who we entrust with the responsibility of appointing someone with an extensive background in law to interpret our constitution.



Actually, Chuckles, the Constitution makes no requirement of ANY background in law to be on the Supreme Court.  Of course, it also doesn't give them the power to "interpret" the law, either.



Vintij said:


> Since when was democracy defined as society rules and governes all executive and legislative activities?



Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy  
Pronunciation: \di-&#712;mä-kr&#601;-s&#275;\ 
Function: noun 
Inflected Form(s): plural de·moc·ra·cies 
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek d&#275;mokratia, from d&#275;mos + -kratia -cracy 
Date: 1576 
1 a: government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

Well, according to Merriam-Webster, it's been defined that way since 1576.  I hope that sufficiently answers your question.  



Vintij said:


> That is called an "egalitarian" society, and since we are not in the tribal ages anymore we must have a system of rule for our heavily populated, industrialized nation.



Well, democracy IS egalitarian in description, but I fail to see what that has to do with tribalism.  I can certainly imagine why such as you dislikes anything that allows freedom and self-determination to everyone, though.



Vintij said:


> This is why we ELECT our officials and leaders to appoint people who protect the constitution, not only from foreign interpretations but from our own domestic stupidity as well.



We elect people to appoint OTHER people to protect the Constitution?  Uh, no.  And we certainly don't elect ANYONE to "protect us from ourselves", which is just another way of saying, "Elitism".



Vintij said:


> I think you need to educate yourself on the meaning of democracy, and all other types of government while your at it.



This from the Mensa member who didn't think that democracy meant rule by the people in society.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 22, 2008)

Vintij said:


> Well I find it very funny that the very people who quote the bible on homosexual sin as a justification for prop 8, are the same ones who breed illigitimate children or are illigitimate children themselves. According to their own bible that they cite, they themselves are going to hell.
> 
> lol
> 
> The irony.



People don't go to Hell for being born illegitimate.  You must have been taught the Bible by the same flatliner who taught you about the Constitution and systems of government.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 22, 2008)

Vintij said:


> lol
> 
> In what country is this? Please do tell me. What country are you talking about, in which the PEOPLE pass legislation and not the legislators and the executive branch.



That would be the United States, where many states have what is called the "initiative process".  Surely you noticed it in the just-finished election, where three states - California, Arizona, and Florida - passed laws making homosexual "marriage" not legally recognized in their states.  California's Proposition 8 is the reason for and topic of this thread.  Am I ringing any bells here?



Vintij said:


> The PEOPLE, can have their voice heard by simply electing different legislators.....its the best form of democracy we have, but I dont recall it ever being legal for a body of people to vote on FEDERAL laws.



Who said anything about federal laws?



Vintij said:


> States are different because they have more freedom to legislate whatever they want but even states have a supreme court to interpret state constitution to mimick the federal constitution as much as possible.



Actually, state supreme courts no more have the legal right to "interpret" the state Constitution than the US Supreme Court has to "interpret" the federal.  And in the case of a law like California's Proposition 8 - or for that matter, the laws passed in Arizona and Florida - which actually amends the state Constitution, there's not a damned thing the state supreme court can do about it, legally or otherwise.  It's not like you can strike down a Constitutional amendment as being Unconstitutional.

By the way, Brain Trust, the US Constitution doesn't mention marriage at all, so it's going to be a bit hard to claim that the state Constitutions are out-of-line with it.



Vintij said:


> It dont matter how many times you vote on anything, the supreme court can and always will have the power to amend it as long as we have a democracy.  That is their job, not the peoples job.



Spoken like someone who is not only terrified of the idea of people thinking for themselves instead of being ruled by dictators, but also like someone who has never read our Constitution.



Vintij said:


> The peoples job is to voice their opinions, freely pursue happiness, believe in whatever they want and vote for our leaders......It is NOT the peoples job to change our constitution EVER. If this were true, all anyone has to do is convince millions of people that god should be taught in schools......oh wait that DID happen and it was shot down.



The people's job is to get back to their bread and circuses, and let the all-knowing, benevolent wise ones run their lives for them . . . for their own good, of course.

Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, _et al_. would be SOOOO proud.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 22, 2008)

Vintij said:


> No they do not, civil partnerships are not the same as marriage. There are 1,042 rights that married couples have......domestic partnerships have a little over half of the same rights. Not only that, but more importantly marriage is universal while domestic partnerships are only recognized in the state they are performed.



Married couples actually have privileges.  And since homosexuals are just as capable of getting married in exactly the same way that everyone else is, there is no unequal application of the law.

Just because they don't WANT to get married in the same way everyone else does doesn't mean the law isn't applied equally.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 22, 2008)

Vintij said:


> ?
> 
> You mean the elitists that YOU vote for. Like John Mccain worth over 14 million dollars, is that elitism?



No, it isn't.

First you can't define "democracy", now you can't define "elitism".  Hopefully, Santa Claus will bring you a dictionary in your stocking this year.



Vintij said:


> Would you rather have dense people like yourself in office? Exactly.



No, what we REALLY want is people like you, who think it's a good idea to revoke everyone else's rights and freedoms and tell them how to live and what to think for their own good.

FYI, _that _is the definition of "elitism" you were looking for earlier.



Vintij said:


> The peoples right to vote makes this a democracy not the right to interpret the constitution. That would make no sense at all. I mean sure you can interpret it any way you want....but you cant make laws based on regular peoples opinions of the constitution. Those "elitists" are the ones that do it not you. Thats why they vote every other day and we dont. Because we elect them because they are smarter than us and know what the founding fathers wanted.



You scare me.  You really, really do.  You are the reason that totalitarian dictatorships come to power and wreak horror on humanity.



Vintij said:


> Memo to Glock and Sunni, If you dont like supreme court decisions......then dont vote for the officials who appoint them you dimwits. You think these supreme court judges are ascribed to these positions? I think not, they are appointed by the officials we elect, sept for the regional judges....we actually elect them. So if you dont like a decision, dont vote for these judges because decision making is their jobs.



Memo to me:  America's public schools are even more broken than I thought, if this is the detritus being produced.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 22, 2008)

disciple2184 said:


> Homosexuality has been here since early antiquity and its not going away, so trying to  inhibit their behavior will only fester it.  Pass it and move on already; we have more important things to address.




Prostitution, murder, rape and alcoholism has been here since early antiquity also, should that also be legalised?


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 22, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Prostitution, murder, rape and alcoholism has been here since early antiquity also, should that also be legalised?



Prostitution is legal in some places. Laws against it are just another example of people legislating their morality. 

Murder harms another person, so equating it to homosexuality is stupid. 

Rape harms another person, so equating it to homosexuality is dumb. 

I don't believe alcoholism is illegal.

And Jesus Christ, Cecile. Do you think you could confine all your BS to one or two posts? My God.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 22, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Well, studies show that children raised by two homosexual parents, regardless of whether the children are the biological offspring of one of the parents or are adopted, show a much greater tendency to identify as homosexual themselves.
> 
> So that would indicate that it's not all biological, but also has an environmental aspect as well.



No, they do not, you damn liar. I posted a link to the APA which refutes everything you just said. So, whatever "studies" you are referring to were undoubtedly done by NARTH. 

Find someone credible and post this information, or lose all credibility.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 22, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> So, whatever "studies" you are referring to were undoubtedly done by NARTH.


So only your links are acceptable Macintosh. 

And everyone elses are garbage.

How open minded you are!!


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 22, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> Prostitution is legal in some places. Laws against it are just another example of people legislating their morality.
> 
> Murder harms another person, so equating it to homosexuality is stupid.
> 
> ...



You missed the point moron, just because something has been around for awhile doesn't mean it should be accepted and or ok.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 22, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> You missed the point moron, just because something has been around for awhile doesn't mean it should be accepted and or ok.



No, I didn't miss the point, you idiot. It was just ridiculous because you were comparing homosexuality with acts it has no business being compared with. 

Try not to be so ignorant. 

Wait. Sorry. It's a "by default" thing with you people, isn't it?


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 22, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> So only your links are acceptable Macintosh.
> 
> And everyone elses are garbage.
> 
> How open minded you are!!



I post links to the APA, the Royal College, and National Geographic. All credible and respected sources. NARTH is not credible, which I also proved. They are a religious organization. What do you want them to say?


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 22, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> No, I didn't miss the point, you idiot. It was just ridiculous because you were comparing homosexuality with acts it has no business being compared with.
> 
> Try not to be so ignorant.
> 
> Wait. Sorry. It's a "by default" thing with you people, isn't it?



To a true Christian like the Bass, all sin is sin, there is no good and bad sin nor is there is any acceptable sin, all sin is sin and is bad.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 22, 2008)

Macintosh, I applaud your performance in this thread.  You have, hands down, kicked the dogshit out of bass and sunni's arguments.  BRAVO, sir.  Bravo.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 22, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Macintosh, I applaud your performance in this thread.  You have, hands down, kicked the dogshit out of bass and sunni's arguments.  BRAVO, sir.  Bravo.




Mr reach around and stimulate has re-entered the thread.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 22, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> I post links to the APA, the Royal College, and National Geographic. All credible and respected sources. NARTH is not credible, which I also proved. They are a religious organization. What do you want them to say?




How is NARTH not credible but the APA is credible?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 22, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> How is NARTH not credible but the APA is credible?



The religious one is biased, the other one isn't.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 22, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> The religious one is biased, the other one isn't.



NARTH isn't totally religious and the APA as before stated previously were *DIVIDED* over the issue of homosexuality when it was put to a vote in 1973. You dumb lefties want to bash anything with even a little religion as biased when it doesn't suit what you like.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 22, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> The religious one is biased, the other one isn't.


Yes it is biased. It is biased toward secularism


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 22, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Yes it is biased. It is biased toward secularism



Bullshit.  It's like those ID nutjobs, they are trying to tell us that science doesn't work and we all need to just say "God did it".

Nope......those groups that you pull out are just like Fred Phelps and the Westboro Church (of which you stated you fully support in another thread).

Narrow minded, bigoted, and unwilling and unable to listen to anything other than what they perceive as the correct answer.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 22, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> How is NARTH not credible but the APA is credible?



NARTH is funded by organizations like Focus on the Family, so it's obvious they are operating with a specific cause and motive in mind. Furthermore, anytime NARTH is faced with the reality that the majority of the medical profession reject their "conversion therapy" idea, they respond with "the medical community is a research arm of gay rights activists." What kind of an argument is that ["Liberal bias!!!"]? 

It's absurd. NARTH is in no way credible. They have a motive. What motive would the APA, the Royal College, and the World Health Organization have? All of these groups reject NARTH and their pseudo-science.


----------



## xsited1 (Nov 22, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> It's absurd. NARTH is in no way credible. They have a motive. What motive would the APA, the Royal College, and the World Health Organization have? All of these groups reject NARTH and their pseudo-science.



Hilarious!  You actually reject a group like NARTH, but embrace the APA, the Royal College and the WHO and ask what motive would they have?  You must be joking.  I apologize that I didn't see this before.  I bow to your trollness.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 22, 2008)

xsited1 said:


> I bow to your trollness.


Great line!!!


----------



## xsited1 (Nov 22, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Great line!!!



I'm a little embarrassed that I didn't realize Macintosh was a troll sooner.  I can usually tell after the first post.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 22, 2008)

So . . . back to the original topic.

What I find interesting is how LITTLE Prop 8 opponents are blaming blacks, at least openly.  Chuck Norris wrote an interesting op-ed piece (yes, THAT Chuck Norris) pointing out that, although overwhelming majorities of black voters in California supported Prop 8, despite voting Democrat on everything else, the nasty, anarchistic vitriol has rather ostentatiously been directed at WHITE people:  white churches, white supporters passing out signs, white demonstrators . . .

After all, invading a black church and disrupting their service would be a hate crime.


----------



## xsited1 (Nov 22, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> So . . . back to the original topic.
> 
> What I find interesting is how LITTLE Prop 8 opponents are blaming blacks, at least openly.  Chuck Norris wrote an interesting op-ed piece (yes, THAT Chuck Norris) pointing out that, although overwhelming majorities of black voters in California supported Prop 8, despite voting Democrat on everything else, the nasty, anarchistic vitriol has rather ostentatiously been directed at WHITE people:  white churches, white supporters passing out signs, white demonstrators . . .
> 
> After all, invading a black church and disrupting their service would be a hate crime.



Yep.  Blacks are a protected race.  Many black pastors in the Little Rock area told their congregations to vote for Obama.  Was anything done about it?  Nope.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 22, 2008)

xsited1 said:


> Hilarious!  You actually reject a group like NARTH, but embrace the APA, the Royal College and the WHO and ask what motive would they have?  You must be joking.  I apologize that I didn't see this before.  I bow to your trollness.



So, uh, what motive?

Wait; let me guess: "The liberal scum sucking bottom-feeders are trying to indoctrinate the entire world with their godless ideology. They have hijacked every respected institution; that is, every institution that disagrees with my bigoted outlook." 

Yeah, sorry. I shoulda known.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 22, 2008)

xsited1 said:


> I'm a little embarrassed that I didn't realize Macintosh was a troll sooner.  I can usually tell after the first post.


True! His arguments were very weak and his so called evidence had basically no substance.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 22, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> True! His arguments were very weak and his so called evidence had basically no substance.



LOL. And, uh, who is the troll?


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 22, 2008)

macintosh said:


> lol. And, Uh, Who Is The Troll?


You!!!!


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 22, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> You!!!!



Indeed. Trolls commonly provide evidence for all of their assertions. Evidence, mind you, from more than one or two respected institutions. 

I mean, clearly.


----------



## YWN666 (Nov 23, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> True! His arguments were very weak and his so called evidence had basically no substance.



I would say the same thing about your posts.


----------



## YWN666 (Nov 23, 2008)

SunniMan, your negative rep and your use of the phrase "fag lover" tells me that you're nothing but an ignorant bigot.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 23, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> Indeed. Trolls commonly provide evidence for all of their assertions. Evidence, mind you, from more than one or two respected institutions.
> 
> I mean, clearly.



Again, how is the APA more credible than NARTH on the subject of homosexuality when people within the APA are divided on the issue of homosexuality? Is it because you don't agree with what NARTH says? There are no papers or studies that have refuted anything NARTH has stated, neither have any of the so called "respected" sources you keep using have published anything discrediting anything done by NARTH.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 23, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Again, how is the APA more credible than NARTH on the subject of homosexuality when people within the APA are divided on the issue of homosexuality? Is it because you don't agree with what NARTH says? There are no papers or studies that have refuted anything NARTH has stated, neither have any of the so called "respected" sources you keep using have published anything discrediting anything done by NARTH.



Bass, I do believe I explained all of this already. If you can't somehow discern why the APA was divided in the 70s - out with the old, in with the new - then I don't know what to tell you. I suspect by divided you mean the older, values-psychologists were marginalized. Do you know what those psychologists did? They started NARTH, which is funded by religious organizations. That's why they are not credible. They are operating with a motive.

Someone please explain to me what motive the APA, the Royal College, and the WHO are operating with? Explain it. Too, explain what motive National Geographic would have. 

And the APA link clearly elaborates on their assertion that "conversion therapy" does not work. They explain why it does not work. They also explain, in detail, why homosexuality was removed from their list of mental illnesses. In fact, I believe I explained it. 

Alas, it was written-off. Why? The infamous "liberal bias" retort. What kind of an answer is that? Why is it you cannot prove it? If it's as obvious as you folks would like us to believe, then you shouldn't have a problem sustaining this notion.

It's hilarious that you chastise me for ignoring NARTH for _legitimate_ reasons, yet remain unaware that you are doing the same thing; albeit, you have no legitimate reason to write-off the APA, the Royal College, the WHO, or National Geographic. Your reason, although not legitimate, is simply "liberal bias."

Give me a break.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 23, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> Bass, I do believe I explained all of this already. If you can't somehow discern why the APA was divided in the 70s - out with the old, in with the new - then I don't know what to tell you. I suspect by divided you mean the older, values-psychologists were marginalized. Do you know what those psychologists did? They started NARTH, which is funded by religious organizations. That's why they are not credible. They are operating with a motive.
> 
> Someone please explain to me what motive the APA, the Royal College, and the WHO are operating with? Explain it. Too, explain what motive National Geographic would have.
> 
> ...



You haven't provided evidence to support anything, you've leaned on the APA and the fallacious appeal to authority fallacy to prove something you haven't proven. You only reason you ignore NARTH is because you don't like what they say.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 23, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> You only reason you ignore NARTH is because you don't like what they say.


You nailed it Mr. Bass!!!


----------



## Vintij (Nov 23, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> No, it isn't.
> 
> First you can't define "democracy", now you can't define "elitism".  Hopefully, Santa Claus will bring you a dictionary in your stocking this year.
> 
> ...



Look, I dont see anything here that actually proves what your point is. Infact, I am very unclear as to what your point is. After reading through your posts you said I should not be talking about education.....well that makes no sense. Why question my credentials without displaying your own first, and second why question my credentials when I am not the one on "FOX NEWS CHANNEL" reporting "BREAKING NEWS" with zero credentials. At least Bill Oreilly has credentials for his biased reporting, thats a start. Perhaps you can fill me in on your credentials, since you have so much free time on your hands.....clearly you have not educated yourself to do something that involves working on the weekends. Let me ask you why you have some all encompassing ascribed knowledge that gives you some type of papal infallibility in all of the fields you have responded in? What have I missed while attending graduate school?  Is it now the "norm" to obsess over someones posts and respond with one or two non cited, unclear, biased commentary thinking one has actually proven anything to anyone? 


Second, you actually pulled out the definition of democracy proving my point. In the definition it said "Represented by elected officials" ........lol thank you for that. Never did I say that the people were not in power here you obsessive fan of mine. I know you love to twist everything I say and credulously spew out one liners that seem to make you look somewhat more educated or more informed than me on this subject, but the truth is I see nothing new to your argument. I mean for christ sake the only thing you cited was a definition which proved that ELECTED OFFICIALS REPRESENT THE PEOPLE OF THE US. That gives all the power to the people, BUT.......it gives all the LEGISTLATIVE responsibility and federal/state legal constitutional interpretation to the elected officials you dimwit. I have never actually met someone who thinks that the American people should decide what to ammend on a constitution based on a populiar vote. like I said, if this were true....many things would be different. But I guess we will not see the results of prop 8 until the state supreme court rules on it. Believe me as soon as they do, I will contact you for a civil discussion on the matter

 You even brought out totalitarian arguments, okay how desperate can you get. Nobody said anything about a system of government in which the people have little to no political contribution to the system of chiefdom or rule based. The fact that we elect our officials alone, makes totalitarianism impossible......and since I never said that the people should NOT elect officials, your claim is once again dis-proven. I am actually beginning to question your rep rating. How can someone with such a high rep score actually believe the biased opinions that come out of their mouth. And whats worse, is that your opinions are not something new. I have heard all of this before and it clearly indicates your lack of ability to read something other than a google search quiry. 

I really wish you had a few books to read on the subject, perhaps even the literal capacity to understand what you are reading. 

If you are going to be obsessive over my posts, at least add something that is factual that you are not contractually obligated to say by your diety or whatever it is you follow (at least thats what it sounds like). I know what the bible say's you tool. Unless you can prove to me that it is NOT a sin to breed outside of wedlock, well then your religion argument falls flat. How can it not be a sin to be born that way either when (according to the old king james testamen) every baby is born with "original sin". Which is why there is baptism. My question is, if one can be born with original sin, why can they not be born with other sin? And does it even matter? One can just repent their sins, which is fine but my argument was that the bastards who accuse gays of sinning, are the same bastards who must repent every day of their clear and explicit refusal to follow their own commandments. Why dont you talk to me about pope John XII and his homosexual behavior and the raping of his own sisters. Or perhaps you would like to talk to me about Pope Benedict IX and his sexual relations with his own daughter and even some animals. My point is that homosexuality is not a sin, and if it were....many leaders of many churches would not be where they are today, nor would dozens of popes have any divine authority over anyone. Which means that our vote on prop 8 is clear hypocritical injustice. 

PS. Do me a favor, respond with one post. I dont have time to read dozens of multiquoted posts. Infact I am probably the only one who read pages 41 and 42 on this thread (which is mostly you ranting and raving all over the reservation, gushing with confusing hypocritical irony).


----------



## joe77 (Nov 23, 2008)

Just jumping in...



> Bass, I do believe I explained all of this already. If you can't somehow discern why the APA was divided in the 70s - out with the old, in with the new - then I don't know what to tell you. I suspect by divided you mean the older, values-psychologists were marginalized. Do you know what those psychologists did? They started NARTH, which is funded by religious organizations. That's why they are not credible. They are operating with a motive.



Of course NARTH has a motive. Every non-profit has some kind of motive, usually to the exclusion of other motives. That's...kind of the point, yeah? Because they receive donations from religious organizations doesn't make them not credible. It just means they receive funding from religious organizations. You'd have to actually "prove" their claims wrong for your claim of their non-credibility to be true. Being biased doesn't mean the same as telling lies.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 23, 2008)

joe77 said:


> Just jumping in...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course NARTH has a motive. Every non-profit has some kind of motive, usually to the exclusion of other motives. That's...kind of the point, yeah? Because they receive donations from religious organizations doesn't make them not credible. It just means they receive funding from religious organizations. You'd have to actually "prove" their claims wrong for your claim of their non-credibility to be true. Being biased doesn't mean the same as telling lies.



NARTH has a _specific _motive; critical distinction. They'll not be content until they prove homosexuality is a choice. The same does not ring true for groups like the APA, the Royal College, the WHO, and National Geographic. Secondly, the links and explanations from _credible_ organizations prove NARTH wrong for me. 

Again, had you people taken the time to read the links I provided, you might not be blubbering on and on.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 23, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> You haven't provided evidence to support anything, you've leaned on the APA and the fallacious appeal to authority fallacy to prove something you haven't proven. You only reason you ignore NARTH is because you don't like what they say.



LOL. So, providing evidence for my assertion is an "appeal to authority"? How niggardly sad that statement is. Had I said, "Nuh-uh, that can't be true 'cause the APA says it isn't" then you could accuse me of appealing to authority. I've not done that. I've used the APA, the Royal College, my own explanations, and National Geographic. 

So, before you blubber on like the ignorant N you are, perhaps you ought learn what "appeal to authority" means before using it. 

Here:

On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. *Since we cannot have detailed knowledge of a great many topics, we must often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true,* in contrast to claiming that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism: It can be true, the truth can merely not be proven, or made probable by attributing it to the authority, and the assumption that the assertion was true might be subject to criticism and turn out to have actually been wrong. If a criticism appears that contradicts the authority's statement, then merely the fact that the statement originated from the authority is not an argument for ignoring the criticism.​
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Now, you ignoramus. Where did I say the APA was infallible? I haven't said that, nor have I relied on them solely. If you recall, not only did I use the APA, but the Royal College, the WHO, and National Geographic. Plus, I threw in some of my own knowledge on this issue. So, there has been no appeal to authority. 

And I ignore NARTH for reasons I've already delineated. But why don't you tell us all why you ignore the APA, the Royal College, the WHO, and National Geographic. Please, please, please explain to us why.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 23, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> NARTH has a _specific _motive; critical distinction. They'll not be content until they prove homosexuality is a choice. The same does not ring true for groups like the APA, the Royal College, the WHO, and National Geographic. Secondly, the links and explanations from _credible_ organizations prove NARTH wrong for me.
> 
> Again, had you people taken the time to read the links I provided, you might not be blubbering on and on.



Again, you have not proven that anything that NARTH says is wrong and or not credible, so dream on. Since you made that claim the burden of proof is on you to prove that NARTH isn't credible.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 23, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Again, you have not proven that anything that NARTH says is wrong and or not credible, so dream on. Since you made that claim the burden of proof is on you to prove that NARTH isn't credible.



Um, excuse me? Are you that retarded? Wasn't it you and every other bigot in this thread that was dismissive when presented with the APA links? Royal College? National Geographic? World Health Organization?

You ignorant asses said the APA was wrong and posted a NARTH link. LOL. That's appeal to authority. The burden of proof is on you folks. This it has been since we began this discussion.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 23, 2008)

Vintij said:


> Look, I dont see anything here that actually proves what your point is. Infact, I am very unclear as to what your point is. After reading through your posts you said I should not be talking about education.....well that makes no sense. Why question my credentials without displaying your own first, and second why question my credentials when I am not the one on "FOX NEWS CHANNEL" reporting "BREAKING NEWS" with zero credentials. At least Bill Oreilly has credentials for his biased reporting, thats a start. Perhaps you can fill me in on your credentials, since you have so much free time on your hands.....clearly you have not educated yourself to do something that involves working on the weekends. Let me ask you why you have some all encompassing ascribed knowledge that gives you some type of papal infallibility in all of the fields you have responded in? What have I missed while attending graduate school?  Is it now the "norm" to obsess over someones posts and respond with one or two non cited, unclear, biased commentary thinking one has actually proven anything to anyone?



Um, my point is that you're an ignorant elitist praying that some kind socialist will come along and rescue you from the big, scary, independent folks around you who insist on participating in the democratic process and said kind socialist will then oppress those damned free thinkers and grind them under his heel and use them to support you and take care of you and tell you what to think so you won't have to do any of that distasteful stuff for yourself.  The only proof I need of this point is your own posts.

If that's not clear enough for you, let me simple it up.  I think you're an ignorant dumbass who doesn't know anything about America, fears it, and wants to destroy it.  That help you any, or should I break out the Crayolas and start drawing diagrams?



Vintij said:


> Second, you actually pulled out the definition of democracy proving my point. In the definition it said "Represented by elected officials" ........lol thank you for that.



You really can't read, can you?  "LOL"  It says " . . . and _exercised by them directly _or indirectly through a system of representation . . ."  That whole "I'm going to pick out part of what you said and pretend that was the whole quote" thing only works when you're talking to someone as ignorant, obtuse, and short-memoried as you are, and I'm afraid my cat is unable to come to the computer right now, so you'll have to deal with me.

Do NOT try that dishonest bullshit on me again.



Vintij said:


> Never did I say that the people were not in power here you obsessive fan of mine.



I take it back.  You're not an ignorant dumbass.  You're an ignorant, LYING dumbass.  I don't waste much time on poltroons, and I don't waste ANY on liars.  FLUSH!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 23, 2008)

joe77 said:


> Just jumping in...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course NARTH has a motive. Every non-profit has some kind of motive, usually to the exclusion of other motives. That's...kind of the point, yeah? Because they receive donations from religious organizations doesn't make them not credible. It just means they receive funding from religious organizations. You'd have to actually "prove" their claims wrong for your claim of their non-credibility to be true. Being biased doesn't mean the same as telling lies.



A good point.  A motive is merely a purpose for existing, and all organizations have those.  Homeless shelters want to feed the indigent and give them a place to sleep at night.  That's their motive.  Does that make their facts and figures concerning the homeless in their city unreliable?  Not all by itself.  You have to know who's honest and who isn't.

The Alan Guttmacher Institute, as an example, is quite openly liberal and supports abortion, among other related liberal causes.  They receive financial support from a variety of organizations I do not like and would not cite as sources.  Nevertheless, their basic statistics concerning abortion are well-known for being factual and reliable.  I cite the Institute as a source all the time.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 23, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> Um, excuse me? Are you that retarded? Wasn't it you and every other bigot in this thread that was dismissive when presented with the APA links? Royal College? National Geographic? World Health Organization?
> 
> You ignorant asses said the APA was wrong and posted a NARTH link. LOL. That's appeal to authority. The burden of proof is on you folks. This it has been since we began this discussion.



Bottomline, you haven't proven that NARTH is not credible and or that their claims are false and the APA hasn't backed up its statements with research.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 23, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Bottomline, you haven't proven that NARTH is not credible and or that their claims are false and the APA hasn't backed up its statements with research.



LOL. Yes, I have. Not only did I explain in my own words why they are not credible, but I provided links to the APA, the Royal College, the WHO, and National Geographic. To intelligent people, the amount of world renowned institutions I use to support my assertions ought to be reason enough. 

Now, would you like to explain to us why you disregard everything my sources say? You've given no reason. Please, explain why NARTH is correct and my sources are not. 

P.S. "Bottomline" should be two words, my friend.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 23, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> A good point. A motive is merely a purpose for existing, and all organizations have those.  Homeless shelters want to feed the indigent and give them a place to sleep at night.  That's their motive.  Does that make their facts and figures concerning the homeless in their city unreliable?  Not all by itself.  You have to know who's honest and who isn't.



No, it isn't a good point. I explained already why NARTH should be written-off. They have a specific motive. They'll not be pleased until they prove homosexuality is a choice. Again, the same does not ring true for these other organizations. They're purpose is science, research, and reporting what they find. I suspect they could care less what the implications their research would make.

If NARTH did a study and concluded that they were wrong, do you really believe they would report this? No. It would undermine the very reason they exist. 



> The Alan Guttmacher Institute, as an example, is quite openly liberal and supports abortion, among other related liberal causes.  They receive financial support from a variety of organizations I do not like and would not cite as sources.  Nevertheless, their basic statistics concerning abortion are well-known for being factual and reliable.  I cite the Institute as a source all the time.



Alan Guttmacher is the former head of Planned Parenthood. It's pretty obvious he operates with a specific motive. As a matter of truth, I use this fact against any pro-choicer who decides to use the Guttmacher Institute to support an assertion they have made. They're simply not credible. Similarly, NARTH is not credible. They, like Guttmacher, operate with a specific motive. The only time I believe anything they report is if I can confirm it by another source. Too often, this is not the case. Much of what they report is simply a fairy tale. They are dishonest as all hell.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 23, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Macintosh, I applaud your performance in this thread.  You have, hands down, kicked the dogshit out of bass and sunni's arguments.  BRAVO, sir.  Bravo.


 You forgot your fucking pom poms.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 23, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Well, studies show that children raised by two homosexual parents, regardless of whether the children are the biological offspring of one of the parents or are adopted, show a much greater tendency to identify as homosexual themselves.
> 
> So that would indicate that it's not all biological, but also has an environmental aspect as well.


Gee, the Homos always say that they have no impact on the kids.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 23, 2008)

Vintij said:


> ?
> 
> You mean the elitists that YOU vote for. Like John Mccain worth over 14 million dollars, is that elitism?
> 
> .....


 McCain is self-made, politically. He just happened to marry well. I say good for him.


----------



## Vintij (Nov 23, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Um, my point is that you're an ignorant elitist praying that some kind socialist will come along and rescue you from the big, scary, independent folks around you who insist on participating in the democratic process and said kind socialist will then oppress those damned free thinkers and grind them under his heel and use them to support you and take care of you and tell you what to think so you won't have to do any of that distasteful stuff for yourself.  The only proof I need of this point is your own posts.
> 
> If that's not clear enough for you, let me simple it up.  I think you're an ignorant dumbass who doesn't know anything about America, fears it, and wants to destroy it.  That help you any, or should I break out the Crayolas and start drawing diagrams?
> 
> ...



First of all, thank you for keeping it down to one post. 

Now, as far as the first paraphrase.....you sound as dense as the 9-11 conspirators. All anyone has to do is disagree with your strict capitalistic views or any view at all for you to call them the typical, predictable "socialist" or "elistist" line. Do you know how pathetic that attack is? I mean seriously, not everyone living in this nation wants to "destroy" the system or even slightly alter it. All I am advocating is something less stratified as the previous administration. Besides that is not even the point of this thread. Little do you know is that this nation would not even exist without a little socialism (case in point. 700 billion dollar bailout, 25 billion dollar auto bailout, taxation to fund many unpopuliar pieces of legislation) you see, you literally are so closed minded that you can not even see that the United States is not cut and dry, the US is generally in the middle when it comes to issues (which is why Sarah Palin did not help Mccain win the election) The days of your partisanship is over and the fact that you think any of your out dated ideologies are relevant in todays changing political climate, really says alot about your lack of human solidarity and acceptance. 


Secondly, if "short-memoried" was a word.....I would respond to you on the definition segment, and I dont see how the word "obtuse" is relevant to this paragraph. Clearly you need to catch up on the english language. 


Thirdly, rep power alone speaks for itself. After 400 posts, you only have 2 rep power.....which tells me that the people of this board do not see the world in the way you seem to describe it.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 23, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Gee, the Homos always say that they have no impact on the kids.



You laud such bull shit, huh? Cecile lied her ass off when she said that, and I believe I proved that. 

Consider, for a moment, the brevity of her post. Consider, too, the lack of a reference. I mean, consider...


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 23, 2008)

And what the hell does socialism, capitalism, or any other ism have to do with this thread? 

The bottom line is rather simple: This is a Constitutional Republic, Not a Democracy. 

Before people start spewing their ignorance, they might want to go back to school and learn that. If this was a strict democracy, African Americans wouldn't have been allowed (terrible to even say it that way) fundamental natural rights as quickly as they were, Women's Suffrage might have been entirely pointless at the time, and a variety of different bigotries and myopic ideas may have taken hold. It's not mob rule, notwithstanding the ignorant ranting of certain posters.


----------



## Vintij (Nov 23, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> And what the hell does socialism, capitalism, or any other ism have to do with this thread?
> 
> The bottom line is rather simple: This is a Constitutional Republic, Not a Democracy.
> 
> Before people start spewing their ignorance, they might want to go back to school and learn that. If this was a strict democracy, African Americans wouldn't have been allowed (terrible to even say it that way) fundamental natural rights as quickly as they were, Women's Suffrage might have been entirely pointless at the time, and a variety of different bigotries and myopic ideas may have taken hold. It's not mob rule, notwithstanding the ignorant ranting of certain posters.



Cecile, seems to think the People of this nation created the constitution and voted on the ammendments. Its pretty sad, which is why she was for prop 8....because apparently the people of the nation are actually part of the executive branch. I thought that was called "egalitarianism"? I guess according to cecile, its democracy.

What's worse, she brought out the definition of democracy which clearly stated a "republic governing of a body of people, with elected representative officials".......sure the people have the power to vote, but she is mistaken to say that every citizen individually has the same power as the 3 branches of government. As I said before, that is called egalitarianism.


----------



## Vintij (Nov 23, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Gee, the Homos always say that they have no impact on the kids.




Perhaps is cecile could produce some data on this subject, someone would take her seriously.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 23, 2008)

Vintij said:


> Cecile, seems to think the People of this nation created the constitution and voted on the ammendments. Its pretty sad, which is why she was for prop 8....because apparently the people of the nation are actually part of the executive branch. I thought that was called "egalitarianism"? I guess according to cecile, its democracy.
> 
> What's worse, she brought out the definition of democracy which clearly stated a "republic governing of a body of people, with elected representative officials".......sure the people have the power to vote, but she is mistaken to say that every citizen individually has the same power as the 3 branches of government. As I said before, that is called egalitarianism.



There are many legitimate arguments against same-sex marriage. I disagree with nearly all of them, but I can certainly recognize the legitimacy. However, insinuating that same-sex marriage should be illegal because people demand it is non sequitur, to say the least. Suggesting such a thing clearly displays how well that person would do on a Civics exam. 

Plain and simple, this is a Constitutional Republic, Not a Democracy.


----------



## joe77 (Nov 24, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> NARTH has a _specific _motive; critical distinction. They'll not be content until they prove homosexuality is a choice. The same does not ring true for groups like the APA, the Royal College, the WHO, and National Geographic. Secondly, the links and explanations from _credible_ organizations prove NARTH wrong for me.
> 
> Again, had you people taken the time to read the links I provided, you might not be blubbering on and on.



Uh, are you sure? I thought the point of NARTH was to prove that homosexuality was treatable, not necessarily a choice for everyone who identifies themselves that way. I didn't see the links you posted, but I will say you're not really proving anything if you posted links from the APA, Royal College, WHO, and National Geographic. Like I said, you'd have to show a claim NARTH has made and then show how it's been debunked. Posting a link that basically asserts a contradictory opinion isn't proof of anything other than other, differing opinions.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 24, 2008)

joe77 said:


> Uh, are you sure? I thought the point of NARTH was to prove that homosexuality was treatable, not necessarily a choice for everyone who identifies themselves that way. I didn't see the links you posted, but I will say you're not really proving anything if you posted links from the APA, Royal College, WHO, and National Geographic. Like I said, you'd have to show a claim NARTH has made and then show how it's been debunked. Posting a link that basically asserts a contradictory opinion isn't proof of anything other than other, differing opinions.



Apparently you know very little about NARTH. They seek simply to prove one of the following: a) homosexuality is not a natural sexual feeling; b) homosexuality is a choice; and c) homosexuality is a mental illness. 

For them, proving any or all is their motive. 

Moreover, before you start spouting off, you should probably read the thread in its entirety. I posted my links first. Someone countered them with NARTH links. So, actually, the burden of proof is on them - not me. That's how a debate works. 

Given that NARTH has a specific motive in mind, and my sources do not, why should NARTH be taken seriously?

If someone has an answer to that, I'd be mighty glad to hear it.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 24, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> Apparently you know very little about NARTH. They seek simply to prove one of the following: a) homosexuality is not a natural sexual feeling; b) homosexuality is a choice; and c) homosexuality is a mental illness.
> 
> For them, proving any or all is their motive.
> 
> ...










All this talking and you still haven't posted any proof of anything NARTH published that was debunked, refuted and or non-credible.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 24, 2008)

NARTH MISSION STATEMENT


We respect the right of all individuals to choose their own destiny. NARTH is a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality. As an organization, we disseminate educational information, conduct and collect scientific research, promote effective therapeutic treatment, and provide referrals to those who seek our assistance.

NARTH upholds the rights of individuals with unwanted homosexual attraction to receive effective psychological care and the right of professionals to offer that care. We welcome the participation of all individuals who will join us in the pursuit of these goals.



NARTH Mission Statement

MacIntosh's nonsense refuted.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 24, 2008)

[youtube]64A2HrvYdYQ[/youtube]


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 24, 2008)

> NARTH MISSION STATEMENT
> 
> We respect the right of all individuals to choose their own destiny. NARTH is a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality. As an organization, we disseminate educational information, conduct and collect scientific research, promote effective therapeutic treatment, and provide referrals to those who seek our assistance.
> 
> NARTH upholds the rights of individuals with unwanted homosexual attraction to receive effective psychological care and the right of professionals to offer that care. We welcome the participation of all individuals who will join us in the pursuit of these goals.



Okay......so now we know that NARTH has it's own agenda.  To stamp out homosexuality.

WHO Mission Statement......



> The objective of WHO is the attainment by all people of the highest possible level of health in the sense that Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, as enshrined in the WHO Constitution as one of the basic principles. WHO provides technical support to address the countrys priority health issues within the purview of WHO core functions which relate to engaging and partnerships, shaping the research agenda, setting norms and standards, articulating policy options, catalyzing change and assessing health needs. We provide support mostly in policy planning and program development; human resources development; prevention and control of major communicable diseases, polio eradication, leprosy elimination; health promotion; healthy environment; and health technology and pharmaceuticals.



Mission Statement

Now......on one hand we have an organization that seeks to promote it's own agenda by only recognizing the things that support their view, while ignoring everything else.  That's NARTH.

Then.....we have the World Health Organization (WHO), which is a consortium of doctors from all over the world, providing OBJECTIVE, SCIENTIFIC, PROVABLE TRUTH.

Nope.....I'd trust WHO over NARTH any day.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 24, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Okay......so now we know that NARTH has it's own agenda.  To stamp out homosexuality.
> 
> WHO Mission Statement......
> 
> ...



When has NARTH stated its mission is to stamp out homosexuality? Just because they have an opposing viewpoint you don't agree with doesn't mean they're biased.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 24, 2008)

If thats your rebuttal then you are not only ignorant to the origin of Narth but to the concept of science in general..  Indeed, go ahead and take a gander at the above scientist whose very own data has been twisted by Narth in order to suggest something other than what her data suggests.  Face it.  You fail at every corner on this issue and trying to hide behind Narth only makes your utter fail all that much sweeter.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 24, 2008)

Shogun said:


> [youtube]64A2HrvYdYQ[/youtube]


Doesn't that nasty Dyke own a hair brush!!!!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 24, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> When has NARTH stated its mission is to stamp out homosexuality? Just because they have an opposing viewpoint you don't agree with doesn't mean they're biased.



Obviously if their only mission is to get rid of it, that means they want to stamp it out.  

If they were just there to be useful to EVERYONE, they would offer services to all people regardless of sexuality.

Nope....you lose yet again.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 24, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Doesn't that nasty Dyke own a hair brush!!!!



Who needs to own a hairbrush when she's a scientist whose data Narth has twisted into some bullshit fabrication of pseudo science?  Indeed, who needs to own a hair brush when she is pwning the likes of you on this issue?


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 24, 2008)

She looks like she just recieved electro shock treatment for her mental illness!!! 

She can't be straight! 

I mean what guy would be seen in public with that!!!!!!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 24, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> She looks like she just recieved electro shock treatment for her mental illness!!!
> 
> She can't be straight!
> 
> I mean what guy would be seen in public with that!!!!!!



Figures....you look at what a person appears like rather than what they've actually researched and what they have to say.

If they removed your outer covering over your conscious, I've got a feeling that when you are stripped of your bluster, it's like peeling a balloon.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 24, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> She looks like she just recieved electro shock treatment for her mental illness!!!
> 
> She can't be straight!
> 
> I mean what guy would be seen in public with that!!!!!!



who the hell are you to criticize anyone?


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 24, 2008)

I listened to about 30 seconds of her nonsense. 

That was enought to tell me she is as goofy as she looks!!!


----------



## Shogun (Nov 24, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Figures....you look at what a person appears like rather than what they've actually researched and what they have to say.
> 
> If they removed your outer covering over your conscious, I've got a feeling that when you are stripped of your bluster, it's like peeling a balloon.



yup.. their rebuttal to the very words of a scientist that Narth pirated is rather indicative of the complete failure of Narth itself.  When in doubt go for the haircut.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 24, 2008)

Shogun said:


> If thats your rebuttal then you are not only ignorant to the origin of Narth but to the concept of science in general..  Indeed, go ahead and take a gander at the above scientist whose very own data has been twisted by Narth in order to suggest something other than what her data suggests.  Face it.  You fail at every corner on this issue and trying to hide behind Narth only makes your utter fail all that much sweeter.



Shut up sodomite lover, thou shalt *NOT* address the Bass while you're addicted to crack.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 24, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> I listened to about 30 seconds of her nonsense.
> 
> That was enought to tell me she is as goofy as she looks!!!



For talking shit on a SCIENTIST whose DATA was twisted by narth you sure do seem capable of pointing out just how stupid you are.  I mean, it's like blow to the helmet wearing head on the corner of a short bus stupid.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 24, 2008)

Shogun said:


> who the hell are you to criticize anyone?



Thank you for posting how a decent and moral woman is supposed to look and dress.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 24, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Shut up sodomite lover, thou shalt *NOT* address the Bass while you're addicted to crack.



eat shit ******.  Now, again, enjoy the very words of a scientist whose data has been misconstrued by Narth.  And, after you are done with that you can go pick some cotton in the field out yonder.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 24, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Thank you for posting how a decent and moral woman is supposed to look and dress.





yea dude... that image is about as "decently dressed for a moral woman" as Narth is any kind of viable source to quote.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 24, 2008)

The oppositions dumb position:

Love and support homosexuality or else you're a biased, hateful, bigoted moron. nevermind if homosexuality and the idea of two men screwing each up the anus is disgusting, learn to accept and embrace it since it is becoming more acceptable in society. Forget what your religion and God says, its wrong and we're right.


LMAO!!


----------



## Shogun (Nov 24, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> The oppositions dumb position:
> 
> Love and support homosexuality or else you're a biased, hateful, bigoted moron. nevermind if homosexuality and the idea of two men screwing each up the anus is disgusting, learn to accept and embrace it since it is becoming more acceptable in society. Forget what your religion and God says, its wrong and we're right.
> 
> ...



Trust me, your complete failure in these threads is about as impressive as your complete failure of dogma junkie beliefs that will never be applied to the United States Constitution you Grape Kool Aid loving Ape.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 24, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Trust me, your complete failure ....


 Blah, blah, blah... We should trust you for proclaiming false debate victory. That picture of the guy with his head up his ass is perfect for you, boy.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 24, 2008)

Shogun said:


> eat shit ******. ...


 Racist.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 24, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Thank you for posting how a decent and moral woman is supposed to look and dress.


 Beautiful eyes has she.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 24, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Trust me, your complete failure in these threads is about as impressive as your complete failure of dogma junkie beliefs that will never be applied to the United States Constitution you Grape Kool Aid loving Ape.



Sodomite, attacking religion in order to validate homosexuality is retarded and a failure in itself, surely you put homosexuality as being more righteous than God. We who are Christian and follow the Bible don't based whats right and wrong on that which is acceptable in society, we are held to a much higher standard and are held accountable to a much higher power than whats acceptable in society. Now go ahead and chew on straws, and personally attack and call the Bass a dogma junkie for not lowering his standards to the filth that is acceptable in society today.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 24, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Blah, blah, blah... We should trust you for proclaiming false debate victory. That picture of the guy with his head up his ass is perfect for you, boy.



i've posted my evidence, bitch.. where is yours?


----------



## Shogun (Nov 24, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Racist.



you certainly are one to talk, wigger-lover.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 24, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Sodomite, attacking religion in order to validate homosexuality is retarded and a failure in itself, surely you put homosexuality as being more righteous than God. We who are Christian and follow the Bible don't based whats right and wrong on that which is acceptable in society, we are held to a much higher standard and are held accountable to a much higher power than whats acceptable in society. Now go ahead and chew on straws, and personally attack and call the Bass a dogma junkie for not lowering his standards to the filth that is acceptable in society today.
> 
> 
> ://apologete.com/WhiteGorillaSmile.jpg




You and your religion is about as relevant as an old joke, dude.  Indeed, since there is no god I put humanism WAY above trite fucking rituals and ignorant beliefs of cromagnon motherfuckers who can't seem to stop danging around the bonfire.  YOU who are christian are free to believe in whatever bullshit pantheon you need to in order to swim in shallow waters instead of the deep science that you don't understand.  *You've been PWNED by the first amendment, motherfucker.
*


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 24, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Thank you for posting how a decent and moral woman is supposed to look and dress.



Only radical Islamists say that a woman is supposed to cover her face.

Everyone else (all the NON RADICALS) say that just the hair is to be covered.

Are you SURE you know your own religion Sunni Man?  You sound about as knowledgeable about your own theology as Warren Jeffs knew about Christianity.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 24, 2008)

The opposition:

APA, WHO, National Geographic etc, all say that two men driving trucks up each other's Hershey Highway is natural, good for children, loving, scientifically approved so you must like and embrace because all three of these credible organizations says its ok so it must be ok if they said it. I believe those organizations because I support two men shagging up the anus and would do it myself and would support my kids doing it.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 24, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> The opposition:
> 
> APA, WHO, National Geographic etc, all say that two men driving trucks up each other's Hershey Highway is natural, good for children, loving, scientifically approved so you must like and embrace because all three of these credible organizations says its ok so it must be ok if they said it. I believe those organizations because I support two men shagging up the anus and would do it myself and would support my kids doing it.



That's a non-starter CB.

Try again......


----------



## Shogun (Nov 24, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> The opposition:
> 
> APA, WHO, National Geographic etc, all say that two men driving trucks up each other's Hershey Highway is natural, good for children, loving, scientifically approved so you must like and embrace because all three of these credible organizations says its ok so it must be ok if they said it. I believe those organizations because I support two men shagging up the anus and would do it myself and would support my kids doing it.




Dance, minstrel, dance.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 24, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Only radical Islamists say that a woman is supposed to cover her face.
> 
> Everyone else (all the NON RADICALS) say that just the hair is to be covered.


The Quran only says that a woman only has to cover her hair.

Many women who are very religious, go the extra mile and cover their face.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 24, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> The Quran only says that a woman only has to cover her hair.
> 
> Many women who are very religious, go the extra mile and cover their face.



Again, check your religion again clown show, those that go the "extra mile" are the radical extremists.

Shit man.....I've even heard them say that on the news......good Muslims who are moderates were saying that if you force your women to cover their face, that is how you tell the radicals from the regulars.

Do you REALLY know anything about your own religion other than what you pick up from FAUX news?

I think you claim that just because you want to be viewed as a rebel.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 24, 2008)

Shogun said:


> i've posted my evidence, bitch.. where is yours?


 I have viewed your evidence and judge it to be as pitiful as you are, lungs saturated with cold river water, draining from your nose as you lie on your back, head down on a mud slope.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 24, 2008)

glockmail said:


> I have viewed your evidence and judge it to be as pitiful as you are, lungs saturated with cold river water, draining from your nose as you lie on your back, head down on a mud slope.




thankfully, your opinion on means two things: jack and shit.  And, if it's all the same, you can go ahead and spare me a vivid description of your favorite scene from Brokeback Mountain.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 24, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Shit man.....I've even heard them say that on the news......good Muslims who are moderates were saying that if you force your women to cover their face, that is how you tell the radicals from the regulars.


That is just a bunch of lies and non sense from "uncle Tom" muslims who want to pander to the western media.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 24, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> That is just a bunch of lies and non sense from "uncle Tom" muslims who want to pander to the western media.



Really?  Then explain again why they were living in Dubai UAE and Jiddah Saudi Arabia?

Were they pandering to the western media then?  WTF were they going to get me to do, call CNN?

You've just gone full retard dude.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 24, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Thank you for posting how a decent and moral woman is supposed to look and dress.



I'm sorry, but did you just imply that I am indecent and immoral?

Before I ignore you for becoming more of a nuisance and embarrassment to intelligent people than I can tolerate any longer, have I ever told you my theory on why Muslim men hope for 72 virgins in paradise?  I believe it's because only a virgin would be unable to recognize how much they suck in bed.  

Have a nice life.  FLUSH!


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 24, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I'm sorry, but did you just imply that I am indecent and immoral?


No, I didn't imply anything about you personally.

But obviously, I must have hit home for you to take it so hard!!


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 24, 2008)

I see Nicca-Bass and his cabal are still in denial.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 24, 2008)

Shogun said:


> thankfully, your opinion on means two things: jack and shit.  And, if it's all the same, you can go ahead and spare me a vivid description of your favorite scene from Brokeback Mountain.



I was fully expecting you to "go homo" on your retort, and you did not disappoint. But actually, I didn't see that lame Movie either. Perhaps you can tell us about it, boy.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 24, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> No, I didn't imply anything about you personally.
> 
> But obviously, I must have hit home for you to take it so hard!!



See people?  This is what this f-cking therapist Sunni Man does, he uses his training as a way to get into people's heads so that he can screw with them.

That's why I call him Sucking Moron, The Rapist.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 24, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> See people?  This is what this f-cking therapist Sunni Man does, he uses his training as a way to get into people's heads so that he can screw with them.



What do you mean "See People"? 

Do you think you have an imaginary audiance of people listening to you and your psycho rants!!!


----------



## Shogun (Nov 24, 2008)

glockmail said:


> I was fully expecting you to "go homo" on your retort, and you did not disappoint. But actually, I didn't see that lame Movie either. Perhaps you can tell us about it, boy.



suuuuuuure you didn't see that movie.  suuuuuuuuuuuuure..  I believe you.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 24, 2008)

wow what a comeback.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 24, 2008)

Hey, you have a great evening, dood!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 24, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> What do you mean "See People"?
> 
> Do you think you have an imaginary audiance of people listening to you and your psycho rants!!!



See - meaning look.

People - meaning everyone on this thread.

Reading comprehension dude.......go buy hooked on phonics.


----------



## YWN666 (Nov 24, 2008)

_NARTH is a professional, scientific organization_

*Bullshit*


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 24, 2008)

Considering the statement on their homepage was at one time "...dedicated to affirming a complementary, male-female model of gender and sexuality," you can be sure they operate with a specific motive. The statement has been moved, however, as it no longer appears on the homepage. I'm certain you'll be able to find it if you look. 

But, again, my point is amplified: They're not credible. They operate with a specific motive. 

Given that, the closet homosexuals on this forum might as well stop hating themselves. NARTH is wrong, guys. Every major medical institution in the United States agrees NARTH is wrong. You don't have to be ashamed anymore Sunni, Bass, Cecile, and Glock. What you do each night with bananas and your neighbor is simply a normal, and natural, sexual experience. Enjoy. 

God made you the way you are. The Bible was written by man. All of his prejudices were well in mind when it was authored. _God made you who you are._ Don't be ashamed anymore. Especially you, Bass. Just bend over, smile, and love yourself like Jesus loves you.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 25, 2008)

YWN666 said:


> _NARTH is a professional, scientific organization_
> 
> *Bullshit*



how so? narth is full of scientists, you idiots are damning NARTH without having even read anything from NARTH simply because they don't agree with the APA's stance on homosexuality[people keep forgeting that the APA was divided over this issue and speak as if all of the people in the APA all agree on everything when they don't].


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 25, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Dance, minstrel, dance.



Actually thats a cracker in blackface you stupid jackass, wiggers from back from in the days of Jim Crow who were afraid to affirm their wiggerdom.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 25, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> That's a non-starter CB.
> 
> Try again......




Why get mad and try to play it off jackass? That is what you sodomite lovers support, you guys support two guys bumping penises and driving big rigs up each others Hershey Highways. You support sodomites raising children and telling them that two men having anal sex is ok. Whats the matter? Are you sickened by the reality of what you support?


----------



## Shogun (Nov 25, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Actually thats a cracker in blackface you stupid jackass, wiggers from back from in the days of Jim Crow who were afraid to affirm their wiggerdom.



I'm pretty sure it's not lost on anyone what a white man in minstrel blackface is making fun of, dude.  Way to keep your eye on the ball.


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 25, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> Considering the statement on their homepage was at one time "...dedicated to affirming a complementary, male-female model of gender and sexuality," you can be sure they operate with a specific motive. The statement has been moved, however, as it no longer appears on the homepage. I'm certain you'll be able to find it if you look.
> 
> But, again, my point is amplified: They're not credible. They operate with a specific motive.
> 
> ...



Bah! Jesus isn't gay ........... 



....... he's bi, he'll fuck anything, anywhere, anytime, just like all good shepherds.


----------



## YWN666 (Nov 25, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> how so? narth is full of scientists, you idiots are damning NARTH without having even read anything from NARTH simply because they don't agree with the APA's stance on homosexuality[people keep forgeting that the APA was divided over this issue and speak as if all of the people in the APA all agree on everything when they don't].




There is *NO* evidence to support the idea that sexual orientation can be changed.  "Reparative therapy" is a scam.

NARTH: National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality

Truth Wins Out - NARTH

_"NARTH also has bizarre theories, such as encouraging male clients who drink Gatorade and call their friends &#8220;dude,&#8221; because this will supposedly make them more masculine. Dr. Nicolosi also espouses the bizarre idea that, &#8220;Non-homosexual men who experience defeat and failure may also experience homosexual fantasies or dreams.&#8221;_

More dishonesty from NARTH:
Major Geneticist Francis Collins Responds to NARTH Article | Ex-Gay Watch

And then there is Joh Paulk, head of Exodus International, a group who claims to have success in changing homosexuals into heterosexuals, including Paulk himself.  Imagine his embarrassment when he was caught in a gay bar offering drinks to other men.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/paulk-southern voice.html

He claims he didn't know it was a gay bar and was there only to use the bathroom.  Yeah, right!


----------



## glockmail (Nov 26, 2008)

YWN666 said:


> There is *NO* evidence to support the idea that sexual orientation can be changed.  ...


Except of course, cured gays.


----------



## YWN666 (Nov 26, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Except of course, cured gays.



Except, of course, that there is no such thing.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 26, 2008)

There is an organization called Exodus International that has a 30 to 50% success rate in curing homosexuals from their sickness.

They are a Christian orientated organization that has offices in most American cities.

Exodus International - Home


----------



## Shogun (Nov 26, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> There is an organization called Exodus International that has a 30 to 50% success rate in curing homosexuals from their sickness.
> 
> They are a Christian orientated organization that has offices in most American cities.
> 
> Exodus International - Home






that page has all the validity of a snake oil cure, dude.  You might as well have offered a bottle of watered down whiskey as some kind of mircle tonic.

you goofy bastards crack me up.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 26, 2008)

There are Exodus International treatment centers all over the US.

They have a high success rate and have helped many homos out of that despicable lifestyle.


----------



## YWN666 (Nov 26, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> There is an organization called Exodus International that has a 30 to 50% success rate in curing homosexuals from their sickness.



That is what THEY claim.  There is NO evidence to support that claim.  NONE.   Many gays that allowed themselves to be subjected to this "reparative therapy" were just suppressing their sexual orientation and then the pressure to conform was off, they stopped the act and resumed their lives as homosexuals.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 26, 2008)

YWN666 said:


> That is what THEY claim.  There is NO evidence to support that claim.  NONE.   Many gays that allowed themselves to be subjected to this "reparative therapy" were just suppressing their sexual orientation and then the pressure to conform was off, they stopped the act and resumed their lives as homosexuals.


Each person is different.

People go to alcohol treatment centers. 

Some get cured the first time. 

Others have to go back several time before they are cured. 

Sadly, some people never kick the problem and die as alcoholics.

Same with people trying to escape the living hell of homosexuality.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 26, 2008)

YWN666 said:


> Except, of course, that there is no such thing.


Lookie- you've been proven wrong again.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 26, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> ....
> 
> Same with people trying to escape the living hell of homosexuality.


 Best try to escape it while alive cuz once dead there is no way.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 26, 2008)

Gays have nothing to look forward to except death from disease and infections.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 26, 2008)

Man O Man. The closet homosexuals are still hating themselves. Hiding who you really are is not good for you, Glock, Sunni, Bass. It's just not good. Please, come out of the closet and love yourselves.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 26, 2008)

That's the trouble Mac.  They HAVE been loving themselves, which is why they don't want to come out of the closet.

Easier to beat off I guess.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 26, 2008)

In truth, I really, really, pity the sodomites.

Instead of following the path to a normal life of joy and spiritual fulfilment.

Homos choose the Hershey Highway of sickness, disease and eventually death.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 26, 2008)

Normal is a setting on the washing machine Someday Man.

I think I'm gonna start calling you that, because someday, you may become something other than the sad little boy that you currently are, scribbling hatred on messageboards.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 26, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> In truth, I really, really, pity the sodomites.
> 
> Instead of following the path to a normal life of joy and spiritual fulfilment.
> 
> Homos choose the Hershey Highway of sickness, disease and eventually death.



Stop hating yourself, Sunni. It's O.K. to enjoy homosexual love. Stop biting your lip when it happens. Smile.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 26, 2008)

I think he's pissed because his spine won't flex as far as he wants.......

I mean.....with a small pecker like Sucking Moron appears to have because of his repeated overcompensation, it's kinda hard for him to blow himself.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 26, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> I think I'm gonna start calling you that, because someday, you may become something other than the sad little boy that you currently are, scribbling hatred on messageboards.


Like I said, I pity homos, not hate them.. 

Their mental illness causes them pain, sickness, a life of torment and eventually death.

To hate them would be inhumane. They need to be cured by treatment or locked up for the welfare of society.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 26, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> Stop hating yourself, Sunni. It's O.K. to enjoy homosexual love. Stop biting your lip when it happens. Smile.



No, homosexual "love" isn't ok, its sick and disturbed.


----------



## jla1178 (Nov 26, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> They need to be cured by treatment or locked up for the welfare of society.



Oh, great!  Now you want to put them on welfare.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 26, 2008)

YWN666 said:


> That is what THEY claim.  There is NO evidence to support that claim.  NONE.   Many gays that allowed themselves to be subjected to this "reparative therapy" were just suppressing their sexual orientation and then the pressure to conform was off, they stopped the act and resumed their lives as homosexuals.



Wrong, there was an actual study done by Spitzer which does prove that gays are certainly capable of becoming heterosexual and there are numerous ex-gays, so acting like a jackass with your pro-gay activism.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Nov 26, 2008)

Also you can call it discrimination or whatever you want, but equating homosexual "marriage" to interracial marriage is extremely insulting to people like me who married a person of color. In fact there is no such thing as interracial marriage. We are all one race.
Gay "love" is not legitimate. It certainly is not equal to the true love of a man and a woman. It is, however the same as a false love between a man and a woman outside of marriage that leads to promiscuity.
My life is certainly better now that I know my children cannot be legally taught that homosexuality is normal and acceptable. We have held off the wickedness for one more day.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 26, 2008)

YWN666 said:


> There is *NO* evidence to support the idea that sexual orientation can be changed.  "Reparative therapy" is a scam.
> 
> NARTH: National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality
> 
> ...







Spitzer Study Published: Evidence Found for Effectiveness of Reorientation Therapy


----------



## Shogun (Nov 26, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> Also you can call it discrimination or whatever you want, but equating homosexual "marriage" to interracial marriage is extremely insulting to people like me who married a person of color. In fact there is no such thing as interracial marriage. We are all one race.
> Gay "love" is not legitimate. It certainly is not equal to the true love of a man and a woman. It is, however the same as a false love between a man and a woman outside of marriage that leads to promiscuity.
> My life is certainly better now that I know my children cannot be legally taught that homosexuality is normal and acceptable. We have held off the wickedness for one more day.



HA!  yea, homosexuality sure will dry up and go away just because gays can't get married in Cali for the time being..  You goofy bastards never were all that bright.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 26, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Spitzer Study Published: Evidence Found for Effectiveness of Reorientation Therapy



NARTH.  again.  worthless.

Hey, did you enjoy that video I posted of a SCIENTIST calling narth out for misconstruing her data?  Didn't have a lot to say about that, didja?


----------



## Truthspeaker (Nov 26, 2008)

I don't understand how people can be pro gay "marriage". It just doesn't make sense. Every major society that has embraced homosexuality has been decimated "coincidentally". Greek Empire, Roman Empire, Babylonian Empire, Aztec Nation, Hitler's Germany(check your history before you fire back and get embarrased), and of course, Sodom and Gomorrah. If you really want to have a discussion, let's talk specifics. See if you can handle it. You had better be ready with truth. Or you will get blown away. No pun intended on the blow.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Nov 26, 2008)

I think we should all know that just because a guy is a "Scientist" doesn't mean he is legit. "Scientists used to say that the Negro brain is inferior to a white brain, or a woman's brian inferior to a man's.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 26, 2008)

Shogun said:


> NARTH.  again.  worthless.
> 
> Hey, did you enjoy that video I posted of a SCIENTIST calling narth out for misconstruing her data?  Didn't have a lot to say about that, didja?



That Robert Spitzer study wasn't done by NARTH you incoherent retarded jackass. Spitzer was one of the members of the APA who voted *FOR* homosexuality being removed from the list of mental disorders, so up in smoke goes your ad-hominem attack on NARTH, you have shown no evidence that discredits and or refutes NARTH.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Nov 26, 2008)

Just because you believe everything you hear on tv, doesn't mean it's true.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 26, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Spitzer Study Published: Evidence Found for Effectiveness of Reorientation Therapy



[youtube]kHmt6ITImAY&[/youtube]


----------



## Truthspeaker (Nov 26, 2008)

History is the strongest indicator that embracing homosexuality and being bullied by it, is 1 major factor leading to the downfall of a nation. 
Think people are different today? Think again and don't lie to yourself.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 26, 2008)

Shogun said:


> [youtube]kHmt6ITImAY&[/youtube]


----------



## Truthspeaker (Nov 26, 2008)

I don't understand your point in showing the video. It seems like you switched over to our side. He just showed that it's possible for people to be rid of the hormonal imbalance of homosexuality.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Nov 26, 2008)

Hilarious. I nearly gave up the ghost laughing at the man in the towel


----------



## YWN666 (Nov 26, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Lookie- you've been proven wrong again.




If only you had proof.  You don't.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 26, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> No, homosexual "love" isn't ok, its sick and disturbed.



Bass, it is O.K. Stop hating yourself. Enjoy it. Come out of the closet.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 26, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> History is the strongest indicator that embracing homosexuality and being bullied by it, is 1 major factor leading to the downfall of a nation.
> Think people are different today? Think again and don't lie to yourself.



oh yea.. I tellya.. nothing made Sparta the scourge of fucking city states quite like all those gay soldiers!  

you hve no foot to stand on in assuming homosexuality was a contributing factor in the decline of any culture.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 26, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


>



nice comeback, ******!


----------



## Shogun (Nov 26, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> I don't understand your point in showing the video. It seems like you switched over to our side. He just showed that it's possible for people to be rid of the hormonal imbalance of homosexuality.



I think you need to take another gander at the video and listen to what he's actually saying instead of assuming he says what you want to hear.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 26, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> Bass, it is O.K. Stop hating yourself. Enjoy it. Come out of the closet.



That trick doesn't work, thats like telling people who speak out daily against pedophiles to come out and admit they're pedophiles. The reality is that you and Hoegun support two men shagging up the anus and drinking each others semen and spraying semen and rectal matter on each others backs.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 26, 2008)

Shogun said:


> oh yea.. I tellya.. nothing made Sparta the scourge of fucking city states quite like all those gay soldiers!
> 
> you hve no foot to stand on in assuming homosexuality was a contributing factor in the decline of any culture.



His bit out Hitler was funny, considering homosexuals were persecuted because they could do nothing to perpetuate the "master race." LOL. 

History of gay men in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, upon the rise of Adolf Hitler, gay men and, to a lesser extent, lesbians, were two of several groups targeted by the Nazi Party and were ultimately among the roster of Holocaust victims. _Beginning in 1933, gay organizations were banned, scholarly books about homosexuality, and sexuality in general, were burned, and homosexuals within the Nazi Party itself were murdered._

More recently however German state television channel Deutsche Welle updated this figure to "almost 55,000" deaths [homosexuals] following the study of documents from archives in East Germany that had been inaccessible to researchers for decades after the war.​
Before Hitler, homosexuality was accepted - but not during Hitler like the idiot said.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 26, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> The reality is that I and my neighbor are two men shagging up the anus and drinking each others semen and spraying semen and rectal matter on each others backs.



Look, what you do with your neighbor is your business. I don't need details.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 26, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> That trick doesn't work, thats like telling people who speak out daily against pedophiles to come out and admit they're pedophiles. *The reality is that you and Hoegun support two men shagging up the anus and drinking each others semen and spraying semen and rectal matter on each others backs.*



if thats what those two men want to do then it's no skin off my back, eh Toby?  Just like it's no skin off of yours, you goddamn first generation farm equipment.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Nov 27, 2008)

I warned you to check your history before being embarrassed as part of the ignoramus brigade. Your 9th grade history taught you to spew forth all that liberal rectal matter without telling you the whole truth.
You have such a little knowlege of history that it boggles my mind. Actually I am glad you brought up the 1 sided historical point of homosexual persecution by the Nazis. What you don't know (and I can't blame you,per your liberal teachers) is that Hitler himself was a violent homosexual and as many as 2million members of the Hitler youth and SA were violent homosexual rapists as described in the little publicized historical book "The Pink Triangle". There was a reason I said to check your history. In the book, Gestapo agents were described not only as murderers but as rapists of the prisoners as a sign of domination of the Aryan race. While defiling their victims would taunt them by saying, where is your God now Jewish scum? The homosexuals incarcerated and killed were the effeminate ones and those that spoke out against the raping and homosexual influencing of small boys. Hitler youth were taught that raping Jewish prisoners was a way to punish them for their religion and force domination over them. This is a glaring similarity to the customs of the Aztecs in conquest during battle. Homosexuality was rife among the early americans as many spaniards were raped after losing a battle. It was a mark of domination. Think people don't or wouldn't do something like that. Look in prison, that is all I need say.
I swear you don't think I read up on this stuff. I KNOW my history. you do not. Yes rome was conquered by Christians, that was great. They deserved it. You better come smarter than that. I knew you couldn't handle it. What do you want to try me on next? I think you are scared:


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 27, 2008)

Shogun said:


> if thats what those two men want to do then it's no skin off my back, eh Toby?  Just like it's no skin off of yours, you goddamn first generation farm equipment.



Hoegun, Hoegun still trying to frustrate the Bass with his oudated, cornball racist jokes that really have no damn point other than making you look even more like the idiot you are, if thats what homos like to do and if thats what you like to support them doing keep that to yourselves and quit expecting the government to give it special attention and quit trying to force others to accept those sick acts as being just as normal as heterosexuals.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 27, 2008)

Notice Truthspeaker's complete failure to provide a reference of any sort. LOL. But, if I recall, the moron didn't say anything about homosexual rape, he said same-sex marriage. Remember? He went on and on about how societies that allowed same-sex marriage didn't last long. 

What a fucking dolt.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Nov 28, 2008)

Obviously the dick in your ear has jammed into your brain and clouded your ability to see reason. Or read properly. I told you the source. I didn't say gay "marriage". I said societies that embraced homosexuality. You refuted nothing of what I said and remain stupid. Time for you to run and hide


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 28, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> Obviously the dick in your ear has jammed into your brain and clouded your ability to see reason. Or read properly. I told you the source. I didn't say gay "marriage". I said societies that embraced homosexuality. You refuted nothing of what I said and remain stupid. Time for you to run and hide



Okay moron, societies that embrace homosexuality............

If that was true, then one society that embraces it is kicking our ass economically and taking our jobs overseas.  Know which country?  India.

Try again idiot.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 28, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Okay moron, societies that embrace homosexuality............
> 
> If that was true, then one society that embraces it is kicking our ass economically and taking our jobs overseas.  Know which country?  India.


So you are saying that we need more homos to kick our economy into high gear?

In other words, American has a sodomite shortage!!!


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 28, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> So you are saying that we need more homos to kick our economy into high gear?
> 
> In other words, American has a sodomite shortage!!!:



Wow ... good point. If only we had seen the light sooner! We need more gay men and women, or at least more of them coming out of the closet.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Nov 28, 2008)

your own grave


----------



## eots (Nov 28, 2008)

KittenKoder said:


> Wow ... good point. If only we had seen the light sooner! We need more gay men and women, or at least more of them coming out of the closet.



don't forget about the beastiality crowed they need respect for there sexual preference as well....


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 28, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> Obviously the dick in your ear has jammed into your brain and clouded your ability to see reason. Or read properly. I told you the source. I didn't say gay "marriage". I said societies that embraced homosexuality. You refuted nothing of what I said and remain stupid. Time for you to run and hide



Listen you stupid fucker, you said:

I don't understand how people can be pro gay "marriage". It just doesn't make sense. Every major society that has embraced homosexuality has been decimated "coincidentally".​
Even if what you say is true, explain to me how a few sick fucking guards raping people is a society "embracing" homosexuality? 

Moreover, the Internet contains more information than any library in the world. In fact, I suspect the Internet contains more information than all the libraries in the U.S. put together. Given that, you're telling me that you can't link us up to anything that backs up the horse shit you spout? Perhaps that's because you're a fucking big mouth with delusions of grandeur. 

Link up or shut up, asshole. 

Can't stand fucking lamers like you. You suck at every aspect of real life, so hop online and spew diatribe and bull shit in order to feel important. 

I provided evidence to refute your claim. You haven't provided shit. 

Guess what?

You lose.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 28, 2008)

eots said:


> don't forget about the beastiality crowed they need respect for there sexual preference as well....



Yeah, let's be complete morons and compare homosexuality to bestiality.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Nov 28, 2008)

Yes let's do that actually. And I'll go you one further. If you think the Book of Mormon is a crock of crap, it points out and warns us about people like you. 2 Nephi chapter 28 verse 20 "In the last day shall Satan rage in the hearts of men, and stir them up to anger against that which is good." later in verse 28 And in fine wo unto all those who tremble and are angry because of the truth of God! For behold, he that is built upon my foundation receiveth it with gladness, and he that is built upon a sandy foundation trembleth lest he should fall."

Of course you don't believe in the words of the book of Mormon, but I do. This is an example of personal verication that the gospel is true.The language that I used which ruffles peoples feathers and "offends" them is the same type of language that got Jesus killed. But you don't truly study the Bible or the words of Christ to see the parralel.
.The truth has a certain ring to it. You can deny it using whatever Socratic argument you like, just look where it got the society of Socrates.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Nov 28, 2008)

You are like, also, way too angry about this aren't you? I suspect your life is wrapped up in this aren't you. I am not going to humor you with links that take time out of my life. I have read the informationI don't know what you've been drinking. but you need to educated yourself, since I don't feel like doing it.
Because even if I do post a link, you are going to dislike it so much that you will lie to yourself and find a way to argue against it rather than accept the truth.
I win


----------



## Shogun (Nov 28, 2008)

The ACTUAL bible also warned of false prophets too.  I guess that takes the wind out of your sails.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 28, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> Yeah, let's be complete morons and compare homosexuality to bestiality.




Why not? They're both sexually deviant, immoral sex acts.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 28, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Why not? They're both sexually deviant, immoral sex acts.



CB, YOU YOURSELF are a deviant, immoral person.

Pot, meet kettle.

How ya doing?

Black mood as usual.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 28, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> Yeah, let's be complete morons and compare homosexuality to bestiality.


There is NO difference homosexuality and beastiality except the animal


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 28, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> There is NO difference homosexuality and beastiality except the animal



Next, you're going to say that homosexuality, bestiality and child molesters are all in the same category, right?

You have to be the stupidest m-fer on the planet.  Even dumber than Bush Jr.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 28, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Next, you're going to say that homosexuality, bestiality and child molesters are all in the same category, right?


Once you take away the animal.

All you have left are sub-humans


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 28, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Once you take away the animal.
> 
> All you have left are sub-humans



Speaking of sub-humans.....I kinda think you qualify Sucking Mouse.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 28, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> CB, YOU YOURSELF are a deviant, immoral person.
> 
> Pot, meet kettle.
> 
> ...



Dumb squid makes dumb personal attack without any logical reasoning, a typical occurrence.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 28, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Dumb squid makes dumb personal attack without any logical reasoning, a typical occurrence.



that accusation is ironic as fuck coming from our own little buckwheat, eh?


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 28, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Speaking of sub-humans.....I kinda think you qualify Sucking Mouse.


By attacking me. Does that mean that you support homosexuality and beastiality


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 28, 2008)

Shogun said:


> that accusation is ironic as fuck coming from our own little buckwheat, eh?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 28, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> By attacking me. Does that mean that you support homosexuality and beastiality



No, you f-ing moron......I'm telling you that comparing all three to be the same is idiotic.

How's your hairdresser by the way?  Apparently he's done a really good job of hiding your lobotomy scar.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 28, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> How's your hairdresser by the way?


He told me he is going to break up with you ABS.

He said your butt hole is just too worn out!!!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 28, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> He told me he is going to break up with you ABS.
> 
> He said your butt hole is just too worn out!!!



Nice.....when you can't come up with something intelligent to say, always accuse the other of being a homo.

One trick pony much?


----------



## Shogun (Nov 28, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> ://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/dabomb218/Wigger.png



Again, thanks for pointing out the irony of how you just cried about someone talking shit rather than refute your post.  If you smile in a dark room you might have seen that coming, black hole.


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 28, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> Yes let's do that actually. And I'll go you one further. If you think the Book of Mormon is a crock of crap, it points out and warns us about people like you. 2 Nephi chapter 28 verse 20 "In the last day shall Satan rage in the hearts of men, and stir them up to anger against that which is good." later in verse 28 And in fine wo unto all those who tremble and are angry because of the truth of God! For behold, he that is built upon my foundation receiveth it with gladness, and he that is built upon a sandy foundation trembleth lest he should fall."
> 
> Of course you don't believe in the words of the book of Mormon, but I do. This is an example of personal verication that the gospel is true.The language that I used which ruffles peoples feathers and "offends" them is the same type of language that got Jesus killed. But you don't truly study the Bible or the words of Christ to see the parralel.
> .The truth has a certain ring to it. You can deny it using whatever Socratic argument you like, just look where it got the society of Socrates.



Having grown up mormon, and luckily learned how sick and perverted it's followers are, you are forgetting, they do something that is against all other beliefs: Polygamy.

So ... if marriage is between one man and one woman ... you two are also following a religious belief that goes against it.


----------



## eots (Nov 28, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> Yeah, let's be complete morons and compare homosexuality to bestiality.



well its not like there hurting anyone..and it could just be genetic..you know like gay people..its not like they _choose it..._so we must embrace them..in a truly free society a man or woman could openly love the beast  or object of his choice ..and _express _that love ..without judgement


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 28, 2008)

eots said:


> well its not like there hurting anyone..and it could just be genetic..you know like gay people..its not like they _choose it..._so we must embrace them..in a truly free society a man or woman could openly love the beast  or object of his choice ..and _express _that love ..without judgement





You've gotta fucking be kidding me............

With that logic, you should be able to turn the beast lovers, and the pedophiles loose, after of course, they go to Jesus Camp.

What a buncha rubes.........


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 28, 2008)

eots said:


> well its not like there hurting anyone..and it could just be genetic..you know like gay people..its not like they _choose it..._so we must embrace them..in a truly free society a man or woman could openly love the beast  or object of his choice ..and _express _that love ..without judgement



Gotta say ... according to the laws as long as it's the opposite sex and only one other then you CAN.


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 28, 2008)

Okay, now I think it's time for the eye opening fact:
Gay men and women are NOT blaming blacks, never have, and never will. However they did pose a logical and even accurate point about how the Mormon scum did misrepresent the law.


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 28, 2008)

Okay, now I think it's time for the eye opening fact:
Gay men and women are NOT blaming blacks, never have, and never will. However they did pose a logical and even accurate point about how the Mormon scum did misrepresent the law.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Nov 28, 2008)

"The ACTUAL bible also warned of false prophets too. I guess that takes the wind out of your sails."

Please explain how so. In fact The Book of Mormon itself is a strong stamp on the authenticity of The Bible itself. Not a smart comment. You haven't read the book of mormon and apparently neither has hello Kitty over here. 
You say you grew up mormon. Did you grow up in the backwoods of the Texas Desert or something. Those polygamists are not associated with us had you known anything about us and proves you are


----------



## Truthspeaker (Nov 28, 2008)

Oh by the way, I am more than happy to hear what you have to say against mormons. Bring it on. You will be sorely confounded. There is not one single apparent contradiction you can come with. You had better come strong.
Of course the Bible warns about false prophets. Like I never heard that one before
Before you go pretending to believe in God, you had better brush up on your scriptures. 
Num 12:6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. Both Happened to Joseph Smith..... wait I can already hear it coming. You don't like old testament scriptures. ok fine.
 Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.....
Sorry, couldn't help that last one. Here's the new testament ones:
 Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Better bone up before deal with someone who knows their scriptures.
Give up now and admit you don't believe in God.

And for Mr. Hello Kitty. Just because you are mad at the church doesn't mean you have to smear and lie about them.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 28, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> You are like, also, way too angry about this aren't you? I suspect your life is wrapped up in this aren't you. I am not going to humor you with links that take time out of my life. I have read the informationI don't know what you've been drinking. but you need to educated yourself, since I don't feel like doing it.
> Because even if I do post a link, you are going to dislike it so much that you will lie to yourself and find a way to argue against it rather than accept the truth.
> I win



LOL. What a fucking loser. "I'm not going to humor you with links that take time out of my life" is an idiots phrase for "I'm just talking out my ass. I don't really know as much as I think I do. I should probably go back to school and get a real education, rather than just an Internet education. But, I won't. I'm much more comfortable making shit up and wallowing in my ignorance. I'm a loser."

Another bigot bites the cock...


----------



## eots (Nov 29, 2008)

and the then there is incestuous love..they to need to be recognized and given the same rights as everyone else ...especially gay incestuous relationships as they are doubly stigmatized by our society.. a eye opening fact homosexual incestuous marriages do not effect _your _marriage..


----------



## Truthspeaker (Nov 29, 2008)

Hey not smart. 
You can smear rectal matter all over the message boards and your own throat as much as you want. You still never refuted my posts. Just because other men know the depth of your doesn't mean you know much about history or scripture.  If you care about links so much why don't you post any refuting my statements? Because you are MOTED!


----------



## eots (Nov 29, 2008)

lol..its called sarcasm my friend..my intent is not to refute your post


----------



## Truthspeaker (Nov 29, 2008)

sorry man not you. I was talking to our Obamanite friend.


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 29, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> Hey not smart.
> You can smear rectal matter all over the message boards and your own throat as much as you want. You still never refuted my posts. Just because other men know the depth of your doesn't mean you know much about history or scripture.  If you care about links so much why don't you post any refuting my statements? Because you are MOTED!



I did refute your statments, you fucking dolt.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Nov 29, 2008)

Obvious I win again. He is quite frustrated now you see everyone. Our Macintosh over here has had a system shutdown and cannot decode the problem. He has been infected with a lying virus and a virus of stupor. If only he were a computer it would be ok. It's ok, you can't win em all.


----------



## WhiteLion (Nov 29, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> Oh by the way, I am more than happy to hear what you have to say against mormons. Bring it on. You will be sorely confounded. There is not one single apparent contradiction you can come with. You had better come strong.
> Of course the Bible warns about false prophets. Like I never heard that one before
> Before you go pretending to believe in God, you had better brush up on your scriptures.
> Num 12:6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. Both Happened to Joseph Smith..... wait I can already hear it coming. You don't like old testament scriptures. ok fine.
> ...


Im ok with Mormans as long as they dont go preaching Jesus and Satan were bros??


----------



## Macintosh (Nov 29, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> Obvious I win again. He is quite frustrated now you see everyone. Our Macintosh over here has had a system shutdown and cannot decode the problem. He has been infected with a lying virus and a virus of stupor. If only he were a computer it would be ok. It's ok, you can't win em all.



So I take this as a concession. You have, for the third time, failed to produce any evidence whatsoever. I guess you are comfortable relying on the reader's stupidity. 

I refuted your claim. Where is your refutation?


----------



## Truthspeaker (Nov 29, 2008)

As per my previous post macintosh. I told you the history of the downfall of nations, the embrace of homosexuality of over 2million members of the Hitler youth, etc, etc, etc.
All you did to "refute" my statements was to tell me to "link up or shut up". Why don't you go and google it. I already did. You just don't want to.
I win again.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Nov 29, 2008)

As for the White Lion, I refer you to my post, The Truth about Mormons, for clarity on common misconceptions about our doctrine. We'll talk in that forum if you want.


----------



## Father Time (Nov 30, 2008)

eots said:


> well its not like there hurting anyone..and it could just be genetic..you know like gay people..its not like they _choose it..._so we must embrace them..in a truly free society a man or woman could openly love the beast  or object of his choice ..and _express _that love ..without judgement



The animal can't give consent, so technically it's rape. That's the big difference between the two.


----------



## Father Time (Nov 30, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> As per my previous post macintosh. I told you the history of the downfall of nations, the embrace of homosexuality of over 2million members of the Hitler youth, etc, etc, etc.
> All you did to "refute" my statements was to tell me to "link up or shut up". Why don't you go and google it. I already did. You just don't want to.
> I win again.



First rule of debate:
Though shalt back up thine statements with credible sources. Though shalt not expect thine opponent to do thine research. Responsibility for backing stuff up lies with the person making the claim.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Nov 30, 2008)

forgive me Father, for I do not care.


----------



## Father Time (Nov 30, 2008)

Well then you can't go around claiming you won.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Nov 30, 2008)

Perhaps it is impossible to really win a debate with people who are going to find a way to disagree with you no matter what you say. I feel my historical arguments stand for themselves and I don't need to prove anything else. So it doesn't really matter who "won"
This is all about opinion anyway right?


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 30, 2008)

Father Time said:


> The animal can't give consent, so technically it's rape. That's the big difference between the two.



So little girls who consent to have sex with adults is ok?  If consent is the big deal you're making.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Nov 30, 2008)




----------



## Truthspeaker (Nov 30, 2008)

I am going to sleep. Can't keep up with you creatures of the night. I will respond to anything tomorrow.


----------



## eots (Nov 30, 2008)

Father Time said:


> The animal can't give consent, so technically it's rape. That's the big difference between the two.



so the _big difference_ between homosexuality and beastiualty is consent
well.... lm glad you said it...


----------



## Esta_PG (Nov 30, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> So little girls who consent to have sex with adults is ok?  If consent is the big deal you're making.



Have you heard of statutory rape or child molestation?  There's a difference between consent and informed consent; no state in the Union imbues someone under 18 to consent to sex with someone over 20.  Strict laws on age differences exist in many parts of the country.  There is obviously a difference between a 17 year old and 18 year old having a sexual relationship and a 7 year old and 18 year old having a sexual relationship.  Are the laws perfect?  Of course not.  But they are still important, and still increase the legal protection of more individuals than total free reign.

If you are an adult in the eyes of the law, your sexual relationships are your responsibility (beyond forcible rape, of course).  Younger than that it is and should be society's responsibility.  Protecting children is something every good community in the nation supports.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 30, 2008)

Esta_PG said:


> Have you heard of statutory rape or child molestation?  There's a difference between consent and informed consent; no state in the Union imbues someone under 18 to consent to sex with someone over 20.  Strict laws on age differences exist in many parts of the country.  There is obviously a difference between a 17 year old and 18 year old having a sexual relationship and a 7 year old and 18 year old having a sexual relationship.  Are the laws perfect?  Of course not.  But they are still important, and still increase the legal protection of more individuals than total free reign.
> 
> If you are an adult in the eyes of the law, your sexual relationships are your responsibility (beyond forcible rape, of course).  Younger than that it is and should be society's responsibility.  Protecting children is something every good community in the nation supports.



Mr Bass sees a big contradiction with courts because they give underaged kids life sentences and charge them as adults with crimes but you expect Mr Bass to believe that 13 year old who consents to sex with a 40 year old somehow does not know what they are doing? The same law thats supposed to protect the underaged also devours them with life sentences and treats them like adults, but thats ok right? The point is that that little consent argument about bestiality and homosexuality is no argument that makes homosex ok.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 30, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> "The ACTUAL bible also warned of false prophets too. I guess that takes the wind out of your sails."
> 
> Please explain how so. In fact The Book of Mormon itself is a strong stamp on the authenticity of The Bible itself. Not a smart comment. You haven't read the book of mormon and apparently neither has hello Kitty over here.
> You say you grew up mormon. Did you grow up in the backwoods of the Texas Desert or something. Those polygamists are not associated with us had you known anything about us and proves you are



24For there shall arise false Christs, *and false prophets*, *and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.*

 25Behold, I have told you before.

 26Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. 


I nver said I grew up mormon, mormon.  In fact, Im quite glad your cultish asses was kicked the hell out of my state back in the day.  It's hilarious to hear mormons try to hard to step away from the polygamy while demonizing homosexuality...  NEVERMIND the fact that your entire faith is based on some snake oil scheister's mad ravings in some get rich quick scheme that finally worked.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 30, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> Oh by the way, I am more than happy to hear what you have to say against mormons. Bring it on. You will be sorely confounded. There is not one single apparent contradiction you can come with. You had better come strong.
> Of course the Bible warns about false prophets. Like I never heard that one before
> Before you go pretending to believe in God, you had better brush up on your scriptures.
> Num 12:6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. Both Happened to Joseph Smith..... wait I can already hear it coming. You don't like old testament scriptures. ok fine.
> ...





yea dude.. jo smith.. DAVID KORESH.. JIM JONES..  way to rationalize your cult!  You are probably the first human on the face of the planet to EVER have made rationalized excuses for your beliefs!



Indeed, you know damn well which scriptures, FROM AN ACTUAL BIBLE, apply to your little desert cult.  I guess you would have all kinds of practice trying to pretty up that wolf that you try to stuff is sheeps clothing.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 30, 2008)

WhiteLion said:


> Im ok with Mormans as long as they dont go preaching Jesus and Satan were bros??



oh hey.. some charlitain who talked to an angel in the woods said jesus and satan are brothers.    Come on, whats NOT to believe about that?


----------



## Shogun (Nov 30, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> As per my previous post macintosh. I told you the history of the downfall of nations, *the embrace of homosexuality of over 2million members of the Hitler youth*, etc, etc, etc.
> All you did to "refute" my statements was to tell me to "link up or shut up". Why don't you go and google it. I already did. You just don't want to.
> I win again.





so, is that the kind of stupid shit they teach in mormon school?  that nazis were busy FUCKING gay men rather than, oh i dunno, killing them?



yea dude.. you win that swift kick in the ass being handed to you.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 30, 2008)

Father Time said:


> First rule of debate:
> Though shalt back up thine statements with credible sources. Though shalt not expect thine opponent to do thine research. Responsibility for backing stuff up lies with the person making the claim.



*BINGO*


----------



## eots (Nov 30, 2008)

you support abortion and homosexuality and evolutionary theory..what do you care about Christ or Satan


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 30, 2008)

Since the dumass who actually thinks they are Mormon because they were converted recently won't, I was raised at the time BEFORE they stopped the practice in the LDS church *pauses for drug related jokes* and here is some links:

Mormon polygamy <- Straight from the mouth of the church itself.
THE POLYGAMY DILEMMA AND THE BOOK OF MORMON <- Though not from the church, the Witnesses and Mormons are very much alike in many aspects save this one so they argue it out all the time.

The church disavowed it earlier than the practice itself was stopped. Even in Utah the practice still persists on a smaller scale. It was taken as a way to fulfill one commandment "be fruitful and multiply" found in the BofM. Officially the practice did not stop until the early 80's late 70's, at which time the polygamist marriages were finally broken up.

So, stupid LieSpeaker, try again.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 30, 2008)

eots said:


> you support abortion and homosexuality and evolutionary theory..what do you care about Christ or Satan



dive into the *actual* scriptures and find any suggestion that jesus and satan are siblings.  I don't have to care about aerodynamics to tell you that a plane can fly.  Indeed, when bastardized christian dogmas start letting non-believers live their lives without the slimy tendrils of their moral outrage making an appearance every half a breath then you can give me a lecture about how what I believe disqualifies my ability to point at the *ACTUAL* bible.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 30, 2008)

Bashing religion isn't going to prove that homosexuality is right and ok, so why the retards keep doing it Mr Bass doesn't know. Just as bashing religion isn't going to make murder and lying right and ok the same with homosexuality.


----------



## eots (Nov 30, 2008)

Shogun said:


> dive into the *actual* scriptures and find any suggestion that jesus and satan are siblings.  I don't have to care about aerodynamics to tell you that a plane can fly.  Indeed, when bastardized christian dogmas start letting non-believers live their lives without the slimy tendrils of their moral outrage making an appearance every half a breath then you can give me a lecture about how what I believe disqualifies my ability to point at the *ACTUAL* bible.



it just seems you are using scripture.. to denounce Mormonism ..so you can support homosexuality


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 30, 2008)

Shogun said:


> dive into the *actual* scriptures and find any suggestion that jesus and satan are siblings.  I don't have to care about aerodynamics to tell you that a plane can fly.  Indeed, when bastardized christian dogmas start letting non-believers live their lives without the slimy tendrils of their moral outrage making an appearance every half a breath then you can give me a lecture about how what I believe disqualifies my ability to point at the *ACTUAL* bible.



Jackass. if *YOU* and that bum BikerSailor search the scriptures you would see that it states that homosexuality is sinful, so why not stop the argument right there?


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 30, 2008)

eots said:


> it just seems you are using scripture.. to denounce Mormonism ..so you can support homosexuality




The opposition is using the gay "equal rights" argument as a shield to hide the fact that gay sex acts[homosexuality] is what they really support.


----------



## FireGod (Nov 30, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Jackass. if *YOU* and that bum BikerSailor search the scriptures you would see that it states that homosexuality is sinful, so why not stop the argument right there?


Because the bible is not the constitution of the United States of America. Nor should it be the basis of government.


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 30, 2008)

Now THAT's rich, okay, I hate organized religion, I hate sex, so ... somehow I am supporting gay sex still? You are so focused on the trees you neglect the forest.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 30, 2008)

FireGod said:


> Because the bible is not the constitution of the United States of America. Nor should it be the basis of government.




This isn't about the Constitution moron and the Constitution doesn't say anything about gay sex acts either. The Constitution doesn't have the authority to say what is sinful or not nor does it support deviant sex acts.


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 30, 2008)

And religion doesn't have the right to dictate what laws are made.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 30, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Jackass. if *YOU* and that bum BikerSailor search the scriptures you would see that it states that homosexuality is sinful, so why not stop the argument right there?



it also says that you dogma junkies should not judge people.. so, I guess that takes the seeds out of your watermelon.


----------



## FireGod (Nov 30, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> This isn't about the Constitution moron and the Constitution doesn't say anything about gay sex acts either. The Constitution doesn't have the authority to say what is sinful or not nor does it support deviant sex acts.


The whole issue is about the Constitution. You are correct the Constitution does not say what is sinful but it does have a say in deviant sex acts, whether it is right to do so or not. 
This is supposed to be a nation of laws not the bible.
There is a separation of church and state or put another way, separation of bible and law, that is the basis of this nation. It is disingenuous for me to accept the bible for arguments in matters of the law in this country.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 30, 2008)

Shogun said:


> it also says that you dogma junkies should not judge people.. so, I guess that takes the seeds out of your watermelon.



Thats where you're wrong because Mr Bass is stating what the Bible says, not providing his own observation, so if you gotta problem its with God and His Word not the Bass.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 30, 2008)

FireGod said:


> The whole issue is about the Constitution. You are correct the Constitution does not say what is sinful but it does have a say in deviant sex acts, whether it is right to do so or not.
> This is supposed to be a nation of laws not the bible.
> There is a separation of church and state or put another way, separation of bible and law, that is the basis of this nation. It is disingenuous for me to accept the bible for arguments in matters of the law in this country.



The Constitution say nothing about gay sex acts and if voters vote against gay marriage and adoption and a ban is handed[which is Constitutional] why argue about what the Constitution states.


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 30, 2008)

Proof that bibull interpretations are all opinion anyway:

The term sodomy in the context of which it is written means "to be mean" to many preachers, and that is what they are teaching now. Why? Because Sodom was bad for the way it treated outsiders, never once did it mention that their sexual acts were the reason they were being judged as wrong but instead how they treated others.


----------



## FireGod (Nov 30, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> The Constitution say nothing about gay sex acts and if voters vote against gay marriage and adoption and a ban is handed[which is Constitutional] why argue about what the Constitution states.


Because that is majority tyranny over the the minority. BTW The Constitution of the US trumps the constitution of the state. Is it legal to amend the constitution of the state by majority vote only? I would hope not.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 30, 2008)

KittenKoder said:


> Proof that bibull interpretations are all opinion anyway:
> 
> The term sodomy in the context of which it is written means "to be mean" to many preachers, and that is what they are teaching now. Why? Because Sodom was bad for the way it treated outsiders, never once did it mention that their sexual acts were the reason they were being judged as wrong but instead how they treated others.



You must be stupid, the city was destroyed because of its sinfulness, an example was their insistence of having gay sex with angels they thought were men, even after Lot offered his two daughters. The city would have been spared if their were 10 righteous people in that city, not because of how they treated outsiders, the angels were sent to destroy the city because of its wickedness.


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 30, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> You must be stupid, the city was destroyed because of its sinfulness, an example was their insistence of having gay sex with angels they thought were men, even after Lot offered his two daughters. The city would have been spared if their were 10 righteous people in that city, not because of how they treated outsiders, the angels were sent to destroy the city because of its wickedness.



So then angels are evil to?


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 30, 2008)

FireGod said:


> Because that is majority tyranny over the the minority. BTW The Constitution of the US trumps the constitution of the state. Is it legal to amend the constitution of the state by majority vote only? I would hope not.



The Us Constitution says nothing about support of gay sex acts and the states have the right to vote down gay marriage and adoption, are saying that everyone who votes against gay marriage and adoption are wicked people? LMAO, unless anyone supports what you like they're all bad, who's really judging whom?


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 30, 2008)

KittenKoder said:


> So then angels are evil to?



How are the angels evil for doing what God sent them to do? Are you saying God is evil for destroying a wicked city rampant with homosexuality?


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 30, 2008)

Aaah .. so then your god is evil.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 30, 2008)

KittenKoder said:


> Aaah .. so then your god is evil.



So Christians should believe your stupidity over the righteousness of God?


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 30, 2008)

Well .. if your god commanded the good angels to go and do something that was evil, then logically your god is evil.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 30, 2008)

KittenKoder said:


> Well .. if your god commanded the good angels to go and do something that was evil, then logically your god is evil.




God commanded His angels to do no evil, you need to go back and properly read the scriptures.


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 30, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> God commanded His angels to do no evil, you need to go back and properly read the scriptures.



You were the one that said it, not me. I was just repeating, but if you don't like logic that's your flaw.


----------



## FireGod (Nov 30, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> The Us Constitution says nothing about support of gay sex acts and the states have the right to vote down gay marriage and adoption, are saying that everyone who votes against gay marriage and adoption are wicked people? LMAO, unless anyone supports what you like they're all bad, who's really judging whom?



Other than one rant you have no basis to say that I think that you are evil for not aligning your views to mine, and even in that rant I implied that there was a lot of fear based thinking not stupid or wicked or evil. If I remember correctly you are the one who is calling those who are gay wicked, depraved and morons. I digress.

While the US constitution says nothing about homosexuality it did say through the state constitutions/statutes sex acts that you call depraved, in fact the SCOUS had something very definite to say about those outdated state laws.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 30, 2008)

KittenKoder said:


> You were the one that said it, not me. I was just repeating, but if you don't like logic that's your flaw.




Some idiots just go on and on playing stupid games, God was and is alright right and just, you are not, end of discussion. Nothing you've said proves homosexuality is right.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 30, 2008)

FireGod said:


> Other than one rant you have no basis to say that I think that you are evil for not aligning your views to mine, and even in that rant I implied that there was a lot of fear based thinking not stupid or wicked or evil. If I remember correctly you are the one who is calling those who are gay wicked, depraved and morons. I digress.
> 
> While the US constitution says nothing about homosexuality it did say through the state constitutions/statutes sex acts that you call depraved, in fact the SCOUS had something very definite to say about those outdated state laws.




You spoke of majority tyranny, which implies evil, about they majority who votes against gay marriage and adoption, which also implies that any majority vote on a legal measure that doesn't suit what you like is evil. Thats your logic.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 30, 2008)

FireGod said:


> Because that is majority tyranny over the the minority. BTW The Constitution of the US trumps the constitution of the state. Is it legal to amend the constitution of the state by majority vote only? I would hope not.



There is no such thing as "majority tyranny".  It's a contradiction in terms.

And yes, I believe all state Constitutions are amended by ballot vote.  The government of a state, being smaller and closer to the people, is intended to be more directly responsive to the will of the people.  Speaking in terms of representative government, the individual states themselves are intended in many cases to act as the representatives of their people.

I can't imagine why you would "hope" that the people have no say in the laws that govern them.


----------



## Father Time (Nov 30, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> So little girls who consent to have sex with adults is ok?  If consent is the big deal you're making.



We have these things called age of consent laws. 18 is the age in most states.


----------



## Father Time (Nov 30, 2008)

eots said:


> so the _big difference_ between homosexuality and beastiualty is consent
> well.... lm glad you said it...


You're missing my point.

Because animals can't give consent bestiality is pretty much rape. That's why bestiality will never be legal, and mot likely never accepted by the public or anyone else (including most animal rights nuts). That's why the cnonclusion that the acceptance of gays will lead to acceptance of bestiality is complete hogwash.


----------



## FireGod (Nov 30, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> You spoke of majority tyranny, which implies evil, about they majority who votes against gay marriage and adoption, which also implies that any majority vote on a legal measure that doesn't suit what you like is evil. Thats your logic.





Main Entry:
    tyr·an·ny Listen to the pronunciation of tyranny
Pronunciation:
    \&#712;tir-&#601;-n&#275;\ 
Function:
    noun 
Inflected Form(s):
    plural tyr·an·nies
Etymology:
    Middle English tyrannie, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin tyrannia, from Latin tyrannus tyrant
Date:
    14th century

1: oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man  Thomas Jefferson> ; especially : *oppressive power exerted by government* <the tyranny of a police state>2 a: a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler ; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state b: the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant3: a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force <living under the tyranny of the clock  Dixon Wecter>4: a tyrannical act <workers who had suffered tyrannies>

tyranny - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Oppression is not in and of itself evil, even though it is WRONG. It is possible to look at the motivations of oppression and judge whether that particular incident is or is not evil. Oppression and/or tyranny is almost universally fear based though. Fear often leads to disrespect, hate and tyranny.

Please sir, ask what my logic is, before you assume what it actually is.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 30, 2008)

FireGod said:


> Main Entry:
> tyr·an·ny Listen to the pronunciation of tyranny
> Pronunciation:
> \&#712;tir-&#601;-n&#275;\
> ...



Your logic is still flawed because a majority vote by the people for or against a specific measure is not tyranny nor evil in itself exactly, nor is it oppressive power exerted by the government, its a vote by the people for the people.


----------



## Father Time (Nov 30, 2008)

It is tyranny by the majority. Look a basic foundation of the u.s. democracy is that everyone in this country has certain rights that the majority can not take away from everyone no matter how much they want to.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 30, 2008)

Father Time said:


> We have these things called age of consent laws. 18 is the age in most states.



So kids can't consent to sex with adults because of their age but they can be charged as adults and be given life sentences like adults, makes no sense. Consent is the issue here, just because someone consents o something doesn't make it right.


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 30, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Some idiots just go on and on playing stupid games, God was and is alright right and just, you are not, end of discussion. Nothing you've said proves homosexuality is right.



So, then you were lying.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 30, 2008)

Father Time said:


> It is tyranny by the majority. Look a basic foundation of the u.s. democracy is that everyone in this country has certain rights that the majority can not take away from everyone no matter how much they want to.



Its not tyranny, its simply a majority vote against a measure, its only tyranny when it doesn't suit you or what you like, but when it does suit you its not tyranny, right?


----------



## Father Time (Nov 30, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> So kids can't consent to sex with adults because of their age but they can be charged as adults and be given life sentences like adults, makes no sense. Consent is the issue here, just because someone consents o something doesn't make it right.



You're right it doesn't make much sense, we should either stop charging them as adults or lower the age of consent then to match who we charge as adults.

And no it doesn't make it right, but if everyone involved consents to it and it doesn't harm anyone else then why shouldn't they be allowed to do it?


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 30, 2008)

KittenKoder said:


> So, then you were lying.





More stupidity, this chick doesn't know what she's talking about.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 30, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Your logic is still flawed because a majority vote by the people for or against a specific measure is not tyranny nor evil in itself exactly, nor is it oppressive power exerted by the government, its a vote by the people for the people.



oh, so if the majority of white people in the US decided to vote to put ******* back in the field then it's just a vote by the people for the people, eh?


gotcha.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 30, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Thats where you're wrong because Mr Bass is stating what the Bible says, not providing his own observation, so if you gotta problem its with God and His Word not the Bass.



yea dude.. your infinite number of gay hating threads sure does back up that statement.  Hey, it's all good, dude.. the bible also says we can keep slaves too.  I guess it's back to the cotton field for you!


----------



## Father Time (Nov 30, 2008)

The tyranny of majority is a general principle, it doesn't have to involve marraige. If the majority decided to ban something harmless like lava lamps or fuzzy dice it will still qualify.

Hell forcing bars to have smoking bans only because of a majority vote qualifies.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 30, 2008)

Shogun said:


> oh, so if the majority of white people in the US decided to vote to put ******* back in the field then it's just a vote by the people for the people, eh?
> 
> 
> gotcha.




If the majority of the people voted to hang your ugly jackass for being a racist then its just a vote by the people for the people, eh?


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 30, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> More stupidity, this chick doesn't know what she's talking about.



So then, it's okay to have gay sex if a god tells you to, that being so then all gay men and women are still good because they were told to by your god that they had to have gay sex in order to find people who are judgemental.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 30, 2008)

Shogun said:


> yea dude.. your infinite number of gay hating threads sure does back up that statement.  Hey, it's all good, dude.. the bible also says we can keep slaves too.  I guess it's back to the cotton field for you!



Mr Bass hates homosexuality the sin[gay sex acts] not the actual homosexuals. Why not put you in the cotton field jackass?


----------



## eots (Nov 30, 2008)

Shogun said:


> oh, so if the majority of white people in the US decided to vote to put ******* back in the field then it's just a vote by the people for the people, eh?
> 
> 
> gotcha.


 
ok lets put banning gay marriage or returning blacks to the cotton fields up for a vote ...winner take all


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 30, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Mr Bass hates homosexuality the sin[gay sex acts] not the actual homosexuals. Why not put you in the cotton field jackass?



And there you have it, when logic escapes the mind of a moron all they can resort to is childish babbling.


----------



## FireGod (Nov 30, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> There is no such thing as "majority tyranny".  It's a contradiction in terms.


A rephrase then "majority tyranny of the minority" whether you accept the phrase or not that is the reality that is being seen by the minority.



Cecilie1200 said:


> The government of a state, being smaller and closer to the people, is intended to be more directly responsive to the will of the people.  Speaking in terms of representative government, the individual states themselves are intended in many cases to act as the representatives of their people.


We agree for the most part here.



Cecilie1200 said:


> I can't imagine why you would "hope" that the people have no say in the laws that govern them.


I did not say that, I said:
"Is it legal to amend the constitution of the state *by majority vote only*? I would hope not."



Father Time said:


> We have these things called age of consent laws. 18 is the age in most states.



Actually it is 18 or older in 12 states, 17 or older in 8 states and 16 or older in the rest.
Ages of consent in North America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Shogun (Nov 30, 2008)

eots said:


> ok lets put banning gay marriage or returning blacks to the cotton fields up for a vote ...winner take all



hey, if there is no such thing as a tyranny of the majority then surely, SURELY a threatened white population fresh inside an African American presidency wouldn't vote to suppress non-whites.. SURELY.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 30, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Mr Bass hates homosexuality the sin[gay sex acts] not the actual homosexuals. Why not put you in the cotton field jackass?



rationalize however you need to, niglet.  If you don't believe in a Tyranny of the Majority and the necessity of a Bill of Rights then what do you have to worry about?  I mean, a vote FROM the people FOR the people, right?


----------



## Shogun (Nov 30, 2008)

Father Time said:


> The tyranny of majority is a general principle, it doesn't have to involve marraige. If the majority decided to ban something harmless like lava lamps or fuzzy dice it will still qualify.
> 
> Hell forcing bars to have smoking bans only because of a majority vote qualifies.


----------



## Father Time (Nov 30, 2008)

you honestly think they would? I doubt that most whites are that racist.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 30, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> If the majority of the people voted to hang your ugly jackass for being a racist then its just a vote by the people for the people, eh?



But, since we all know that white people still hold the fucking reigns in this nation and we ALL KNOW who has a record of swinging from a tree I think you might wanna put some more thought into that statement during your grape kool aid and menthol cigarette break.


----------



## Father Time (Nov 30, 2008)

I'd love to stay but I have to leave now. Sorry about that guys.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 30, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> Man O Man. The closet homosexuals are still hating themselves. Hiding who you really are is not good for you, Glock, Sunni, Bass. It's just not good. Please, come out of the closet and love yourselves.


 Oh look, a liberal using gay as an insult. You fucking hypocrite.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 30, 2008)

Shogun said:


> hey, if there is no such thing as a tyranny of the majority then surely, SURELY a threatened white population fresh inside an African American presidency wouldn't vote to suppress non-whites.. SURELY.



If blacks and the majority whites vote to hang and kill racists like you and the Klan and skinheads would that be tyranny?


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 30, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Oh look, a liberal using gay as an insult. You fucking hypocrite.



Oh look, Glock-sucker missed the real insult again.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 30, 2008)

KittenKoder said:


> Oh look, Glock-sucker missed the real insult again.



Neo-liberals normally are hypocrites, just like you are.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 30, 2008)

Shogun said:


> But, since we all know that white people still hold the fucking reigns in this nation and we ALL KNOW who has a record of swinging from a tree I think you might wanna put some more thought into that statement during your grape kool aid and menthol cigarette break.



You think the majority of whites would you support you stupid hypothetical talk? The difference is try that lynching and violence and idiots like you will be meet with maximum retaliation and self defense. With a black man being the President that wouldn't happen anyways David Duke Jr.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 30, 2008)

KittenKoder said:


> Oh look, Glock-sucker missed the real insult again.


 Oh look, pussy footer losing the debate again.


----------



## KittenKoder (Nov 30, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Oh look, pussy footer losing the debate again.



Hmmm ... so to you everything has to have a weener?


----------



## glockmail (Nov 30, 2008)

KittenKoder said:


> Hmmm ... so to you everything has to have a weener?


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Nov 30, 2008)

The opposition loves homosexuality[gay sex acts], they don't really care about gay rights, its just a front they're using o disguise their love and support for gay sex acts. They would *NOT* vehemently defend gay sex acts if this isn't the case. They just trying to demonise those of us who are dusgusted by gay sex acts and those of us who would rather follow the Word of God and common sense rather than follow deviant sex acts that some in society have deemed as acceptable.


----------



## Father Time (Nov 30, 2008)

Must everyone here use ad hominem attacks?

If you support gay maraige you MUST be involved in gay sex. There can't be any other reason to support gay marraige, none at all. I guess 48% of California is gay then. Who knew?


----------



## Father Time (Nov 30, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> . They just trying to demonise those of us who are dusgusted by gay sex acts and those of us who would rather follow the Word of God and common sense rather than follow deviant sex acts that some in society have deemed as acceptable.




You can be disgusted by gays and not vote for them to be treated as second class citizens. You can also live your life by your God and not force his word onto everyone else.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 30, 2008)

Father Time said:


> You can be disgusted by gays and not vote for them to be treated as second class citizens. You can also live your life by your God and not force his word onto everyone else.


That's idiotic!!

God is against sodomites. Any Christian should be totally against them and their sick lifestyle. Period.


----------



## Father Time (Nov 30, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> That's idiotic!!
> 
> God is against sodomites. Any Christian should be totally against them and their sick lifestyle. Period.



Or you can live and let live, and not shove your religion unto everyone else.
Judge not less thee be judged and all that jazz.

I houghly doubt God gave us free will so we could force each other to obey him. It makes no sense.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 30, 2008)

Father Time said:


> Or you can live and let live, and not shove your religion unto everyone else.
> Judge not less thee be judged and all that jazz.
> 
> I houghly doubt God gave us free will so we could force each other to obey him. It makes no sense.


Homos are no different than rapists, child molesters, and other perverts. 

They should NOT be supported or encouraged in any way.


----------



## del (Nov 30, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Homos are no different than rapists, child molesters, and other perverts.
> 
> They should NOT be supported or encouraged in any way.



i've never met someone who holds a doctorate in stupid before.


----------



## Father Time (Nov 30, 2008)

I've never met anyone who cannot see the difference between homosexuality between consenting adults and rape. Why so much hate? Have you ever actually met someone who was gay or are you only repeating hearsay?

Oh and government allowing gay marraige is remaining neutral not encouraging them.


----------



## eots (Nov 30, 2008)

Father Time said:


> You can be disgusted by gays and not vote for them to be treated as second class citizens. You can also live your life by your God and not force his word onto everyone else.



casting a vote to support gay marriage would not be in keeping with Christian
beliefs..so why would a Christian support gay marriage or teaching our children its just another choice in life


----------



## Father Time (Nov 30, 2008)

eots said:


> casting a vote to support gay marriage would not be in keeping with Christian
> beliefs..so why would a Christian support gay marriage or teaching our children its just another choice in life



You can be a Christian and not force everyone else to be.
Likewise you can have a Christian church and refuse to marry gays. As I said before, I highly doubt God gave everyone free will but secretly wants us to force each other to obey him.


----------



## eots (Nov 30, 2008)

no one is forcing anyone to be Christian..they are voting according to their conscience


----------



## Father Time (Nov 30, 2008)

eots said:


> no one is forcing anyone to be Christian..they are voting according to their conscience



They are voting to make their 'homosexuality is evil' christian scripture part of state legislature. They're voting to make gays second class citizens of sorts again because of religious doctrine. And if you consider marraige to be a religionous thing they're telling all the other religions you can't marry gays (even though some of them want to marry gays).


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 30, 2008)

Father Time said:


> We have these things called age of consent laws. 18 is the age in most states.



It's always dangerous to decide that law dictates morality, instead of the other way around.

My grandmother married at the age of 12, and it was quite legal at that time.  Does the legality of the act mean that you think that makes it perfectly okay?

In Thailand and certain other parts of Asia, you can legally purchase pre-pubescent children for sex.  Does that make it okay and moral in your eyes? Or is it only American law that conveys morality?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 30, 2008)

Father Time said:


> You're missing my point.
> 
> Because animals can't give consent bestiality is pretty much rape. That's why bestiality will never be legal, and mot likely never accepted by the public or anyone else (including most animal rights nuts). That's why the cnonclusion that the acceptance of gays will lead to acceptance of bestiality is complete hogwash.



Bestiality is not illegal because the poor animal can't give consent and is being raped.  It's illegal because sane adults consider the entire idea revolting.

And since the goalposts for sanity, adulthood, and repulsion all can be and have been moved, there is no reason to naively believe that they won't be again.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 30, 2008)

Father Time said:


> It is tyranny by the majority. Look a basic foundation of the u.s. democracy is that everyone in this country has certain rights that the majority can not take away from everyone no matter how much they want to.



Sorry, but the fact that our laws protect VERY SPECIFIC rights for everyone does not in any way convey an immunity for various minorities from ANY vulnerability to the will of the majority.

Way too many people have gotten the mistaken impression that our system of government is designed to cut the will of the people totally out of the loop on everything.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 30, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Homos are no different than rapists, child molesters, and other perverts.
> 
> They should NOT be supported or encouraged in any way.



Okay Sucking Moron......lemmie lay some knowledge on ya........

Islamist assholes like yourself are no different than the terrorist Muslims.

Wanna try again?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 30, 2008)

Father Time said:


> You're right it doesn't make much sense, we should either stop charging them as adults or lower the age of consent then to match who we charge as adults.
> 
> And no it doesn't make it right, but if everyone involved consents to it and it doesn't harm anyone else then why shouldn't they be allowed to do it?



That isn't how laws are passed, nor should it be.  We don't sit down and say, "Okay, this age group.  We need to have laws concerning them on this subject and this subject and this subject, and they should all reflect THIS particular viewpoint of the age group."

Age of consent laws and laws concerning who is charged as an adult are based on completely different criteria, and bear no relation to each other.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 30, 2008)

Father Time said:


> The tyranny of majority is a general principle, it doesn't have to involve marraige. If the majority decided to ban something harmless like lava lamps or fuzzy dice it will still qualify.
> 
> Hell forcing bars to have smoking bans only because of a majority vote qualifies.



No.  "Tyranny" is not defined as "some people having to live with laws they don't like".

If we followed your viewpoint to the logical extreme, then there would be NO laws whatsoever, because ANY law would, perforce, be tyranny, and we should therefore all simply live in anarchy, doing exactly as we please when we please.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 30, 2008)

eots said:


> ok lets put banning gay marriage or returning blacks to the cotton fields up for a vote ...winner take all



Did that already.  Over half the states in the nation have held votes which resulted in the banning of legal recognition for homosexual "marriage", and long ago several Constitutional Amendments, not to mention lesser laws, were passed outlawing slavery.  Thank God, since when that last issue was left up to the courts, THEY chose to uphold slavery.  So much for their moral and intellectual superiority.


----------



## eots (Nov 30, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Okay Sucking Moron......lemmie lay some knowledge on ya........
> 
> Islamist assholes like yourself are no different than the terrorist Muslims.
> 
> Wanna try again?



??????..so what does this mean ??...are you saying this to some how support gay marriage ?...


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 30, 2008)

FireGod said:


> A rephrase then "majority tyranny of the minority" whether you accept the phrase or not that is the reality that is being seen by the minority.



In other words, you feel oppressed because you aren't getting your way.  My teenager feels the same way, and I have the same response:  Boo frigging hoo.    Discontent does not a tyranny make.



FireGod said:


> I did not say that, I said:
> "Is it legal to amend the constitution of the state *by majority vote only*? I would hope not."



Yeah, actually, that WOULD be saying you hope the people have no say in the laws that govern them, since the people have their say by voting for things.  Or voting for people who then vote for things, whichever.



FireGod said:


> Actually it is 18 or older in 12 states, 17 or older in 8 states and 16 or older in the rest.
> Ages of consent in North America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



You really shouldn't cram responses to two different posts into one, especially when they aren't from the same person AND they aren't arguing the same position.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 30, 2008)

Father Time said:


> Must everyone here use ad hominem attacks?
> 
> If you support gay maraige you MUST be involved in gay sex. There can't be any other reason to support gay marraige, none at all. I guess 48% of California is gay then. Who knew?



What in the HELL are you talking about?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 30, 2008)

Father Time said:


> You can be disgusted by gays and not vote for them to be treated as second class citizens. You can also live your life by your God and not force his word onto everyone else.



You can agree with the homosexual agenda and not misrepresent the positions of your opponents and try to emotionally blackmail people.  You can also live your life by your secular beliefs and not try to force them onto everyone else.

I'll keep my religion out of public life as soon as you agree to do the same with YOUR beliefs.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 30, 2008)

Father Time said:


> Or you can live and let live, and not shove your religion unto everyone else.
> Judge not less thee be judged and all that jazz.
> 
> I houghly doubt God gave us free will so we could force each other to obey him. It makes no sense.



I love how you tell him not to "shove his religion onto everyone else", and then in the next sentence have the sheer hubris to try to preach to him about how to practice his religion!  Not only is that laughable, it's hypocritical.

What really makes no sense is your entire second paragraph.  Talk about welding two utterly unrelated concepts to each other.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 30, 2008)

Father Time said:


> I've never met anyone who cannot see the difference between homosexuality between consenting adults and rape. Why so much hate? Have you ever actually met someone who was gay or are you only repeating hearsay?
> 
> Oh and government allowing gay marraige is remaining neutral not encouraging them.



Would it be too much to ask for you to actually quote the post you're responding to so that people have some point of reference for figuring out what in blazes you're babbling about?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 30, 2008)

Father Time said:


> You can be a Christian and not force everyone else to be.



Who's forcing you to be a Christian?  Someone hold a gun to your head, make you go to church, and force you to get on your knees and repent your sins, did they?



Father Time said:


> Likewise you can have a Christian church and refuse to marry gays.



Well, for NOW you can.  Give the activists a little more leeway, and that'll change.



Father Time said:


> As I said before, I highly doubt God gave everyone free will but secretly wants us to force each other to obey him.



Nope, still as nonsensical and meaningless as it was the first time you said it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 30, 2008)

Father Time said:


> They are voting to make their 'homosexuality is evil' christian scripture part of state legislature.



No, they aren't.  Please be so kind as to spare us the ridiculous hyperbole.  Nowhere in ANY of these laws and amendments has there been ONE WORD about homosexuality being evil or about any scripture, Christian or otherwise.

People are voting for one thing and one thing only:  to delineate what relationship will be legally recognized as a marriage.  That's it.  That's all.

You seriously overestimate how much anyone cares about who you have sex with, live with, fall in love with, whatever.  Set up whatever home arrangement you want.  We don't give a rat's ass.  You just don't get to call us in and demand that we sanction it.  And you SURE don't get to call us in, demand we sanction it, and THEN throw a hissy fit because we refuse and tell us it's none of our business.



Father Time said:


> They're voting to make gays second class citizens of sorts again because of religious doctrine.



Please see above re: hyperbole.  Do you really think there are that many people in the United States who are hardline religious fundamentalists?  Do you really believe there are that many of them in CALIFORNIA, for crying out loud?

You need to wake up and realize that this isn't about religion, and you can't just stomp your little feet and demonize the Christians and make it go away.



Father Time said:


> And if you consider marraige to be a religionous thing they're telling all the other religions you can't marry gays (even though some of them want to marry gays).



So what?


----------



## glockmail (Nov 30, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Okay Sucking Moron......lemmie lay some knowledge on ya........
> 
> Islamist assholes like yourself are no different than the terrorist Muslims.
> 
> Wanna try again?


 Bigot.


----------



## WhiteLion (Nov 30, 2008)

KittenKoder said:


> Since the dumass who actually thinks they are Mormon because they were converted recently won't, I was raised at the time BEFORE they stopped the practice in the LDS church *pauses for drug related jokes* and here is some links:
> 
> Mormon polygamy <- Straight from the mouth of the church itself.
> THE POLYGAMY DILEMMA AND THE BOOK OF MORMON <- Though not from the church, the Witnesses and Mormons are very much alike in many aspects save this one so they argue it out all the time.
> ...


WTH's the difference in Islamic 24 virgins(or however many) after death, and Mormon polygamy??? you can choose to get'em now or get'em later


----------



## WhiteLion (Nov 30, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> No, they aren't.  Please be so kind as to spare us the ridiculous hyperbole.  Nowhere in ANY of these laws and amendments has there been ONE WORD about homosexuality being evil or about any scripture, Christian or otherwise.
> 
> People are voting for one thing and one thing only:  to delineate what relationship will be legally recognized as a marriage.  That's it.  That's all.
> 
> ...


Homosexual agenda has one objective and only one and thats to destroy societal identities thereby attempting to dilute and debunk millenniums of traditional family ideology unit of one man and one woman

Break down the traditional family unit in a country and youve practically sacked it.....


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 30, 2008)

WhiteLion said:


> WTH's the difference in Islamic 24 virgins(or however many) after death, and Mormon polygamy??? you can choose to get'em now or get'em later



Mormons don't require you to blow yourself up, along with multiple innocent bystanders, in order to get multiple wives.


----------



## joe77 (Nov 30, 2008)

I have a question: if being gay is natural, not at all a choice, not at all influenced by environment, people are born that way, nothing can be done to change it...why do gay men still have sperm and semen, and why do lesbians have ovaries and periods? After all, if nature created homosexuals the same way it created heterosexuals, what would they need with those pesky functions and fluids?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 30, 2008)

joe77 said:


> I have a question: if being gay is natural, not at all a choice, not at all influenced by environment, people are born that way, nothing can be done to change it...why do gay men still have sperm and semen, and why do lesbians have ovaries and periods? After all, if nature created homosexuals the same way it created heterosexuals, what would they need with those pesky functions and fluids?



Okay, the first answer that popped into my head was incredibly crude, so we'll skip past that.

Just because homosexuals don't desire and fall in love with the opposite sex in no way means they might not choose to have children.  In fact, it is not an uncommon practice for them to put aside their indifference to the opposite sex in order to produce families, although in this day and age of fertility clinics and surrogate mothers, they no longer necessarily have to go to that extent to accomplish their goals.


----------



## Gunny (Nov 30, 2008)

joe77 said:


> I have a question: if being gay is natural, not at all a choice, not at all influenced by environment, people are born that way, nothing can be done to change it...why do gay men still have sperm and semen, and why do lesbians have ovaries and periods? After all, if nature created homosexuals the same way it created heterosexuals, what would they need with those pesky functions and fluids?




There's no evidence to support the argument that homosexuality is natural.  Regardless what anyone tries to push, homosexuality is manifest and evidenced solely by behavior.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 30, 2008)

Gunny said:


> There's no evidence to support the argument that homosexuality is natural.  Regardless what anyone tries to push, homosexuality is manifest and evidenced solely by behavior.



There's also no reason to believe that just because someone is "born that way", that "that way" is automatically good or desirable or equivalent to the more normal way of being.  After all, one is born with a tendency toward alcoholism or certain mental illnesses.  Do we consider schizophrenia an "alternate lifestyle"?


----------



## joe77 (Nov 30, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Okay, the first answer that popped into my head was incredibly crude, so we'll skip past that.
> 
> Just because homosexuals don't desire and fall in love with the opposite sex in no way means they might not choose to have children.  In fact, it is not an uncommon practice for them to put aside their indifference to the opposite sex in order to produce families, although in this day and age of fertility clinics and surrogate mothers, they no longer necessarily have to go to that extent to accomplish their goals.



Where did I say the antithesis of any of that? I'm merely asking why, considering homosexuality, in a big way, precludes reproduction. If you don't desire the kind of sex that would allow one to reproduce, why do you need all the trappings those who would have? It's not just a question of orientation, but the far reaching ramifications of orientation.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 30, 2008)

joe77 said:


> Where did I say the antithesis of any of that? I'm merely asking why, considering homosexuality, in a big way, precludes reproduction. If you don't desire the kind of sex that would allow one to reproduce, why do you need all the trappings those who would have? It's not just a question of orientation, but the far reaching ramifications of orientation.



And I'm saying that homosexuality does NOT preclude reproduction.  It just means you have to go looking specifically to reproduce, instead of having it happen by accident, the way God intended.


----------



## Father Time (Nov 30, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Bestiality is not illegal because the poor animal can't give consent and is being raped.  It's illegal because sane adults consider the entire idea revolting.



That is a completely stupid reason to ban ANYTHING. It must be illegal because people who have no interest in it don't like it, or they think it's immoral. Yeah that makes perfect sense. If you consider something revolting don't do it. You don't need laws to protect you from it. Are you so worried that someone might be doing something you find immoral that you want to get big government involved? How does what people do in their private lives affect you? This I really want to hear.


----------



## Father Time (Nov 30, 2008)

Gunny said:


> There's no evidence to support the argument that homosexuality is natural.  Regardless what anyone tries to push, homosexuality is manifest and evidenced solely by behavior.



Here's some evidence, and it's been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

SpringerLink - Journal Article


----------



## Father Time (Nov 30, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Sorry, but the fact that our laws protect VERY SPECIFIC rights for everyone does not in any way convey an immunity for various minorities from ANY vulnerability to the will of the majority.
> 
> Way too many people have gotten the mistaken impression that our system of government is designed to cut the will of the people totally out of the loop on everything.



14th amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It's the equal protection clause that's at issue here.

And the bill of rights was created in the first place exactly so that the minority's rights were not at the whims of the majority. If they thought the majority got to dictate everything they wouldn't have made the bill of rights.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 30, 2008)

Father Time said:


> That is a completely stupid reason to ban ANYTHING. It must be illegal because people who have no interest in it don't like it, or they think it's immoral.


 Yeah that makes perfect sense.[/QUOTE]

Why do you THINK we make things illegal, witless?  Because we consider them bad and immoral.  Duh.  Did you really think society made bestiality illegal because of concern over animal cruelty?



Father Time said:


> If you consider something revolting don't do it. You don't need laws to protect you from it.



Oh, yeah, THAT makes sense.  As long as I don't do it, I'm totally unaffected by whether or not anyone ELSE does it, because of course people who live in a society are all isolated little islands unto themselves.  I can't decide which one you are a bigger ignoramus about:  laws or morals.  What I DO know is that I'm damned glad you don't live in MY neighborhood.



Father Time said:


> Are you so worried that someone might be doing something you find immoral that you want to get big government involved?



What do you think the job of the government IS, exactly, other than to be society's active arm in deciding on and enforcing its boundaries? 



Father Time said:


> How does what people do in their private lives affect you? This I really want to hear.



So you don't think we should have laws against anything that you personally?  You're perfectly okay with having a crack house on one side of yours and a whorehouse on the other, and maybe a kiddy porn ring behind you, so long as they keep the noise down and don't bother YOU and YOUR kids?

And don't give me, "But that stuff all hurts SOMEONE".  You asked about other people's private lives affecting ME.  Me personally.  So by that standard, any law against something that does not PERSONALLY affect you shouldn't exist, because after all, there's no such thing as defining deviancy down, creating a depraved society, and hurting EVERYONE who must live in it.

You need to pull your head out and figure out what purpose laws serve and why people pass them, and stop trying to pretend that morality is separate from real life.  That's just another way of saying, "I have no morals at all."


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 30, 2008)

Father Time said:


> Here's some evidence, and it's been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal.
> 
> SpringerLink - Journal Article



Out of curiosity, Gregor Mendel, do you have any frigging clue what a Drosophila melanogaster is?


----------



## Father Time (Nov 30, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> You can agree with the homosexual agenda and not misrepresent the positions of your opponents and try to emotionally blackmail people.  You can also live your life by your secular beliefs and not try to force them onto everyone else.
> 
> I'll keep my religion out of public life as soon as you agree to do the same with YOUR beliefs.



And how is allowing gay marraige aforcing my beliefs on you?

Although on the flip side

No matter how you slice you're trying to force the definition onto everyone else, and the only rationale I've seen you give  is that it's the Christian thing to do. There are religions that want to marry gays so why can't they?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 30, 2008)

Father Time said:


> 14th amendment
> 
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> ...



Oh, for the love of God, THIS ignorant argument again.

No one is applying the law unequally here, Bubba.  EVERYONE is equally allowed to legally marry someone of the opposite sex, and EVERYONE is equally prohibited from legally marrying someone of the same sex.  I can't go marry another woman any more than any other woman in my state can.

Babbling at me about the "minority's rights" is a waste of time insofar as no one, minority or otherwise, has EVER had the right to legally marry someone of the same sex before all this nonsense came up.

And the reason the Founding Fathers gave us the Bill of Rights is because the majority DOES get to dictate everything else, and they wanted to establish a handful of things that were off-limits.  It was not for twits like you to expand that into some wackjob notion that the will of the people should simply be ignored completely.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 30, 2008)

Father Time said:


> And how is allowing gay marraige aforcing my beliefs on you?
> 
> Although on the flip side
> 
> No matter how you slice you're trying to force the definition onto everyone else, and the only rationale I've seen you give  is that it's the Christian thing to do. There are religions that want to marry gays so why can't they?



How is NOT allowing it forcing MINE on YOU?  Is someone stopping you from living with your same-sex lover?  Writing out a will to leave him/her/it everything you own when you die?

The only thing withholding legal sanction of a homosexual relationship denies you - or whomever is having it - is the recognition and sanction of others.  You don't have a right to that.  I am not forcing my beliefs on you by not approving of your lifestyle, but you ARE forcing it on me if you get a judge to rule that I HAVE to approve it against my will.

No matter how you slice it, YOU are trying to force YOUR definition onto everyone else, because everyone else has made it crystal clear that they don't agree with you.  How in the HELL do you justify saying that I am the one forcing MY definition when I am not the one swimming upstream of the overwhelming vote?

And no, you have NOT seen me give any "Christian rationale".  YOU think that's the only reason to oppose it, and so you simply attribute that to everyone who disagrees with you, because it's so much damned easier to just say, "Well, you're a religious nut" than to have to actually listen to what people say, think about it, and then formulate a response.

Should you ever be interested in hearing any opinions besides your own and the one that YOU have decided everyone else has, MINE actually happens to be that THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN AND DON'T WANT IT.


----------



## Father Time (Nov 30, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Yeah that makes perfect sense.



Why do you THINK we make things illegal, witless?  Because we consider them bad and immoral.  Duh.  Did you really think society made bestiality illegal because of concern over animal cruelty?
[/QUOTE]

No but that's the only reason it remains illegal, and unchallenged. We make things illegal to protect the public and maintain order, not to enforce morality.



Cecilie1200 said:


> Oh, yeah, THAT makes sense.  As long as I don't do it, I'm totally unaffected by whether or not anyone ELSE does it, because of course people who live in a society are all isolated little islands unto themselves.  I can't decide which one you are a bigger ignoramus about:  laws or morals.  What I DO know is that I'm damned glad you don't live in MY neighborhood.


Yeah because gay couples getting married will harm you and your kids personally right. RUN! Lock the doors, save yourselves, two gay gays you've never met are getting married.



Cecilie1200 said:


> What do you think the job of the government IS, exactly, other than to be society's active arm in deciding on and enforcing its boundaries?



National Defense, acting as a police force stuff like that. I don't think it's sole purpose is to enforce the personal moral code of everyone through sheer force.



Cecilie1200 said:


> So you don't think we should have laws against anything that you personally?  You're perfectly okay with having a crack house on one side of yours and a whorehouse on the other, and maybe a kiddy porn ring behind you, so long as they keep the noise down and don't bother YOU and YOUR kids?
> 
> 
> And don't give me, "But that stuff all hurts SOMEONE".  You asked about other people's private lives affecting ME.  Me personally.  So by that standard, any law against something that does not PERSONALLY affect you shouldn't exist, because after all, there's no such thing as defining deviancy down, creating a depraved society, and hurting EVERYONE who must live in it.



First off it's me or others not involved, if two adults consent to something whatever it is it should be legal as long as it doesn't affect anyone else in the process.

Child porn is a bad argument though. Child porn hurts the child involved, they can't consent to it, they get sexually molested and they can be as young as five.

As for crackhouses and whorehouses, well they would lower the value of my property considerably and we do have residential zones and commercial zones here in suburbia. So there's that to consider.

But if you want my answer as to whether or not I think crack or prostitution should be legal, the answer is not sure and yes respectively (but if you want a definite, I do think weed should be legal).



Cecilie1200 said:


> You need to pull your head out and figure out what purpose laws serve and why people pass them, and stop trying to pretend that morality is separate from real life.  That's just another way of saying, "I have no morals at all."



We all have different morality. Since morality is mostly subjective/opinion it would be wrong to force it onto everyone else without a really good reason. I have morals, I think people should be nice to people for starters, but I'm not going to throw someone in jail just because he's generally a mean person.


----------



## Father Time (Nov 30, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> How is NOT allowing it forcing MINE on YOU?  Is someone stopping you from living with your same-sex lover?  Writing out a will to leave him/her/it everything you own when you die?
> 
> The only thing withholding legal sanction of a homosexual relationship denies you - or whomever is having it - is the recognition and sanction of others.  You don't have a right to that.  I am not forcing my beliefs on you by not approving of your lifestyle, but you ARE forcing it on me if you get a judge to rule that I HAVE to approve it against my will.
> 
> ...



I'm talking rights of couples, a hetero couple gets to get married and not a homo, I think that's wrong and you don't. What's your rationale of that? That what they're doing is bad? You don't have to approve of it and neither does anyone else. No church will be forced to marry same sex couples, freedom of religion allows that. If a law or a lawsuit got proposed that ran counter to it, it would be overturned rather quickly.

And I've been mixing you with someone else. My apologies, but if your argument is that the people have decided it's wrong therefore it's wrong then that's not a very good argument either.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 1, 2008)

Well it's getting late over here, and I have work tomorrow. Sorry but I must leave.


----------



## Macintosh (Dec 1, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> As per my previous post macintosh. I told you the history of the downfall of nations, the embrace of homosexuality of over 2million members of the Hitler youth, etc, etc, etc.
> All you did to "refute" my statements was to tell me to "link up or shut up". Why don't you go and google it. I already did. You just don't want to.
> I win again.



I refuted your asinine assertion by relying on referenced history - a foreign concept to you, I realize.

Considering I have now asked you several times to back up that which you assert and you have several times failed to do so, responding with "I win," "Your dumb," and "I know history," it's obvious you're just a pitiful little troll. You are, officially, put on ignore. 

Not a single, solitary link backing up anything you say. I don't play those games, buddy. 

You lose. 

Goodbye.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 1, 2008)

Father Time said:


> No but that's the only reason it remains illegal, and unchallenged. We make things illegal to protect the public and maintain order, not to enforce morality.



No, dumbass, bestiality does not remain illegal solely because people are worried about being cruel to animals.  It's still illegal because people still think it's revolting.

And how do we decide what to protect the public from and what order, exactly, to maintain, hmmm?  Gee, that would be a moral decision, wouldn't it?  Well, that is, for everyone but you.  God only knows how YOU decide what to vote for.



Father Time said:


> Yeah because gay couples getting married will harm you and your kids personally right. RUN! Lock the doors, save yourselves, two gay gays you've never met are getting married.



Once again, you flatter yourself enormously that ANYONE cares who you live with, screw, whatever, and then confuse your enormous, puffed-up ego with reality.  These laws are not about anyone's relationship, tweeko, because - NEWFLASH! - no one gives a damn about you.  Go crazy, mount a bicycle handlebar to the headboard and ride, ride, ride!  Who care?

They are solely about what the rest of us are and are not going to legally recognize.  That's it.  Does it personally harm me and my family for society to offer sanction and recognition to homosexual couples equal to that it gives heterosexual couples?  What business is it of YOURS?  My family, my vote, my business to decide what does and doesn't affect us.

Interesting how protective of privacy and personal choice you are until it comes to people who disagree with you.



Father Time said:


> National Defense, acting as a police force stuff like that. I don't think it's sole purpose is to enforce the personal moral code of everyone through sheer force.



Oh, yeah, because national defense and the police force don't have ANYTHING to do with enforcing the collective moral code of society through force.  

We look at Hitler imprisoning and killing people by the millions based on their ethnicity, and we go to war.  Why?  Because we decided it was WRONG, aka immoral.  We see Japan attack us, and we go to war and retaliate.  Why?  Because we decided that was wrong.  We see Iraq invade Kuwait, and we send our military to push them back.  Why?  Because we considered it wrong to invade neighboring countries.

Noticing a pattern there, Brain Trust?

The United States has laws against stoning your wife to death for adultery.  Why?  Because we consider it immoral.  Not every country in the world considers it immoral.  Some countries consider it the height of morality to stone an adulterous wife, and in those countries, it's legal.

So you can't tell me that our laws are just about "maintaining order", because other countries also maintain order.  They just maintain a DIFFERENT order, with different laws, because . . . drum roll please!  They have a different standard of morality informing their choice of laws.



Father Time said:


> First off it's me or others not involved, if two adults consent to something whatever it is it should be legal as long as it doesn't affect anyone else in the process.



Well, again, who the hell else is involved if your neighbors on one side sell crack and the neighbors on the other side run a whorehouse?  But I'm betting you'd be freaking out royally if they did, for no other reason than that YOU don't want to live in that sort of environment.  (That is, unless you actually live in a slum with crack and whore houses.  I'm assuming at this point that you live in a normal, middle-class sort of neighborhood.)



Father Time said:


> Child porn is a bad argument though. Child porn hurts the child involved, they can't consent to it, they get sexually molested and they can be as young as five.



No, it isn't a bad argument, because you didn't say anything about "hurts the child involved" or "can't consent".  Your specific criterion was "how does it hurt me and my family personally?"  And by YOUR standards, it doesn't hurt us at all.  They aren't my kids.  As you keep saying about the homosexuals, I don't even know them.  So if I adopt YOUR standard of legal necessity, why should I care what total strangers are doing or having done to them?  As long as me and mine are taken care of, that's all that should matter to me, isn't it?  Well, ISN'T IT?!



Father Time said:


> As for crackhouses and whorehouses, well they would lower the value of my property considerably and we do have residential zones and commercial zones here in suburbia. So there's that to consider.



What?  You mean that what other people do actually DOES affect the people around them?  You're not a complete, self-sufficient, isolated little island unto yourself on your own property?



Father Time said:


> But if you want my answer as to whether or not I think crack or prostitution should be legal, the answer is not sure and yes respectively (but if you want a definite, I do think weed should be legal).



No, I don't, because I don't give a rat's ass what you think about the legality of those things.  My point is that whether you thought they should be legal or not, YOU wouldn't want them around YOU and YOUR family.  Knowing you, you'd probably find it just hunky-dory . . . so long as it was polluting someone ELSE'S neighborhood and ruining someone ELSE'S life.  I, on the other hand, actually take my eyes off my own belly button long enough to notice the rest of the world and care what it's like.



Father Time said:


> We all have different morality. Since morality is mostly subjective/opinion it would be wrong to force it onto everyone else without a really good reason. I have morals, I think people should be nice to people for starters, but I'm not going to throw someone in jail just because he's generally a mean person.



Mostly, we don't all have different moralities.  We differ on some points, and in some cases, we differ only by degree.  For example, I think heinous murderers should be shot like rabid dogs, while you probably prefer that they be given a life sentence.  Both of us, though, agree - I would hope - that they should be punished severely.  But that's the reason that we have public debates and then vote on the laws:  to hopefully find the place where the majority of us overlap.  And no,it isn't wrong to "force" everyone else to live by what the majority decides, because that is ALWAYS the case with EVERY law.  You can't ever please 100% of the people.  I'd rather have 9 people out of 10 happy and 1 disgruntled than 1 person getting his way and everyone else pissed off.  THAT is the definition of tyranny.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 1, 2008)

Father Time said:


> I'm talking rights of couples, a hetero couple gets to get married and not a homo, I think that's wrong and you don't.



There's no such thing as "rights of couples".  Individual people have rights.  A homosexual person has the same right to get married that I do, and I am just as prohibited from getting married the way he wants as he is.  Whether or not he WANTS that right is irrelevant to whether or not it is offered and applied equally.  I have lots of legally-protected rights I don't particularly want, but I don't consider that unequal protection just because some people want them and I don't.



Father Time said:


> What's your rationale of that? That what they're doing is bad?



And once again, instead of reading what I said, paying attention to it, thinking about it, and formulating a response to it, you just try to stuff your personal view of what I MUST think and believe into my mouth so that you can answer THAT.  Why don't you just log off and go argue with your reflection in the mirror? It would probably be a lot easier for you to supply both sides of the debate if you didn't have me getting in the way with all my pesky "making up my own opinions".



Father Time said:


> You don't have to approve of it and neither does anyone else.



Wrong, Sparky.  This entire battle is PRECISELY about me and everyone else HAVING to approve of it.  That's the entire point of getting a law passed forcing society via the government to recognize and sanction them.  They are demanding that the government approve their relationships, and in the United States more than any other nation on Earth, the PEOPLE are the government.



Father Time said:


> No church will be forced to marry same sex couples, freedom of religion allows that. If a law or a lawsuit got proposed that ran counter to it, it would be overturned rather quickly.



Oh, yeah. It's NEVER happened anywhere else that has legalized same-sex "marriage" that churches have been forced to hold their ceremonies, or that people have been sued or arrested for opposing it.  Oh, wait.  It has.  It's even happened in THIS country already, and it will only get worse.

I'm not sure who you're trying to lie to concerning the apocryphal respect for freedom of religion in this country, me or you.  But I know that I, for one, am not buying it.



Father Time said:


> And I've been mixing you with someone else. My apologies, but if your argument is that the people have decided it's wrong therefore it's wrong then that's not a very good argument either.



Apology accepted, but I should warn you that I consider producing Wikipedia as a source as tantamount to surrendering the argument.  I do not view a user-written online "encyclopedia" to qualify as a reliable source.

As it happens, though, we are not talking about "lots of people believe it, so it is the truth".  We are talking about "a lot of people voted for it, so it is the law".  Like it or don't, but that's how this country works.  The will of the people might turn out to be wrong, but it still carries the day until such time as you change their minds.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 1, 2008)

Well it looks like I had more time than I thought.



Cecilie1200 said:


> No, dumbass, bestiality does not remain illegal solely because people are worried about being cruel to animals.  It's still illegal because people still think it's revolting.



It's illegal because it's pretty much rape. If they can get sodomy laws overturned do you honestly think they wouldn't try for bestiality if there weren't some other factor going against it?



Cecilie1200 said:


> And how do we decide what to protect the public from and what order, exactly, to maintain, hmmm?  Gee, that would be a moral decision, wouldn't it?  Well, that is, for everyone but you.  God only knows how YOU decide what to vote for.



Protect us from things that are threats to our safety. Dictators, Fascists, Criminals, the insane, actual threats.



Cecilie1200 said:


> They are solely about what the rest of us are and are not going to legally recognize.  That's it.  Does it personally harm me and my family for society to offer sanction and recognition to homosexual couples equal to that it gives heterosexual couples?  What business is it of YOURS?  My family, my vote, my business to decide what does and doesn't affect us.



If you can't give me a solid reason why it affects you then why pray tell should we make it law then? Just because you and other people who won't be affected want it that way? At the cost of freedom to marry who one wishes to?



Cecilie1200 said:


> Interesting how protective of privacy and personal choice you are until it comes to people who disagree with you.



Oh knock off the straw men. Please. I never said you can't vote the way you want and you know that.



Cecilie1200 said:


> Oh, yeah, because national defense and the police force don't have ANYTHING to do with enforcing the collective moral code of society through force.



They deal with protecting us from as I said criminals and the like but if people pass laws that enforce personal morality then yeah that would be their job.



Cecilie1200 said:


> We look at Hitler imprisoning and killing people by the millions based on their ethnicity, and we go to war.  Why?  Because we decided it was WRONG, aka immoral.  We see Japan attack us, and we go to war and retaliate.  Why?  Because we decided that was wrong.  We see Iraq invade Kuwait, and we send our military to push them back.  Why?  Because we considered it wrong to invade neighboring countries.



The first two were us going to war with security risks (and partly retaliation) and we didn't invade Kuwait alone (nor are we in iraq alone).




Cecilie1200 said:


> The United States has laws against stoning your wife to death for adultery.  Why?  Because we consider it immoral.  Not every country in the world considers it immoral.  Some countries consider it the height of morality to stone an adulterous wife, and in those countries, it's legal.
> 
> So you can't tell me that our laws are just about "maintaining order", because other countries also maintain order.  They just maintain a DIFFERENT order, with different laws, because . . . drum roll please!  They have a different standard of morality informing their choice of laws.



Just because other antions enforce personal morality doesn't mean we should. It's not logical.



Cecilie1200 said:


> Well, again, who the hell else is involved if your neighbors on one side sell crack and the neighbors on the other side run a whorehouse?  But I'm betting you'd be freaking out royally if they did, for no other reason than that YOU don't want to live in that sort of environment.  (That is, unless you actually live in a slum with crack and whore houses.  I'm assuming at this point that you live in a normal, middle-class sort of neighborhood.)



You're right if my neighbors want to sell crack and have whorsehouses it shouldn't be any business of mine (and I mean that sincerely). 



Cecilie1200 said:


> No, it isn't a bad argument, because you didn't say anything about "hurts the child involved" or "can't consent".  Your specific criterion was "how does it hurt me and my family personally?"  And by YOUR standards, it doesn't hurt us at all.  They aren't my kids.  As you keep saying about the homosexuals, I don't even know them.  So if I adopt YOUR standard of legal necessity, why should I care what total strangers are doing or having done to them?  As long as me and mine are taken care of, that's all that should matter to me, isn't it?  Well, ISN'T IT?!



Ok so I forgot a few criteria, sorry. If two homosexuals marry it won't affect you so why in all holy heck do you care? I have a better argument against a next door crackhouse than you have against a gay marraige.



Cecilie1200 said:


> What?  You mean that what other people do actually DOES affect the people around them?  You're not a complete, self-sufficient, isolated little island unto yourself on your own property?



No what my neighbors do in the privacy of their own home doesn't affect me in any way. Hell I've never even met my next door neighbors (they're very private).



Cecilie1200 said:


> No, I don't, because I don't give a rat's ass what you think about the legality of those things.  My point is that whether you thought they should be legal or not, YOU wouldn't want them around YOU and YOUR family.



I wouldn't want them but I wouldn't use the force of government to stop them. Do you see the difference?



Cecilie1200 said:


> Knowing you, you'd probably find it just hunky-dory . . . so long as it was polluting someone ELSE'S neighborhood and ruining someone ELSE'S life.  I, on the other hand, actually take my eyes off my own belly button long enough to notice the rest of the world and care what it's like.



If it was polluting a neighborhood the neighborhood can get a class action lawsuit and sue. I also don't see how it ruins my life or anyone not involved if some guy messes himself up with crack.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 1, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> There's no such thing as "rights of couples".  Individual people have rights.  A homosexual person has the same right to get married that I do, and I am just as prohibited from getting married the way he wants as he is.  Whether or not he WANTS that right is irrelevant to whether or not it is offered and applied equally.  I have lots of legally-protected rights I don't particularly want, but I don't consider that unequal protection just because some people want them and I don't.



Couples have rights, hospital visitation for one.



Cecilie1200 said:


> And once again, instead of reading what I said, paying attention to it, thinking about it, and formulating a response to it, you just try to stuff your personal view of what I MUST think and believe into my mouth so that you can answer THAT.  Why don't you just log off and go argue with your reflection in the mirror? It would probably be a lot easier for you to supply both sides of the debate if you didn't have me getting in the way with all my pesky "making up my own opinions".



And yet you still didn't answer my damn question or tell me what it was that I missed. If you made the point I must've missed it. Why don't you stop insulting me and help me out?



Cecilie1200 said:


> Wrong, Sparky.  This entire battle is PRECISELY about me and everyone else HAVING to approve of it.  That's the entire point of getting a law passed forcing society via the government to recognize and sanction them.  They are demanding that the government approve their relationships, and in the United States more than any other nation on Earth, the PEOPLE are the government.



They approve hetero and not homo, why should they be discriminated against? You don't have to approve of it, you're not the freaking government, you're not the one handing out marraige licenses. The government has to allow something therefore you have to approve of it as well? That logic can be used to ban anything then.



Cecilie1200 said:


> Oh, yeah. It's NEVER happened anywhere else that has legalized same-sex "marriage" that churches have been forced to hold their ceremonies, or that people have been sued or arrested for opposing it.  Oh, wait.  It has.  It's even happened in THIS country already, and it will only get worse.



A. Cite Sources.
B. Those cases should get a damn lawyer and counter sue.
C. It couldn't have happened in California under state law.
D. You can always make a law saying churches can marry whoever they want.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 1, 2008)

On an unrelated note, what time zone is it over there and do you ever sleep?


----------



## Father Time (Dec 1, 2008)

I shall leave you with this.

You're stoning of unfaithful wives is an example of what happens when *cue cliche scary music* enforcing morality goes wrong! We wouldn't accept that morality over here and we would probably both agree that we wouldn't want to make it law. But what would happen if those people who would want it law become the majority? Would you be willing to give them that law because all of a sudden they're the majority? What happens when they start demanding other stupid laws that are part of their morality and not yours? Would you still be willing to put it up to the vote and accept the outcome regardless?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 1, 2008)

Father Time said:


> Well it looks like I had more time than I thought.



Oh, goodie.  



Father Time said:


> It's illegal because it's pretty much rape. If they can get sodomy laws overturned do you honestly think they wouldn't try for bestiality if there weren't some other factor though?



They ARE trying to get it overturned.  And the reason they aren't having any luck so far isn't because people are saying, "Oh, that would be okay if I could just be sure that poor doggie WANTS to participate."  The reason is because people are saying, "You want to do WHAT with a WHAT?  Dude, that is GROSS!  Get some therapy."



Father Time said:


> Protect us from things that are threats to our safety. Dictators, Fascists, Criminals, the insane, actual threats.



Sorry, but our legal code is SOOO much more complex than that.  Come to that, so is our foreign policy.



Father Time said:


> If you can't give me a solid reason why it affects you then why pray tell should we alter laws just for you?



Um, dude, I'M not the one asking to have laws altered.  YOU are.  I'M asking to have things left the way they've always been.

And I believe the crux of my argument so far has been that it's NOT "just" for me.  It's for the overwhelming majority of voters who agreed with me.  So pray tell me why WE should alter the laws for YOU and those who agree with you, when there are so many fewer of you?



Father Time said:


> Oh knock off the straw men. Please. I never said you can't vote the way you want and you know that.



You ARE trying to tell me how I should vote and what I should think and what does and doesn't affect my family, and you're demanding to know how and why I have decided the way I have.  I'm telling you that it's no more your business what I decide is good for my family than you think it is my business to decide how other people live THEIR lives.

The difference, of course, is that I'm not telling anyone who to have relationships with or what's good for them in the privacy of their homes.  I don't care.  All I'm saying is that I'M not going to agree with them if and when they bring it out in public and discuss it, and it's obvious that the majority of voters feel the same way.



Father Time said:


> They deal with protecting us from as I said criminals and the like but if people pass laws that enforce personal morality then yeah that would be their job.



Once again, our legal code is MUCH more complex than that.  For one thing, it is the morality of society that decides who is and isn't a criminal from whom we need to be protected.  You seem to be operating under the delusion that the definition of "criminal" is somehow rock-solid and objective the world over, and it isn't.  In many cases, it's not even the same from state to state.

People DO pass laws based on their own personal morality all the time.  The age of consent in my state, for example, is 18.  But there are other states in which it is 17, or even 16.  Clearly, the people of the state of Arizona have decided that it is their collective moral judgement that an adult who has sex with someone who is 17 is a criminal from whom they need to be protected.  Equally clearly, the people of some of the other states have decided that it is THEIR collective moral judgement that that very same adult is NOT a criminal from whom they need to be protected.

And most clearly, these are laws that are based on morality.  They are also, coincidentally, being "forced" upon a minority who disagrees with them and feels that a 17-year-old is perfectly capable of giving informed consent.



Father Time said:


> The first two were us going to war with security risks (and partly retaliation) and we didn't invade Kuwait alone (nor are we in iraq alone).



What's "alone" got to do with anything?  It's less of a moral decision if other countries agree with it?



Father Time said:


> Just because other antions enforce personal morality doesn't mean we should. It's not logical.



Of course it's logical, and of course it's what we do.  As I've pointed out on these boards many times already, even our traffic laws are based on the simple, childhood morality taught in kindergarten:  share.  Take turns.  Be courteous.  Don't go too fast because someone might get hurt.  And by the way, THOSE are "forced" on a minority who don't agree with them, too.



Father Time said:


> You're right if my neighbors want to sell crack and have whorsehouses it shouldn't be any business of mine (and I mean that sincerely).



And neither one of us believes for a micro-second that you would have no problem with those activities in your neighborhood, let alone right next door.  Otherwise, you'd be living in the slum where those activities DO occur, because hey, the housing prices are a lot cheaper.

Believe it or not, it is perfectly okay for you to express the desire to have the environment you live in be one of clean, moral, upstanding, productive people.  



Father Time said:


> Ok so I forgot a few criteria, sorry. If two homosexuals marry it won't affect you so why in all holy heck do you care? I have a better argument against a next door crackhouse than you have against a gay marraige.



Can't imagine why you would think that, since I did specify "as long as they keep the noise down and don't bother you".

The answer, as I keep saying, is that it DOES affect me.  You will notice, I hope, that I don't give rat's ass that same-sex "marriage" is legal in the Netherlands, for example.  That is because I don't live in the Netherlands, and I am in no way a part of their society.  Their laws and their societal mores genuinely do NOT affect me, except insofar as they encourage numbskulls in this country to try to emulate them.  What I care about are the laws and mores in THIS country, because THIS is the society I live in, and it DOES affect me.



Father Time said:


> No what my neighbors do in the privacy of their own home doesn't affect me in any way. Hell I've never even met my next door neighbors (they're very private).



I know the neighbors on one side, but not the other, because the damned house gets sold every two years or so.  And while most of what they do over there really doesn't have any affect on me, I'm not so callous or naive as to say that NOTHING they do does.  If he starts beating on his wife or kids and I find out, I'm going to open up a can of whoop-ass on him, and then call the cops.

But as it happens, I don't care if the people next door to me are homosexual.  In fact, that house was at one time occupied by a couple of homosexual men.  They were quiet, respectful, and kept their yard clean, and I never paid them any attention at all.  As I keep saying, this isn't about what people do in their homes regarding homosexuality, because really, honestly, no one cares about that.



Father Time said:


> I wouldn't want them but I wouldn't use the force of government to stop them. Do you see the difference?



That's bullshit.  You most certainly WOULD call the cops if someone opened a crack house or a whorehouse in your neighborhood.  The only difference here is that I'm honest enough to admit it, and you're not.



Father Time said:


> If it was polluting a neighborhood the neighborhood can get a class action lawsuit and sue. I also don't see how it ruins my life or anyone not involved if some guy messes himself up with crack.



Well, as it happens, because he becomes an unproductive drain on society, and even if they DIDN'T attract a dangerous criminal element - which they, in fact, do - they're a terrible example to your kids, if you have any.

And no, your neighbors wouldn't sue for a crack house or a whorehouse.  They'd call the cops and have everyone arrested, as they damned well should.

The point here is that it's fallacious to say, "It doesn't affect you."  It does.  It's actually intended to, because we're NOT talking about what someone does in the privacy of his own home _vis a vis _homosexuality.  No one is passing, or trying to pass, laws against being a homosexual or having a homosexual relationship.  The laws in question are strictly about PUBLIC sanction and affirmation of homosexual relationships, and when it becomes PUBLIC, it DOES affect me.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 1, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> They ARE trying to get it overturned.  And the reason they aren't having any luck so far isn't because people are saying, "Oh, that would be okay if I could just be sure that poor doggie WANTS to participate."  The reason is because people are saying, "You want to do WHAT with a WHAT?  Dude, that is GROSS!  Get some therapy."


Who is trying to get it overturned? I've never met them nor heard of them.



Cecilie1200 said:


> Sorry, but our legal code is SOOO much more complex than that.  Come to that, so is our foreign policy.



Once again please knock off the straw men. Your question was what I thought government should be protected from. That's my answer, please don't pretend it's something else.


Cecilie1200 said:


> Um, dude, I'M not the one asking to have laws altered.  YOU are.  I'M asking to have things left the way they've always been.



Late night, not enough sleep. Fine why should we keep these laws just for you then?



Cecilie1200 said:


> And I believe the crux of my argument so far has been that it's NOT "just" for me.  It's for the overwhelming majority of voters who agreed with me.  So pray tell me why WE should alter the laws for YOU and those who agree with you, when there are so many fewer of you?



Because saying straight couples can marry and gay couples can't is discrimination and wrong minded. People should have the right to marry whoever they want. You disagrre with me and haven't given me a good reason why it should be your way (and please don't bother bringing up the majority).



Cecilie1200 said:


> You ARE trying to tell me how I should vote and what I should think



It's called debating if you don't like the process you can go to the rest of the internet.



Cecilie1200 said:


> and what does and doesn't affect my family, and you're demanding to know how and why I have decided the way I have.  I'm telling you that it's no more your business what I decide is good for my family than you think it is my business to decide how other people live THEIR lives.



If your counter argument is none of my business why bother keep coming back if you won't continue debating.



Cecilie1200 said:


> The difference, of course, is that I'm not telling anyone who to have relationships with or what's good for them in the privacy of their homes.  I don't care.  All I'm saying is that I'M not going to agree with them if and when they bring it out in public and discuss it, and it's obvious that the majority of voters feel the same way.



Marraige between two people involves the government but beyond that how is it a public thing. You won't even have to know about it?



Cecilie1200 said:


> People DO pass laws based on their own personal morality all the time.



Yes I know but they shouldn't. Yes all laws involve morality but it should only go to a point. You can argue objectively the drawbacks of allowing murder or sex with minors but if you can't argue objectively the benefits of a law and you only have morality to back it up then you're forcing morality on to everyone else. Please stop framing me as an anarchist just because I think demanding everyone follow every insignificant bit of the subjective morality of the majority is bad.





Cecilie1200 said:


> What's "alone" got to do with anything?  It's less of a moral decision if other countries agree with it?


Ok fine bad argument, I don't know the whole history of the war but wasn't he becoming a threat to international allies? Never mind forget that war.



Cecilie1200 said:


> Of course it's logical, and of course it's what we do.  As I've pointed out on these boards many times already, even our traffic laws are based on the simple, childhood morality taught in kindergarten:  share.  Take turns.  Be courteous.  Don't go too fast because someone might get hurt.  And by the way, THOSE are "forced" on a minority who don't agree with them, too.



Yeah but you get the added objective benefit of safety for citizens who follow rules. Heck even that wikipedia article I gave you showed why traffic laws don't really count for what you're arguing.



Cecilie1200 said:


> And neither one of us believes for a micro-second that you would have no problem with those activities in your neighborhood, let alone right next door.  Otherwise, you'd be living in the slum where those activities DO occur, because hey, the housing prices are a lot cheaper.



I DON'T CARE IF THEY DECIDE TO LIVE IN A CRACKHOUSE. I don't care if they start running a whorehouse. Hell I wouldn't even rat them out. I firmly believe prostitution should be legalized and I don't think having a bunch of crackhouses around will all of a sudden turn our neighborhood into a slum.



Cecilie1200 said:


> Believe it or not, it is perfectly okay for you to express the desire to have the environment you live in be one of clean, moral, upstanding, productive people.



That is bullshit. You do not have the right to demand that everyone here live by whatever morals you have just because you want the place to be 'clean and moral'. This is supposed to be a free country so if I do something that you don't like but doesn't actually affect you otherwise then that's too bad. 



Cecilie1200 said:


> Can't imagine why you would think that, since I did specify "as long as they keep the noise down and don't bother you".



Well they usually attract addicts and desperate men.


Cecilie1200 said:


> The answer, as I keep saying, is that it DOES affect me.  You will notice, I hope, that I don't give rat's ass that same-sex "marriage" is legal in the Netherlands, for example.  That is because I don't live in the Netherlands, and I am in no way a part of their society.  Their laws and their societal mores genuinely do NOT affect me, except insofar as they encourage numbskulls in this country to try to emulate them.  What I care about are the laws and mores in THIS country, because THIS is the society I live in, and it DOES affect me.


How does gay marraige affect you? I've asked you that question umpteenth times and yet you still refuse to answer me.




Cecilie1200 said:


> I know the neighbors on one side, but not the other, because the damned house gets sold every two years or so.  And while most of what they do over there really doesn't have any affect on me, I'm not so callous or naive as to say that NOTHING they do does.



Neither am I, you mentioned two specific scenarios that's it.




Cecilie1200 said:


> That's bullshit.  You most certainly WOULD call the cops if someone opened a crack house or a whorehouse in your neighborhood.  The only difference here is that I'm honest enough to admit it, and you're not.



How the hell could you possibly know that without ever meeting me in person? I'd really LOVE to know about your psychic powers that can detect whether someone is lying through text.



Cecilie1200 said:


> Well, as it happens, because he becomes an unproductive drain on society, and even if they DIDN'T attract a dangerous criminal element - which they, in fact, do - they're a terrible example to your kids, if you have any.



I wouldn't expect everyone to be a good example to kids nor would I demand through force that they be. There's no reason why the world around you needs to be kid friendly (nor would you ever actually accomplish that). Also you can act as a good example to your kids, I'm sure that you'd be a bigger influence than one 'bad' house.



Cecilie1200 said:


> The laws in question are strictly about PUBLIC sanction and affirmation of homosexual relationships, and when it becomes PUBLIC, it DOES affect me.


How does it affect you? Why do you care that other people are getting married? Please answer me this damn question. Is it because the government is now catering to two types of marraiges instead of one? What?

It's past midnight we've been talking in damn circles all day I'm going to leave now.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 1, 2008)

Father Time said:


> Couples have rights, hospital visitation for one.



Dude, you have the right to visit anyone in the hospital that you want to.  Have you not been to a hospital lately?  They aren't like pricey French restaurants, with a maitre'd and a reservation list.  You can walk right in and visit a complete stranger if you want to.

If you're concerned about being in intensive care and unconscious, make a living will.  Hell, I have one, and I AM married.



Father Time said:


> And yet you still didn't answer my damn question or tell me what it was that I missed. If you made the point I must've missed it. Why don't you stop insulting me and help me out?



I DID answer your question.  Your question was, if I recall correctly, "Why? Because you think it's wrong?"  And the answer to that was, "That's the argument YOU have attributed to me, not any argument I'VE ever given."  And I see no reason to stop insulting you if you see no reason to stop putting words in my mouth.



Father Time said:


> They approve hetero and not homo, why should they be discriminated against?



Why shouldn't they be?  We discriminate based upon behavior all the damned time.  Hell, that's the purpose of most of our laws:  to say, "We approve of this behavior, and we'll slap your ass in jail for THAT one."  In this case, all we're saying is, "We're not recognizing that as a marriage, but feel free to call it whatever you want amongst yourselves."



Father Time said:


> You don't have to approve of it, you're not the freaking government, you're not the one handing out marraige licenses.



The hell I'm NOT the government.  This is America, pal.  "Government of the people, by the people, and for the people . . ."  Am I ringing any bells here?  Representative democracy?  Bueller?



Father Time said:


> The government has to allow something therefore you have to approve of it as well? That logic can be used to ban anything then.



And it is used to ban all sorts of things.  In fact, it's the fundamental basis for EVERYTHING we actually ban in this country.  If the government is going to take an action, then yes, the majority of the people have to approve of it.  Otherwise, you get a dictatorship and eventually, you get a revolution.  See the founding of the United States if you don't believe me.



Father Time said:


> A. Cite Sources.
> B. Those cases should get a damn lawyer and counter sue.
> C. It couldn't have happened in California under state law.
> D. You can always make a law saying churches can marry whoever they want.



Let me take this in reverse order.

We already have a law saying churches can marry or not marry whomever they want, plus a whole host of other things.  It's called the First Amendment to the Constitution.  And it's rapidly becoming not worth the sheepskin it's written on, thanks to activists who can't get what they want at the ballot box or the legislature because of that pesky "will of the people", and so turn to the legal system and like-minded judges to force their beliefs on everyone else.  Sound familiar?

Technically, it can't happen ANYWHERE in this country under FEDERAL law, but it did.  It ALSO can't happen in the states where it DID happen under STATE law, but that didn't count for squat.  And finally, it wasn't SUPPOSED to be able to happen in the other countries where it did, because they allegedly are westernized, liberal-minded countries with religious freedom.  They decided they didn't need any of that nonsense when it interfered with their progressivism, and if you really think the United States is somehow immune from selling its own freedoms down the river the same way, then you're deluded.

My dear, those cases happened IN COURT to begin with.  They already HAD lawyers.  No one ever said anyone was passing laws oppressing religious freedom by the open, legal, democratic process.  Didn't stop the oppression, though, did it?

You really, REALLY need to follow the news.  I've cited these cases so many times, as have others, that I can already envision half the board rolling their eyes and saying, "Not AGAIN."

However, one more time:

Perhaps you heard recently the news story concerning eHarmony.com.  This Internet dating site was founded by a man with a divinity degree specifically for the purpose of promoting long-term relationships based on Christian principles.  As I'm sure we all know, there is no shortage of Internet dating and hook-up sites, catering to any and all tastes and goals.  In a country that supposedly worships at the shrine of First Amendment freedom of speech, the California-based company SHOULD, in theory, be able to specify the sort of service it wishes to provide, no?  Apparently not, since they were sued and forced to include homosexual relationships as well.

A federal court in Massachusetts denied parents the right to know when homosexuality was being discussed in their children's classroom.  Why?  Because homosexual "marriage" is legal there, and therefore, it supersedes their parental rights.

I'm sure you probably also heard the news story about the Catholic adoption agency in Massachusetts that chose to close its doors rather than be forced to place children with homosexual couples in opposition to its religous basis.

In New Jersey, a Christian ministry refused to perform a same-sex ceremony and was investigated by the state's Attorney General's office.

In California, a doctor was sued for refusing to artificially inseminate a lesbian because his policy is not to perform the procedure on ANY unmarried woman.

In New Mexico, a wedding photographer couple was sued for declining the job of taking photos at a same-sex ceremony.

In Georgia, a counselor was fired for referring a woman in a same-sex relationship to another counselor, despite the fact that the woman herself said the counselor she was referred to gave "exemplary service".

All of these are easily looked up and verified, if you choose.  And that's right here in the United States, where we supposedly enshrine, both legally and morally, the ideas of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of personal belief . . . unless it pisses off a vocal minority group and is politically incorrect.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 1, 2008)

Father Time said:


> On an unrelated note, what time zone is it over there and do you ever sleep?



I'm in Arizona, which I believe is currently sharing time with California (We don't switch to Daylight Savings Time, and I get confused sometimes about what everyone else is doing).  My husband works until midnight or so, and I'm 8 months pregnant with a nocturnal baby, so I tend to take three- or four-hour naps during the day rather than sleeping all night.  Also, it's Sunday - well, it was when I started posting  - so I didn't really have anything I needed to do.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 1, 2008)

Ma has screwy laws that as you said were unconstitutional. CA does not have the same laws.

Everything else is 'was sued' 'was investigated' Did they win did they lose? If it was a frivolous lawsuit that resulted in a loss than you can't really count it. Stuff like that happens all the time and the ones who were sued can get back legal fees from the people who sued to even out the cost of lawyers.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 1, 2008)

Father Time said:


> I shall leave you with this.
> 
> You're stoning of unfaithful wives is an example of what happens when *cue cliche scary music* enforcing morality goes wrong!



According to YOUR moral standard, but who the hell are YOU to impose YOUR views of what's right and wrong on anyone else?  What makes YOUR moral standard any better or worse than theirs?

Seriously, though, the fact that things can go wrong and be taken to a bad or scary degree just indicates that humans are fallible, screwed-up creatures, not that we should somehow attempt to make and enforce laws without any regard to a moral standard.  I can't even imagine how we would manage that.  What standard WOULD we use to make laws if not right and wrong as we understand them?



Father Time said:


> We wouldn't accept that morality over here and we would probably both agree that we wouldn't want to make it law.



On the other hand, THEY wouldn't accept OUR morality or want to make it THEIR law, either.  That's the point.  We have each made our laws based on what our individual societies consider to be moral.



Father Time said:


> But what would happen if those people who would want it law become the majority?



If a majority of people in this country decided that that was moral, it would become the law here.  And the thing you should understand is that in a purely legal sense, that is completely right and proper.  I am an American, and I have to believe that the highest morality is to allow the people themselves to decide what kind of society they want to live in.  If I don't believe that, then everything this country is, everything it was founded on, doesn't exist.  I can't suddenly decide that it's better to have a handful of much wiser, morally superior (read:  people who agree with me) people take away that freedom simply because the people have disagreed with me nad are therefore too stupid to be allowed to govern themselves.  How hypocritical!



Father Time said:


> Would you be willing to give them that law because all of a sudden they're the majority? What happens when they start demanding other stupid laws that are part of their morality and not yours?



The people of my state vote in laws I don't agree with all the time.  Every two years, the ballot has a slew of initiatives on it.  Do you imagine that I am on the winning side of every one of those issues?  Hardly.  And yes, I "give them" those laws because they're the majority.  They won.  We both had the job of convincing our fellow voters to agree with us, and they did a more effective job of it.  That makes it my job NOW to go out and win people to my side and put it to another vote.  It does NOT make it my job to decide to trash the whole system and set myself up as benevolent Big Sister who will hand down decisions to the ignorant peons.



Father Time said:


> Would you still be willing to put it up to the vote and accept the outcome regardless?



Do it all the time, honey.  In fact, it seems to me that it's YOUR side that's unwilling to put things up to the vote and trust the people, since it's the same-sex "marriage" people who want it decided in the courts by unaccountable lawyers in robes.


----------



## eots (Dec 1, 2008)

happy world aids day to all !!..and to all a goodnight...

World AIDS Day 2008


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 1, 2008)

Father Time said:


> Who is trying to get it overturned? I've never met them nor heard of them.



You didn't know that there are people out there who want the laws against bestiality struck down?

I'm not posting links on here to that kind of stuff.  Google "zoophilia" and help yourself, if you really want to know more about it.



Father Time said:


> Once again please knock off the straw men. Your question was what I thought government should be protected from. That's my answer, please don't pretend it's something else.



I never asked you anything of the sort.  My best view of government is as a necessary evil, and I have no interest in or concern for protecting it from anything.  Methinks you need to track this conversation back and refresh your memory.



Father Time said:


> Late night, not enough sleep. Fine why should we keep these laws just for you then?



Once again, I never asked to keep anything "just for me".  My position is, and always has been, that the majority of voters have clearly stated that THEY do not want the government's criteria on what is and isn't recognized as a marriage changed.  It is THEM for whom we should keep the laws as they are, and THEY are also the reason why.

If you're so concerned about people having beliefs "forced" on them, how come you have no outrage whatsoever at the idea of the majority of the American public having the beliefs of the homosexual community and its supporters forced on them?



Father Time said:


> Because saying straight couples can marry and gay couples can't is discrimination and wrong minded. People should have the right to marry whoever they want. You disagrre with me and haven't given me a good reason why it should be your way (and please don't bother bringing up the majority).



No, it is NOT discrimination, at least not the way you mean.  Nor is it wrong-minded.  Let me quote Thomas Sowell on this, because he says it better than I can:

"The argument that current marriage laws "discriminate" against homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior. 

All laws distinguish among different kinds of behavior. What other purpose does law have? 

While people may be treated the same, all their behaviors are not. Laws that forbid bicycles from being ridden on freeways obviously have a different effect on people who have bicycles but no cars.  But this is not discrimination against a person. The cyclist who gets into a car is just as free to drive on the freeway as anybody else.

Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the future population of the nation. 

Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did was nobody else's business. Now they are asserting a right to other people's approval, which is wholly different. 

None of us has a right to other people's approval."

NO ONE has the right to "marry whomever they want".  The privilege of having your relationship sanctioned and recognized by the government is hemmed in by all manner of restrictions, and always has been.  In truth, most rights and privileges are.

And this whole "give me a reason, and it can't be THIS reason.  You have to have ANOTHER reason, because I get to decide what reasons you can and can't base your opinions on" bullshit is exactly that:  bullshit.  How would you like it if I said, "You haven't given me a good reason why we should change the law to let homosexuals marry, and please don't bother bringing up discrimination"?



Father Time said:


> It's called debating if you don't like the process you can go to the rest of the internet.



Nice try at deliberate obtuseness, but not going to work.  The point is that you don't apply the same standards of behavior to yourself that you demand with great outrage from everyone else.  You holler about ME interfering in the privacy of people's homes, even though no one has done anything of the sort, and then turn around do exactly the same thing by dictating what I should and shouldn't consider to affect my family.

The question still stands:  who died and left YOU arbitrator of what's right for my family?  If, as you say, I don't have the right to tell homosexuals how to live their lives - and I haven't even tried to - then why do YOU have the right to tell ME what does and doesn't affect my family?



Father Time said:


> Marraige between two people involves the government but beyond that how is it a public thing. You won't even have to know about it?



Why does it have to be "beyond that"?  THAT is the issue.  It involves the government.  They have deliberately MADE it involve the government.  That is as much as it NEEDS to be a public thing right there.  I'M not the one who said, "Hey, let's make this a public and political issue.  Let's drag that puppy out here and argue about it."  I was perfectly happy to let them go on about their lives, having relationships with whomever they wanted and not knowing about it.  But THEY couldn't leave it at that.  They INSISTED that I HAD to know about it.  Don't blame ME if I dare to have an opinion about something that someone else was bound and determined to make a public issue.



Father Time said:


> Yes I know but they shouldn't. Yes all laws involve morality but it should only go to a point.



According to whom?



Father Time said:


> You can argue objectively the drawbacks of allowing murder or sex with minors but if you can't argue objectively the benefits of a law and you only have morality to back it up then you're forcing morality on to everyone else.



First of all, I never said I only had morality to back it up.  Second of all, you can't argue ANY of those things objectively until everyone involved with the argument FIRST accepts the moral premise of right and wrong as it relates to the subject.  Think you'd have much luck objectively arguing the drawbacks of murder with Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy?  I don't think so, because they don't accept the basic moral premise that killing is a bad thing.  Or they didn't, before they themselves were kakked.  Would you like to try objectively arguing the drawbacks of pedophilia with NAMBLA?  Let me know how that works out for you.



Father Time said:


> Please stop framing me as an anarchist just because I think demanding everyone follow every insignificant bit of the subjective morality of the majority is bad.



Actually, what I'm framing you as is someone who's blindly taking political positions based on a vague desire to be "nice" and "fair" without having ever really thought through the philosophical ramifications of what he's saying.  You should probably consider yourself flattered, in all honesty, that I think you're interesting enough to warrant this much detail and effort.

It doesn't really matter if you think the morality of the majority is bad or not, because YOU aren't in charge.  You don't suddenly get to chuck the system and arbitrarily impose YOUR subjective morality on everyone else because you've decided that the masses are just too stupid for words and should be silenced.

Or to put it another way, I think demanding everyone follow every insignificant bit of the subjective morality of the MINORITY is a lot worse.



Father Time said:


> Ok fine bad argument, I don't know the whole history of the war but wasn't he becoming a threat to international allies? Never mind forget that war.



Hitler?  Well, he was a threat to Great Britain, and to France for the whole two seconds they actually fought him.  Didn't mean he was a threat to US, though, or ever would be.  In fact, I believe that was a major argument at the time.  The opposing argument, of course, was that he was an evil bastard who was a threat to all moral, upstanding, and freedom-loving people, and should be put down like a rabid dog.

Okay, we'll forget WWII, but I don't know what war you're going to find that demonstrates that our foreign policy and decisions to go to war aren't based at least partially on a sense of right and wrong, aka a national moral standard.



Father Time said:


> Yeah but you get the added objective benefit of safety for citizens who follow rules. Heck even that wikipedia article I gave you showed why traffic laws don't really count for what you're arguing.



I never said there wasn't a good reason for holding moral standards.  In fact, YOU were the one implying that there was something wrong with them, not me.  I firmly believe that moral standards have very good and logical reasons for existing, which certainly in no way detracts from the stone fact that our laws are STILL based on moral standards.

And no, your Wikipedia article wasn't actually relevant to the topic at all, completely aside from being Wikipedia.



Father Time said:


> I DON'T CARE IF THEY DECIDE TO LIVE IN A CRACKHOUSE. I don't care if they start running a whorehouse. Hell I wouldn't even rat them out. I firmly believe prostitution should be legalized and I don't think having a bunch of crackhouses around will all of a sudden turn our neighborhood into a slum.



I didn't say you cared if THEY lived in a crackhouse or a whorehouse.  I said you cared if they brought it to YOUR neighborhood.  I would never DREAM of accusing you of giving a rat's ass about anyone who was not you or part of your inner circle.    My entire point was that people do not live isolated from and unaffected by the other people in their societies, so it is silly to say, "None of my business, doesn't affect me" simply because you don't personally know the people involved.



Father Time said:


> That is bullshit. You do not have the right to demand that everyone here live by whatever morals you have just because you want the place to be 'clean and moral'. This is supposed to be a free country so if I do something that you don't like but doesn't actually affect you otherwise then that's too bad.



I, personally, do NOT have that right, you are correct.  The majority, however, DOES have that right.  And no, "free country" does NOT mean that.  Anarchy does.  Nowhere does our law say, "If it doesn't actually affect you, then you can't make a law about it."  With the exception of a limited number of rights protected in the Constitution, the majority has every legal right to make a law about anything it wants.

Take Prohibition, for example.  Was it a good idea to outlaw alcohol?  Debatable.  Did it personally affect the people who supported Prohibition if other people drank?  Probably not.  Did the People have the legal right to outlaw alcohol, regardless of whether or not it was a good idea or had any personal affect on them?  Yes, which is why the law stood for approximately a decade before the people themselves changed their minds and scrapped it.



Father Time said:


> Well they usually attract addicts and desperate men.



No argument, but again, I did specify that in that example, they were behaving themselves, and that you still would not want to live in that sort of neighborhood.



Father Time said:


> How does gay marraige affect you? I've asked you that question umpteenth times and yet you still refuse to answer me.



No, I've answered you every time.  You've just refused to see the answer, because it's not what you want to hear.

One more time.  This is a society.  The laws and mores of this society dictate what kind of society it is, and that affects everyone in it.  These people are seeking the sanction and legal approval of the government for their relationships.  This is the United States, and in the United States, I and all of the other citizens ARE the government.  So it affects me that they are asking for my sanction and approval for their relationships.

Do I have other reasons?  Yes, lots of them.  Are any of them religious?  No, although I do happen to be religious and also consider homosexual behavior immoral on those grounds.  Do I need to list any of them for you?  No, because the fact that they want my approval, I don't want to give it, and the majority of voters have said very clearly that they agree is enough.

We don't wanna, and you don't have the right to force us.  Period.



Father Time said:


> Neither am I, you mentioned two specific scenarios that's it.



We don't have the time or the space or the patience to be all-inclusive with scenarios.



Father Time said:


> How the hell could you possibly know that without ever meeting me in person? I'd really LOVE to know about your psychic powers that can detect whether someone is lying through text.



Mostly because I know people, and I can apply logic.  As I said, I'm assuming you don't live in a slum where crack houses and prostitution are common.  I'm guessing you make the effort to live in a reasonably nice neighborhood because you want good property values and decent, upstanding neighbors and low crime rates.  If I'm mistaken and you actually live in a ghetto surrounded by drug addicts, please correct me.



Father Time said:


> I wouldn't expect everyone to be a good example to kids nor would I demand through force that they be. There's no reason why the world around you needs to be kid friendly (nor would you ever actually accomplish that). Also you can act as a good example to your kids, I'm sure that you'd be a bigger influence than one 'bad' house.



While I don't think it's possible to ever accomplish a perfect, kid-friendly world, I can't see a single reason why I shouldn't expect and demand that the effort be made.  And only a complete dumbass would say, "It's okay if I take my kids and live in the worst part of town with all the drug dealers and gangs, because all they really need for a good example is me."  More importantly, AS their primary example, I consider it incumbent upon me to take my kids to a good neighborhood with good people in it, and then fight like hell to keep it that way instead of letting it become another slum because "it's none of my business what other people do".  I don't know if you have kids, and maybe I'm crediting you with being a better parent than you are, but I really doubt that your personal attitude toward child-rearing is any different.



Father Time said:


> How does it affect you? Why do you care that other people are getting married? Please answer me this damn question. Is it because the government is now catering to two types of marraiges instead of one? What?



Been there, answered that.  I don't approve, I don't agree that homosexual relationships are equivalent to heterosexual relationships, and the majority of the country thinks the same.  They asked me to approve, and I refuse.  They told me they were the same as heterosexuals, and I disagreed.  I won, they lost.  And I can tell you right now that "What business is it of yours?" isn't going to convince many people to join your side, especially when the whole point of getting government sanction is to MAKE it other people's business.



Father Time said:


> It's past midnight we've been talking in damn circles all day I'm going to leave now.



You keep saying that.  Just go.  The posts'll still be here tomorrow.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 1, 2008)

Father Time said:


> Ma has screwy laws that as you said were unconstitutional. CA does not have the same laws.
> 
> Everything else is 'was sued' 'was investigated' Did they win did they lose? If it was a frivolous lawsuit that resulted in a loss than you can't really count it. Stuff like that happens all the time and the ones who were sued can get back legal fees from the people who sued to even out the cost of lawyers.



I didn't say Massachusetts' laws are Unconstitutional.  Their actual LAWS are just fine.  It's their court decisions that are Unconstitutional, not to mention contrary to the written state laws.  And it's the courts that are the major problem here.  They are the reason that states keep amending their Constitutions to be more specific on the issue:  to ward off some wackjob judge arbitrarily imposing his own subjective morality over the stated will of the people.

Some lost and some are still wending their way through the system.  And when I say "lost", I mean the people who were just exercising their alleged right to freedom of religion and belief lost.  Like I said, feel free to look them up.  They're all easily available.  Off the top of my head, I can't recall any of the ones I cited where those being oppressed won, but I could be wrong.

I know the first one, eHarmony, lost, because I stated specifically that they were now being forced to offer a service they had never wanted to offer.  I believe I also stated that the counselor who referred a patient was fired.  The wedding photographer in New Mexico lost and was forced to pay fines and all the legal and court fees, despite the fact that the lesbian couple went right ahead and hired a different photographer and were quite happy with their services.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 1, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Neo-liberals normally are hypocrites, just like you are.



Hey Charlie!  I have been waiting all weekend to tell you about the two black guys at the gym.  I went to my locker, and there were two feminine black guys in their low 20's hanging around my locker.  So I grabbed a towel and went to take my shower, thinking they'd be gone when I got back.

But nooooooo!!!!  The one was not changing.  He was already dressed and just sitting there talking to his little lover and text messaging on the phone.  His face 6 inches from my fucking crotch.  I had to slip on the boxers under my towel.  It was so obvious he was hoping to see sausage.

So he tells his lover to go shower.  His lover says, "don't tell me what to do", and he says, "you are dismissed", and his lover gives him this look of death, like you don't tell me what to do!!

Or like, "on no he didn't".

So I'm in the middle of this gay lovers quarell and the one is looking at the other as if waiting for an apology and then I yell, "HE SAID YOU ARE DISMISSED!".  

They both laughed and so did I.  The one guy went and took his shower and the one who was waiting to see my package went about his business.

I'm not homophobic, but they were really bugging the hell out of me.  If you aren't changing, get the fuck moving!  The lockers are really close together.  There is no room to sit and mingle.  

Anyways, 2 black fagolas.  Just wanted to let you know they do exist.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 1, 2008)

wow


----------



## glockmail (Dec 1, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Hey Charlie!  I have been waiting all weekend to tell you about the two black guys at the gym.  I went to my locker, and there were two feminine black guys in their low 20's hanging around my locker.  So I grabbed a towel and went to take my shower, thinking they'd be gone when I got back.
> 
> But nooooooo!!!!  The one was not changing.  He was already dressed and just sitting there talking to his little lover and text messaging on the phone.  His face 6 inches from my fucking crotch.  I had to slip on the boxers under my towel.  It was so obvious he was hoping to see sausage.
> 
> ...



I think you made some nasty assumptions about these guys. Perhaps you're just homophobic.


----------



## eots (Dec 1, 2008)

glockmail said:


> I think you made some nasty assumptions about these guys. Perhaps you're just homophobic.



or fantasizing....


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 1, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Anyways, 2 black fagolas.  Just wanted to let you know they do exist.


Not for long though. They will be dead from AIDS in a few years. Good riddance!!!


----------



## FireGod (Dec 1, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Not for long though. They will be dead from AIDS in a few years. Good riddance!!!



You are truly mind blowing, in your apparent lack of respect for your fellow man.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 1, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Not for long though. They will be dead from AIDS in a few years. Good riddance!!!



Same question that you ask me regularly Sucking Moron.........

Is it hard running around your life with that much hate?


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 1, 2008)

eots said:


> or fantasizing....



  They talked like the black dude in Revenge of the Nerds.

I have also known some other gay men in my lifetime, not biblically, but I know them, and they talk/act the same way.

Trust me, they were gay.  And not hiding it.  

You guys are just busting my balls.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 1, 2008)

glockmail said:


> I think you made some nasty assumptions about these guys. Perhaps you're just homophobic.



I did get homophobic at one point, and when discussing this with my parents, they said, "RELAX", because I was a bit mad about it, but then I told them, "oh trust me, i defend gays, so I'm not going to hit anyone or even say anything, but it does make it hard for me to defend them when conservatives say, "i just don't want them throwing it in my face".

Normally I would say they never throw it in anyones face, but now these two did throw it in my face.  Trust me, they were gay and they were not giving me my space.  

PS.  I go to the gym by myself.  It is a Lifetime Fitness.  It has all the weights and treadmills but also a Pool, spa, hot tub, sauna, steam room included.  Has everything.  Great gym.  

I think gays use this place to pick up other gays.  It isn't the first time there a gay has acted really gay/obvious in front of me.  No one else in the room type situation.  Probably putting it out there just hoping I'm gay too.  

I wanted to warn them that they might do that to the wrong guy and get their asses kicked in the locker room, but then it's none of my business and they would have to touch me inappropriately before I would ever say anything.  Or, if they kept virbally hitting on me and didn't take no for an answer, that might cause them problems.  But I doubt that would happen.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 1, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Same question that you ask me regularly Sucking Moron.........
> 
> Is it hard running around your life with that much hate?



Something bad always happens to people who wish that on others.  

If they don't already live a miserable existence.


----------



## eots (Dec 1, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> They talked like the black dude in Revenge of the Nerds.
> 
> I have also known some other gay men in my lifetime, not biblically, but I know them, and they talk/act the same way.
> 
> ...



it all sounds entertaining...maybe if your nice or a least not to much of a meanie you could be flower boy at the wedding...


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 1, 2008)

You know.....I've known a few gays in my lifetime, and have never had any except one come close to having me kick their ass.

From what I've seen, most are polite, and when you tell them that you don't swing that way, most back off and say sorry.

Besides.......have you noticed that the people that are the most homophobic, and scared that the gay person is going to bone them right there and then (when in reality they really aren't, they're just testing the waters like dudes do when they're trying to pick up women), are generally the people that no sane or self respecting woman would have sex with ANYWAY?  

I mean face it.......most homophobes are big fat rednecks with bald heads and sweat stained wife beaters.  

No self respecting woman would fuck that for less than a LOT of money.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 1, 2008)

FireGod said:


> You are truly mind blowing, in your apparent lack of respect for your fellow man.


Fellow Man???? 

They aren't really men. How could they be considered men when they engage in sick subhuman sex acts. 

No, in NO way are they men!!!!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 1, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Fellow Man????
> 
> They aren't really men. How could they be considered men when they engage in sick subhuman sex acts.
> 
> No, in NO way are they men!!!!



Okay asshole.....let's hear YOUR definition of "man".

I'm betting that it comes out more like a boy.............

I'll wait......


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 1, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> You know.....I've known a few gays in my lifetime, and have never had any except one come close to having me kick their ass.
> 
> From what I've seen, most are polite, and when you tell them that you don't swing that way, most back off and say sorry.
> 
> ...




You're right.  And I didn't get that uncomfortable about that guy sitting right in front of me waiting for me to change.  I just put my underwear on while the towel was still on.  But it was weird because no straight guy would sit there while dudes were all around him changing.  He'd get up and move for sure.

But it isn't like either/any of these gay guys have ever hit on me and not taken no for an answer.  Someone was telling me about a guy who had a guy stalker.  Now that would make me really uncomfortable.  And if you beat him up, you'd get charged with a hate crime.  

The first time it happened at the gym, it was a guy in the sauna.  Just he and I were in there and he called his lover.  I wouldn't have known it was a guy except he put the dude on speaker phone.  It was the gayest conversation I ever heard.  LOL.  

He too was throwing it in my face.  Lucky for him I don't care.  Because if I were a homophobe and I later saw him staring in the locker room, he could have some trouble.  

I'm just saying.  This is where I sort of see the homophobes side of the argument.  Like, maybe they should have a gay bathroom?


----------



## Father Time (Dec 1, 2008)

Cecilie1200 we're arguing in freaking circles so I'll just try to start it over here.

Please read the whole thing before you respond though.

If you want to ban something give a good reason.

The fact that you personally think it's immoral and disgusting alone is not good enough. Not even if you and 99% of everyone else agreed.

You said

"Did the People have the legal right to outlaw alcohol, regardless of whether or not it was a good idea or had any personal affect on them? Yes"

You're basically arguing tyranny of the majority to the letter. You're basically saying that whatever the majority decides the rest of the people have to go along with it, no ifs ands or buts about if (unless they can become the majority). I can argue all day that those schmucks had no right to demand everyone follow their twisted morality of 'though shalt not drink' just because they had strength in numbers. Why bother even having a freaking bill of rights if you think the majority can decide everything? Although if you want to talk bill of rights how about the ninth amendment.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Translated into modern English this means that the people have more rights than guaranteed in the constitution. This has been used amongst other thing to guarantee the right of privacy (and based off that the right to sodomy). Why shouldn't the right to marry whoever you want be one of them? 

That's why I kept asking how it affects you, if it affected you a lot than that might be a good reason to ban something. But if it doesn't and can't affect you or a nonconsenting 3rd party in any way then you need to think of a good logical reason to ban it.

Murder, bestiality, theft, child porn, inciting a riot, lying on taxes all have good logical reasons to make them crimes (under pretty much any definition). I've never heard of a good one to ban gay marriage. None of those cases you cited (save the MA ones) would've been affected by gay marriage. They are discrimination laws which is another story (honestly some of those cases didn't even happen in states that have gay marriage).

I hate to break this to you but you're not the government. You're a citizen, you pay taxes, you follow the letter of the law (hopefully) etc. Just because you're a citizen doesn't mean that everything the government does means you are therefore are approving of it. The government exists to serve the people, and I see no reason why it shouldn't serve gay couples.

The government allows all sorts of things. Like flag burning for one.  It doesn't matter if you or 99% of the people thought that it was disgusting and immoral we'd still have that right, because our country was founded on the notion that every citizen has rights that the majority can never take away. I could write a book full of the most sickening disgusting thoughts I could find, and if it doesn't cross into libel slander hate speech plagiarism, or the very loose definitions of obscenity (fun fact, if my book as a whole had literary value than it automatically is not obscenity) then it gets to published, and the government has to allow that, although you don't have to approve it. It's because this country wasn't founded on the idea of tyranny by the majority. It was founded on majority rules, minority rights.

"I can't see a single reason why I shouldn't expect and demand that the effort be made [to make it as kid friendly as possible]."

How about the fact that children are the minority? How about the fact that people should have a right to behave in a kid-friendly manner? Just because you let people do adult things doesn't mean you have to "take my kids and live in the worst part of town with all the drug dealers and gangs, because all they really need for a good example is me."

You're argument is essentially 'the majority gets to force the minority to behave in manners the majority finds acceptable, with possibly the exception of the bill of rights' which I find sickening. Our country wasn't founded on life, limited liberty, and the pursuit of happiness so long as the majority finds it acceptable.

Although let's have a little quiz. If the majority wanted to overturn the first amendment would you protest? Would you think that 'they have no right to do this'?

If the answer is no you're argument is truly tyranny by the majority and if we followed that than the bill of rights would not be worth jack. So much for a free country.

If you're answer is yes than at what point do you decide that the freedom of majority to control society needs to be limited?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 1, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> You're right.  And I didn't get that uncomfortable about that guy sitting right in front of me waiting for me to change.  I just put my underwear on while the towel was still on.  But it was weird because no straight guy would sit there while dudes were all around him changing.  He'd get up and move for sure.
> 
> But it isn't like either/any of these gay guys have ever hit on me and not taken no for an answer.  Someone was telling me about a guy who had a guy stalker.  Now that would make me really uncomfortable.  And if you beat him up, you'd get charged with a hate crime.
> 
> ...



No.....what you ought to do is start chuckling to yourself and talking to yourself about the sweet piece that you carved off the other day.  If they don't get the message about not putting their stuff in your face, put some of yours in theirs.  Ask 'em if they eat pussy and what their favorite angles are for stabbing a woman in the crotch are.

Trust me......they'll back off quick.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 1, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Fellow Man????
> 
> They aren't really men. How could they be considered men when they engage in sick subhuman sex acts.
> 
> No, in NO way are they men!!!!



Many of us hetero's do some very sick subhuman sex acts with women.  

I know some old hillbillies that say giving oral to a woman is a homosexual act.  

They did a study on sex in the USA and it turns out, there is no such thing as NORMAL.

So your preacher, he does shit you might think is abnormal.  Butt plugs.  

Your boss likes Likes wearing catholic girls outfits.  

And God knows what you do.  

I would not think of you as sub human if you happened to like penis in your ass or in your mouth.  I would still think of you as human.  I may not think you are going to heaven because of the hatred in your heart, but I would acknowledge that you were still human.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 1, 2008)

"Normal" is nothing more than a setting on the washing machine..........


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 1, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Hey Charlie!  I have been waiting all weekend to tell you about the two black guys at the gym.  I went to my locker, and there were two feminine black guys in their low 20's hanging around my locker.  So I grabbed a towel and went to take my shower, thinking they'd be gone when I got back.
> 
> But nooooooo!!!!  The one was not changing.  He was already dressed and just sitting there talking to his little lover and text messaging on the phone.  His face 6 inches from my fucking crotch.  I had to slip on the boxers under my towel.  It was so obvious he was hoping to see sausage.
> 
> ...




Wow, two black leather daddies, yes black sodomites exists, so what? never said they were nonexistent, just an extreme rarity among blacks.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 1, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Wow, two black leather daddies, yes black sodomites exists, so what? never said they were nonexistent, just an extreme rarity among blacks.



Bullshit dude.....you've said before that "the down low brothers" were a myth.

Start chewing on your words.......

Want some salt?


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 1, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> "Normal" is nothing more than a setting on the washing machine..........



Homosexual sex is *NOT* normal and homosexuals are an overall rarity in the world, even rarer among blacks. Men shoving their penises up another man's rectum and spraying urine, semen and fecal matter on each other's buttocks is not normal, you neo-libtards are always looking to redefine anything or just plain old deny things.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 1, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Bullshit dude.....you've said before that "the down low brothers" were a myth.
> 
> Start chewing on your words.......
> 
> Want some salt?



The downlow brother is a myth, an imaginary black man created by a black sodomite looking to draw attention to black sodomites.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 1, 2008)

To all the sodomite sex supporters, if gay sex acts are so normal and normal only exists on a washing machine why aren't you all taking it up the anus, drinking urine and semen and spraying it on each others buttocks? If its so damn normal why aren't you all doing it, unless you've all been lying the whole time and are in reality sodomites?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 1, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Homosexual sex is *NOT* normal and homosexuals are an overall rarity in the world, even rarer among blacks. Men shoving their penises up another man's rectum and spraying urine, semen and fecal matter on each other's buttocks is not normal, you neo-libtards are always looking to redefine anything or just plain old deny things.



Never mind that you're a fucking twit CB, but, you also have a SEVERE lack of understanding on how the human body works........



> Men shoving their penises up another man's rectum and spraying urine, semen and fecal matter on each other's buttocks is not normal,



The interesting thing on that one is that it is damn near impossible to "spray urine" while shoving your penis in someone's ass.  Why?  Because of the way that the penis is made.  You CAN'T pee (at least not without a great degree of difficulty) while having an erection.  And....you can't put your penis in an anus unless you HAVE an erection.

Nope.....try again.......


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 1, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Wow, two black leather daddies, yes black sodomites exists, so what? never said they were nonexistent, just an extreme rarity among blacks.



Ok.  As long as you didn't say they don't exist at all.  I thought that was what you said a long time ago.  

Even though I didn't think you really thought that, I put you in the same category as Amadenijad when he said Iran doesn't have gays.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 1, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Never mind that you're a fucking twit CB, but, you also have a SEVERE lack of understanding on how the human body works........
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Fecal matter, urine matter and semen are all bodily fluids that sodomites share when they do the nasty, its their way of making love and having pleasure. Idiot, you must know how it works because you are a sodomite.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 1, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Ok.  As long as you didn't say they don't exist at all.  I thought that was what you said a long time ago.
> 
> Even though I didn't think you really thought that, I put you in the same category as Amadenijad when he said Iran doesn't have gays.



We hardly have any gays here in Mississippi, they are extremely rare herem especially black ones. Homosexuality among blacks in Mississippi is a definite no *NO*!!!!!


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 1, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> To all the sodomite sex supporters, if gay sex acts are so normal and normal only exists on a washing machine why aren't you all taking it up the anus, drinking urine and semen and spraying it on each others buttocks? If its so damn normal why aren't you all doing it, unless you've all been lying the whole time and are in reality sodomites?



No one is normal.  Some hetero's might like their wives putting strap on's on and BF'ing them.

I don't like giving girls anal.  It feels good, but it's just not my thing.  Some guys love giving girls anal.

Black guys don't give oral.  You may think that's gross.  I don't.  And if you do give oral, it's rare in the black community.  (see, i can stereotype too).

Some gay men don't like getting it up the butt.  They only like giving and/or receiving oral.  Some don't like to give oral.  

I'm not attracted to fat white women like you either Charles.  I think they are gross.  It's not normal for guys like you to want to fuck fat ass women.  

Men do nothing for me.  I'm sure they give good head, but I would throw up if a man was giving me head.  That's too bad, because I could probably get head a lot more often if I wouldn't limit myself to just women.  

Some hillbillies might think whites wanting to have sex with blacks is not normal.  It sure is rare.  So maybe that's a perversion.  I date black women.  Many racist whites might think there is something wrong with me.  It's not normal!!!  

And so what!  They have to be normal in your eyes before they are treated fairly and given equal rights?

That's what you unAmerican people forget.  This land is not just for your kind.  If you really love what America is all about, you'll defend the gays and the athiests!!!!  Not just your own!!!!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 1, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Fecal matter, urine matter and semen are all bodily fluids that sodomites share when they do the nasty, its their way of making love and having pleasure. Idiot, you must know how it works because you are a sodomite.



Fecal is a solid, therefore it's matter.  Urine is a liquid, therefore it's not.

And no.....it isn't because I'm a sodomite.....it's because (unlike you), I actually received a decent education.

You're just a fucking reservist.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 1, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> No one is normal.  Some hetero's might like their wives putting strap on's on and BF'ing them.
> 
> I don't like giving girls anal.  It feels good, but it's just not my thing.  Some guys love giving girls anal.
> 
> ...




Black guys don't like giving oral to women???? Thats a damn lie, Mr Bass knows from experience when he used to be a sinner. Mr bass doesn't like fat white women, unless you think all white women with serious backyard are fat, but thats just typical white boy talk, any women that isn't a skinny minny is fat. Women with meat are the majority thus sex with women with meat is normal, but anyways, we're discussing specific sex acts and gay sex acts are *NOT* normal.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 1, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Fecal is a solid, therefore it's matter.  Urine is a liquid, therefore it's not.
> 
> And no.....it isn't because I'm a sodomite.....it's because (unlike you), I actually received a decent education.
> 
> You're just a fucking reservist.




Piss particles are matter just like fecal particles are. gays share these particles in abundance as well as drinking semen and engaging in fisting, rimming, and scat, sodomite sex is straight up nasty sex and its an abomination to God.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 1, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Fecal matter, urine matter and semen are all bodily fluids that sodomites share when they do the nasty, its their way of making love and having pleasure. Idiot, you must know how it works because you are a sodomite.



Fecal matter, urine and semen are all fluids that a lot of hetero's share too!!!  

Notice you homophobes/anti gay people never think about the love and caring that goes on in a gay relationship.  Everytime the subject comes up, your perverted little minds go right to the ass sex.  How do you even know they have butt sex?

When I think about you being married, I don't think about what kind of sex you and  your wife have.  Does Charles do it in the butt?  Does Charles give his wife oral?  Does he ask her to stick objects up his butt?  

So why do you do this when gay marriage comes up?  

When we talk about gay sex, then you can talk about the sexual acts.  But we aren't talking about gay sex, we are talking about marraige.  

I think you guys are running out of arguments.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 1, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Fecal matter, urine and semen are all fluids that a lot of hetero's share too!!!
> 
> Notice you homophobes/anti gay people never think about the love and caring that goes on in a gay relationship.  Everytime the subject comes up, your perverted little minds go right to the ass sex.  How do you even know they have butt sex?
> 
> ...




The sealybobo keeps forgetting that homosexuality is base don two people of the same sex having gay sex acts, its not marked by love and there is no way the sealybobo will make the Bass believe that two men doing it up the tailpipe is love, its merely fetish sex, abominable fetish sex.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 1, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Piss particles are matter just like fecal particles are. gays share these particles in abundance as well as drinking semen and engaging in fisting, rimming, and scat, sodomite sex is straight up nasty sex and its an abomination to God.



WTF are you doing Chucking Ass?  Looking up every gay sex act that you can come up with?

Fisting is done by heteros also.......just ask that Kennedy chick who used to be a sportscaster.  Her tape ended up on the 'net and really rocked her world.

Scat?  Well, that kinda started in Germany with heteros also.  

Drinking semen?  Ever asked a chick to swallow?

Rimming?  Might wanna watch a porno sometime.....chicks like getting their salad tossed as much as dudes.

What?  Are you really that repressed?


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 1, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Black guys don't like giving oral to women???? Thats a damn lie, Mr Bass knows from experience when he used to be a sinner. Mr bass doesn't like fat white women, unless you think all white women with serious backyard are fat, but thats just typical white boy talk, any women that isn't a skinny minny is fat. Women with meat are the majority thus sex with women with meat is normal, but anyways, we're discussing specific sex acts and gay sex acts are *NOT* normal.



No, we are discussing gay marriage.  YOu can't stop talking about gay sex.  LOL.

PS.  Good reply on the fat white women.  But seriously, a lot of us white guys laugh our asses off when we see a good looking brother walking around with a white whale on his arm and he thinks she's hot for some reason.

We wonder if he is just so proud to have a white woman that he doesn't care that she's fat or does he really love obese women and so her being fat and white is a double bonus.  

I actually work with a guy like this.  Great guy.  I would never tell him his wife isn't hot at all.  And it isn't that she's just double his size.  She isn't even pretty.  Why do decent looking black guys like to date ugly white women?  Do you not realize they are ugly?  Is it like an accomplishment to score a white chick, even if she's ugly/fat?  Because we laugh and secretly say, "you can have her".  

And it isn't rare.  It's absolutely NORMAL to see this in the D.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 1, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> The sealybobo keeps forgetting that homosexuality is base don two people of the same sex having gay sex acts, its not marked by love and there is no way the sealybobo will make the Bass believe that two men doing it up the tailpipe is love, its merely fetish sex, abominable fetish sex.



Is that what your relationship is all about?  Putting your penis in your wifes vajajay?


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 1, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> WTF are you doing Chucking Ass?  Looking up every gay sex act that you can come up with?
> 
> Fisting is done by heteros also.......just ask that Kennedy chick who used to be a sportscaster.  Her tape ended up on the 'net and really rocked her world.
> 
> ...



All of those sex acts are normal to gays, not to heterosexuals.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 1, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> No, we are discussing gay marriage.  YOu can't stop talking about gay sex.  LOL.
> 
> PS.  Good reply on the fat white women.  But seriously, a lot of us white guys laugh our asses off when we see a good looking brother walking around with a white whale on his arm and he thinks she's hot for some reason.
> 
> ...



Black guys don't date ugly white women, Negroes do because no real sista would ever take a Negro. What white guys obese and fat is thick to brothers. Some white people think Beyonce is fat, thats white people for you. Mr Bass is not married BTW.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 1, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> *Black guys don't date ugly white women*, Negroes do because *no real sista would ever take a Negro.* What white guys obese and fat is thick to brothers. Some white people think Beyonce is fat, thats white people for you. Mr Bass is not married BTW.






now I KNOW you've flipped your fucking lid.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 1, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> All of those sex acts are normal to gays, not to heterosexuals.



Really?  Then I suggest that you check out the Jane Kennedy private sex tape she did with her boyfriend.  You'll find out a LOT about hetero fisting.

Check out the scat sites on the 'net.  You'll see that most of them are chicks and dudes.

Drinking semen.....well c'mon dude....you've not actually lived until some girl likes you enough to swallow........oh wait......that explains why you think it's gay, because you've never experienced it.

And.....for the rimming?  Watch a porno sometime.

You really ARE repressed, aren't you?


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 1, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Black guys don't date ugly white women, Negroes do because no real sista would ever take a Negro. What white guys obese and fat is thick to brothers. Some white people think Beyonce is fat, thats white people for you. Mr Bass is not married BTW.



I know a lot of white people who think Sarina Williams is too thick.  She is a little too big/muscular in my opinion, but I still think she is smoking hot.  But then again I like black women.  

And yes, most white guys would say Beyonce's legs are too thick.  I told a black guy that and he couldn't believe it.  My problem is that her thick legs will become fat when she gets older.   

I work with a hot black women.  She's a very beautiful black women.  She doesn't have white features.  She has the big ass, big lips, big nose, and she is absolutely beautiful.  She's like a Mandingo black.  Black women can be thick and still be fucking hot!!!

And I love how you have a way out of every argument.  Black guys don't, but negro's do.  

I like the Bass!  He's funny.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 1, 2008)

Shogun said:


> now I KNOW you've flipped your fucking lid.



See, you guys think I'm nuts but I know how to have a stupid argument with someone and expose how retarded they are.

It takes a retard to expose a retard.  

I don't think the Bass is retarded, but he is wrong on this and I think I'm doing a good job of making him sound/seem rediculous?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 1, 2008)

Hey....there are some thick white women that are really good looking........

Nina Hartley is one of my favorite porn actresses!


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 1, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Hey....there are some thick white women that are really good looking........
> 
> Nina Hartley is one of my favorite porn actresses!



I know, but the ugly fat white women I see with some black guys in Detroit, or Ypsilanti are not just thick, they are in some cases a few lbs away from being morbidly obese.

And, not to be gay, but the black guys are decent looking guys.  I don't know why they are hogging.  Other than the fact that she's white and they want ANY white girl they can get.  I bet black women get even madder when they see a brother with a fat white girl, because if she were in shape/curvy/velupsuous/thick, that would be fine, but tubolard?  That's rediculous.  

And since no white guy will date these women, they love the attention they get, especially when the brother is good looking!

It even makes it worth it when they bring him home to make their father's heads explode.


----------



## eots (Dec 1, 2008)

isn't love grand...


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 1, 2008)

Shit Sealy, if a girl wants to make their parents head explode, all they've gotta do is date me......

I'm a triple threat......a Sailor, a Biker, and used to be a bartender, EXACTLY the kind of guy that a parent warns their daughter about!


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 1, 2008)




----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 1, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


>



Actually, it is on topic.  Because of who I am, as well as because of some of the things I've done, as well as what I look like, people tend to think that I'm a thug or a hippie.  In reality, I'm a U.S. Navy Sailor with 20 years active service and am now retired.

Now......why is it that most of the Mormons that I've been around in Montana and here in Texas, are usually the people that come up and try to stick their foot in my door, as well as tell me that I'm going to hell because I'm not in synch with their world view?  They then offer me a book, and tell me that they will pray for me.

Nope.......not a big fan of the Mormons.  Besides, if a person actually has a brain and compares Mormonism with the "mother religion" of Judaism, they would see where they are right, as well as the myriad of other places where they are wrong.  However, the right things are few and far between in their religion.

BTW.....you can also explain to me how it is that if you live a good Mormon life, then God's reward for you is to put you in charge of your own planet?

WTF?


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 1, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Actually, it is on topic.  Because of who I am, as well as because of some of the things I've done, as well as what I look like, people tend to think that I'm a thug or a hippie.  In reality, I'm a U.S. Navy Sailor with 20 years active service and am now retired.
> 
> Now......why is it that most of the Mormons that I've been around in Montana and here in Texas, are usually the people that come up and try to stick their foot in my door, as well as tell me that I'm going to hell because I'm not in synch with their world view?  They then offer me a book, and tell me that they will pray for me.
> 
> ...



Impressive reply to say that you are on topic when the topic is about gay marriage. Anywhoo... I would be happy to answer your questions if you copy and paste them in my other Thread "The Truth about Mormons". You should find my answers quite satisfactory.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 1, 2008)

Father Time said:


> Cecilie1200 we're arguing in freaking circles so I'll just try to start it over here.
> 
> Please read the whole thing before you respond though.
> 
> ...



::sigh::  What is the point of starting over if you're just going to keep parroting the same mindless talking points without even attempting to comprehend the answers?

We are not talking about "banning" anything, first of all.  Homosexual "marriage" has never BEEN legally recognized in this country, so to say that opponents of the idea are trying to "ban" it is blatantly dishonest mischaracterization and emotional propaganda.

Second, no, I DON'T need to "give a good reason", and I am certainly not required to vet my reasons through you to make sure they come up to snuff.  And yes, the fact that most of society doesn't like something IS a good enough.  It might not be good enough FOR YOU, but like I said, no one is required to vet their reasons through you to get your approval.

Third, I have yet to say that my objection to homosexual "marriage" is because I think it is immoral and disgusting.  YOU are the only one who keeps saying that, and I have been immensely patient with your incessant and increasingly offensive attempts to jam me into the box of what you have decided all opponents of homosexual "marriage" must be and what they think and to BY GOD stuff those words down my throat because you desperately want to argue against them so that you don't EVER have to actually listen to someone else's viewpoint, let alone think about it or consider the possibility that they MIGHT have a valid reason for disagreeing with you.  I am now at the point where reading the words "because you think it's immoral and disgusting" is just flat-out offensive and I will now be taking it as a direct insult.

Maybe the reason it seems like we're talking in circles is because you're mostly talking to yourself.  Perhaps you could try asking me what I think and believe as if you actually plan to hear the answer, instead of phrasing it so that it's clear that you're convinced you KNOW the answer, and really just want to know how I can be so stupid and primitive and not as enlightened as you are.



Father Time said:


> You said
> 
> "Did the People have the legal right to outlaw alcohol, regardless of whether or not it was a good idea or had any personal affect on them? Yes"
> 
> You're basically arguing tyranny of the majority to the letter.



There's no such thing as a tyranny of the majority.  Tyranny, by definition, is oppression of the people, and the people cannot oppress themselves.  You have three choices.  You can either let the people choose their laws and their type of society for themselves, in which case most people will be happy and a small number will be disgruntled, or you can let a small group impose their "wisdom" on everyone else, which really IS a tyranny, or you can have absolutely no system or order whatsoever, in which case you will probably end up with a bunch of small tyrannies.  But to say, "I didn't get my way, so I'm being oppressed and tyrannized!" is just so much childish whining.  If you can't convince people to agree with you, you lose.  That's life.  Deal with it, and wage a better fight next time.



Father Time said:


> You're basically saying that whatever the majority decides the rest of the people have to go along with it, no ifs ands or buts about if (unless they can become the majority).



Yup.  That's how it works in a nutshell, and it beats the hell out of the plan YOU are advocating, where a small group of people decides what everyone else has to go along with.



Father Time said:


> I can argue all day that those schmucks had no right to demand everyone follow their twisted morality of 'though shalt not drink' just because they had strength in numbers.



You can, but you would sound stupid, because they DID have the right.  Doesn't mean it was a good idea, but that's both the strength and the weakness of a free society:  you have the freedom to fail and screw up royally.  And you need to learn the difference between "This is a bad idea" and "You don't have the right to do it".



Father Time said:


> Why bother even having a freaking bill of rights if you think the majority can decide everything? Although if you want to talk bill of rights how about the ninth amendment.



You have the Bill of Rights for a couple of reasons.  First of all, the purpose of the Bill of Rights, despite what people seem to think, is NOT to protect the minority from the majority.  It's to protect EVERYONE from a government that is temporarily out of touch with the will of the people.  Or to look at it another way, it's to protect all of us from the government BECOMING out of touch with the will of the people.  This crazy notion people have that the Bill of Rights sets up a blanket protection for minority groups from EVER having to live with any laws or strictures they don't like is just . . . well, crazy.



Father Time said:


> "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
> 
> Translated into modern English this means that the people have more rights than guaranteed in the constitution. This has been used amongst other thing to guarantee the right of privacy (and based off that the right to sodomy). Why shouldn't the right to marry whoever you want be one of them?



So your interpretation is what? That absolutely everything is a right, and no laws can EVER be passed limiting ANY behavior, because everyone has a right to do everything, in which case the Founding Fathers shouldn't even have wasted their time writing the Bill of Rights, since EVERYTHING is a protected, sovereign, inviolable right?

Get a grip and read the Tenth Amendment.



Father Time said:


> That's why I kept asking how it affects you, if it affected you a lot than that might be a good reason to ban something. But if it doesn't and can't affect you or a nonconsenting 3rd party in any way then you need to think of a good logical reason to ban it.



One more time.  We aren't "banning" anything.  THEY wanted to change the status quo, not us.  THEY dragged their personal lives out into the public arena and demanded approval and sanction, and when THEY didn't get it, THEY started shouting that it's "none of our business".  Well, they made it our business when they made it public, took it to court, and tried to make it a law.  So don't ask for people's opinions if you're not prepared to hear them.

It affects me because it has become a public issue of what the law will be.

Oh, and by the way, "How does it affect you?" is another way of asking why I hold my position while simultaneously making it clear that you have no interest in really hearing the answer, because you're convinced that you KNOW the answer, and therefore your real question is, "How could you be so dumb and unenlightened as to not accept and agree with my wisdom on the subject?"  That would be why you're not getting answers you find satisfactory.  Try opening your mind and rephrasing your question.



Father Time said:


> Murder, bestiality, theft, child porn, inciting a riot, lying on taxes all have good logical reasons to make them crimes (under pretty much any definition). I've never heard of a good one to ban gay marriage. None of those cases you cited (save the MA ones) would've been affected by gay marriage. They are discrimination laws which is another story (honestly some of those cases didn't even happen in states that have gay marriage).



Wrong.  There are definitions by which those things should not be crimes.  Those definitions belong to the people who want to commit those acts.  They are a minority, and they are disgruntled that the majority is "tyrannizing" them by not letting them do as they please.  You start from the assumption that everyone holds the same moral views you do, and then pretend that they aren't moral views, but simply "objective reality".  As I said, try having an objective debate with NAMBLA on the good, logical reasons that child porn and sex with minors should be crimes, and you'll find out EXACTLY how "objective and widespread" your definition of reality really is.

Also, every single one of those cases, and the more severe ones in other countries, came about because of an attitude in the government of those areas that said that homosexuality is officially the equivalent of heterosexuality and therefore it is proper to use the power of government to impose that attitude onto others.  It is a situation that will only become worse if and when legalized homosexual "marriage" becomes widespread, precisely because the underlying purpose of the push for it IS to enable activists to use the power of government to bludgeon their opponents.



Father Time said:


> I hate to break this to you but you're not the government.



Go break it to Abraham Lincoln, pal.  "Of the people, by the people, and for the people . . ."  Ring any bells?



Father Time said:


> You're a citizen, you pay taxes, you follow the letter of the law (hopefully) etc. Just because you're a citizen doesn't mean that everything the government does means you are therefore are approving of it. The government exists to serve the people, and I see no reason why it shouldn't serve gay couples.



Individually, I am a private citizen, that is true.  Collectively with all the other private citizens of this country, I am the government.  Any and all power that the government wields, it receives from we the people and it wields with our tacit approval.

Yes, the government DOES serve the people, because that is the reason why we the people invest our power in it.  And I see a very good reason why it shouldn't serve homosexual couples in this instance:  because it is not proper for the government to serve a small group's special interests over and in opposition to the interests of the majority.  Once again, that is the definition of "tyranny".  Real tyranny, not the whiny spoiled child kind.



Father Time said:


> The government allows all sorts of things. Like flag burning for one.  It doesn't matter if you or 99% of the people thought that it was disgusting and immoral we'd still have that right, because our country was founded on the notion that every citizen has rights that the majority can never take away.



Wrong.  If 99% of the people thought it should be illegal, they would simply amend the US Constitution to exclude flag-burning from the First Amendment.  What, you thought the Bill of Rights was unlike any other part of the Constitution, and was totally inviolate and could never, ever be changed?  The only reason flag-burning, while distasteful to many and possibly most people, remains illegal:  because the people themselves do not find allowing it as distasteful as they find the idea of making it illegal.



Father Time said:


> I could write a book full of the most sickening disgusting thoughts I could find, and if it doesn't cross into libel slander hate speech plagiarism, or the very loose definitions of obscenity (fun fact, if my book as a whole had literary value than it automatically is not obscenity) then it gets to published, and the government has to allow that, although you don't have to approve it. It's because this country wasn't founded on the idea of tyranny by the majority. It was founded on majority rules, minority rights.



The government has to allow that because the people want them to.  Once again, the people have the power to make that behavior illegal if they decide it is necessary.  You confuse "has not criminalized" with "cannot criminalize".  The Bill of Rights, and the rest of the US Constitution, are printed on sheepskin, not carved in stone.



Father Time said:


> "I can't see a single reason why I shouldn't expect and demand that the effort be made [to make it as kid friendly as possible]."
> 
> How about the fact that children are the minority? How about the fact that people should have a right to behave in a kid-friendly manner? Just because you let people do adult things doesn't mean you have to "take my kids and live in the worst part of town with all the drug dealers and gangs, because all they really need for a good example is me."



Children may be a numerical minority.  People who love and value children - not to mention people who would just like to live in a nicer society - are not.

And nice try and deliberate misunderstanding, but no soap.  What your attitude really comes down to is "I want to be nice and liberal and let everyone do as they please, but NIMBY."  You get the warm, fuzzy feeling of saying, "See what a good person I am, minding my own business and letting people live their lives just as they please", and you don't have to deal with the consequences of your attitudes, because YOU have taken YOUR family and moved away from those consequences.  What do you care if it hurts the people who can't make that choice?  It doesn't affect YOU, so you don't care.



Father Time said:


> You're argument is essentially 'the majority gets to force the minority to behave in manners the majority finds acceptable, with possibly the exception of the bill of rights' which I find sickening. Our country wasn't founded on life, limited liberty, and the pursuit of happiness so long as the majority finds it acceptable.



Your attitude is that a small, vocal minority should be allowed to run roughshod over everyone else and force their desires, attitudes, and beliefs on people against their will, and I not only find that sickening, I find it sickening that you DON'T find that sickening, or see how incredibly contrary to the founding principles of this country it is.

ALL liberty is limited.  It's limited by the boundaries of the guy next to you and HIS liberties.  And the pursuit of happiness is ALSO limited . . . by how good you are at pursuing it.  What you don't seem to understand is that "pursuit of happiness" means you have to actually PURSUE it, not just throw a big, screaming, foot-stomping tantrum and demand that it be given to you.  No one is stopping homosexuals from pursuing what will make them happy, but the pursuit in this case takes the form of convincing people to vote in the laws they want.  Don't blame me if MY pursuit of happiness has been more successful than theirs.

I also find it laughably hypocritical that you're solemnly preaching the virtues of untrammeled liberty and the pursuit of happiness as an argument for limiting the liberties of most of the country, and flat-out denying them the right to pursue THEIR happiness at all.



Father Time said:


> Although let's have a little quiz. If the majority wanted to overturn the first amendment would you protest? Would you think that 'they have no right to do this'?



Yes, and yes.  Opposing someone else's legal attempt to do something in no way invalidates the fact that it IS legal for them to attempt to do it.  Unlike some people, I don't find it necessary to dismantle the entire system of a free society and impose a dictatorship merely because I don't always get my own way.



Father Time said:


> If the answer is no you're argument is truly tyranny by the majority and if we followed that than the bill of rights would not be worth jack. So much for a free country.



Once again, you might be better served by actually shutting your flapping gob long enough to FIND OUT what my answer is, rather than asking with the assumption already in your head that you KNOW.  Why are you so afraid to let people express their own opinions instead of trying to be both sides of the debate at once?



Father Time said:


> If you're answer is yes than at what point do you decide that the freedom of majority to control society needs to be limited?



Well, obviously, YOU decide that the freedom of the masses should be limited at the point that you don't get your own way.  Personally, I don't fear the open, free give-and-take of the American political system, nor do I fear my fellow citizens.  I'm sorry that you do.


----------



## glockmail (Dec 1, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Shit Sealy, if a girl wants to make their parents head explode, all they've gotta do is date me......
> 
> I'm a triple threat......a Sailor, a Biker, and used to be a bartender, EXACTLY the kind of guy that a parent warns their daughter about!


 You forgot "Trailer Trash" and "As Dumb as a Rock".


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 1, 2008)

I think it's guys like Father time, that if they could, would take away your vote, and switch the country to communism if it meant their political agenda would be met.
Because to them, our arguments are worthless and therefore shouldn't count.


----------



## glockmail (Dec 1, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> I think it's guys like Father time, that if they could, would take away your vote, and switch the country to communism if it meant their political agenda would be met.
> Because to them, our arguments are worthless and therefore shouldn't count.


 Yes, since free speech would be better if it only applied to them.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 1, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> I think it's guys like Father time, that if they could, would take away your vote, and switch the country to communism if it meant their political agenda would be met.
> Because to them, our arguments are worthless and therefore shouldn't count.



I'm afraid I can't disagree.  That last line of his - "At what point do you decide that the freedom of the people should be limited?" - just makes my blood run cold.  How in God's name do you live in the United States and develop that sort of attitude?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 1, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> Impressive reply to say that you are on topic when the topic is about gay marriage. Anywhoo... I would be happy to answer your questions if you copy and paste them in my other Thread "The Truth about Mormons". You should find my answers quite satisfactory.



Dudesker.........you haven't answered SHIT!  All you're doing is posting rhetoric and other nonsense because YOU are too dumb to listen to.

Mormonism and Muslims, I hold in equal contempt.


----------



## Dante (Dec 1, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> I think it's guys like Father time, that if they could, would take away your vote, and switch the country to communism if it meant their political agenda would be met.
> Because to them, our arguments are worthless and therefore shouldn't count.


who advocates communism? the boogey man?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 1, 2008)

DevNell said:


> who advocates communism? the boogey man?



It's somehow news to you that there are actual, openly-avowed Communists in the United States, and that there are many more who advocate trends and policies that lead in that direction?  Did you just fly in from another solar system?

CPUSA Online -


----------



## Father Time (Dec 2, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> ::sigh::  What is the point of starting over if you're just going to keep parroting the same mindless talking points without even attempting to comprehend the answers?
> 
> We are not talking about "banning" anything, first of all.  Homosexual "marriage" has never BEEN legally recognized in this country, so to say that opponents of the idea are trying to "ban" it is blatantly dishonest mischaracterization and emotional propaganda.



I'm talking about anything in general, not just gay marriage. I've asked before why it should be banned no one has given me a good reason. And you're reason is that the majority wants it that way, and since it doesn't affect them that much I'm really unconvinced.



Cecilie1200 said:


> Third, I have yet to say that my objection to homosexual "marriage" is because I think it is immoral and disgusting.  YOU are the only one who keeps saying that, and I have been immensely patient with your incessant and increasingly offensive attempts to jam me into the box of what you have decided all opponents of homosexual "marriage" must be and what they think and to BY GOD stuff those words down my throat because you desperately want to argue against them so that you don't EVER have to actually listen to someone else's viewpoint, let alone think about it or consider the possibility that they MIGHT have a valid reason for disagreeing with you.  I am now at the point where reading the words "because you think it's immoral and disgusting" is just flat-out offensive and I will now be taking it as a direct insult.



You've made that clear but I'm talking in general, that we shouldn't ban stuff just because we find them immorral without good reason.




Cecilie1200 said:


> There's no such thing as a tyranny of the majority.  Tyranny, by definition, is oppression of the people, and the people cannot oppress themselves.



51% can oppress 49%. That's tyranny of the majority.



Cecilie1200 said:


> You have three choices.  You can either let the people choose their laws and their type of society for themselves, in which case most people will be happy and a small number will be disgruntled, or you can let a small group impose their "wisdom" on everyone else, which really IS a tyranny, or you can have absolutely no system or order whatsoever, in which case you will probably end up with a bunch of small tyrannies.



Or you can have our system where every citizen is guaranteed the same rights and those cannot be taken away even if the majority decide otherwise (save extreme circumstances). Hey that's what we got.



Cecilie1200 said:


> But to say, "I didn't get my way, so I'm being oppressed and tyrannized!" is just so much childish whining.  If you can't convince people to agree with you, you lose.  That's life.  Deal with it, and wage a better fight next time.



Tyranny is not simply someone not getting their way, and I've never argued that.





Cecilie1200 said:


> You can, but you would sound stupid, because they DID have the right.  Doesn't mean it was a good idea, but that's both the strength and the weakness of a free society:  you have the freedom to fail and screw up royally.  And you need to learn the difference between "This is a bad idea" and "You don't have the right to do it".



Our country was founded on individual liberty. God given rights and all that. Read up on it sometime.



Cecilie1200 said:


> You have the Bill of Rights for a couple of reasons.  First of all, the purpose of the Bill of Rights, despite what people seem to think, is NOT to protect the minority from the majority.  It's to protect EVERYONE from a government that is temporarily out of touch with the will of the people.  Or to look at it another way, it's to protect all of us from the government BECOMING out of touch with the will of the people.  This crazy notion people have that the Bill of Rights sets up a blanket protection for minority groups from EVER having to live with any laws or strictures they don't like is just . . . well, crazy.



Yes it gives everyone the same guarantees, and when the majority propose a law that violates one of them, it gets rules unconstitutional. That's how our damn country works. But let's make it simple.

The majority want to dictate laws to the populace.
In order to do that they need government.
The bill of rights stops government from making those laws.
 Thus the bill of rights protects us from even the will of the majority.

I never argued that the bill of rights was "meant to shield minorities from EVER having to live with any laws or strictures they don't like." It never says that. We have more rights than what's there, it never said we had unlimited rights.

Although do you have a source that the founding fathers created the bill of rights and still wanted absolute rule by majority? It seems strange and illogical that they would think that every human has God given rights but would be perfectly OK with 51% taking them away.



Cecilie1200 said:


> So your interpretation is what? That absolutely everything is a right, and no laws can EVER be passed limiting ANY behavior, because everyone has a right to do everything, in which case the Founding Fathers shouldn't even have wasted their time writing the Bill of Rights, since EVERYTHING is a protected, sovereign, inviolable right?
> 
> Get a grip and read the Tenth Amendment.



Get a grip and knock off the straw men. Please. The whole concept is that people are born with rights you can't take away.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,"

So in other words they can't be taken away.  



Cecilie1200 said:


> One more time.  We aren't "banning" anything.  THEY wanted to change the status quo, not us.  THEY dragged their personal lives out into the public arena and demanded approval and sanction, and when THEY didn't get it, THEY started shouting that it's "none of our business".


Yeah you're keeping an arguably bad status quo and you want things to remain banned, same thing really. The only difference is that it is banned and if wasn't you'd be asking for one.



Cecilie1200 said:


> It affects me because it has become a public issue of what the law will be.



It sounds like you're arguing that every law or every change in the law affects you which isn't the case.



Cecilie1200 said:


> Oh, and by the way, "How does it affect you?" is another way of asking why I hold my position while simultaneously making it clear that you have no interest in really hearing the answer



Oh so I can't ask that question without being pompous and arrogant than. Please tell me how you came up with that conclusion. It seems like a bad excuse to dismiss the question. You think it affects you because you think everything the government does affects you. I find that logic really really weak sorry for assuming there must've been more to it than that.




Cecilie1200 said:


> Wrong.  There are definitions by which those things should not be crimes.  Those definitions belong to the people who want to commit those acts.


Everyone who does something wrong thinks it should've been legal. Everyone makes excuses. That doesn't mean they have objective reasons as to why it should be legal.




Cecilie1200 said:


> They are a minority, and they are disgruntled that the majority is "tyrannizing" them by not letting them do as they please.  You start from the assumption that everyone holds the same moral views you do, and then pretend that they aren't moral views, but simply "objective reality".
> As I said, try having an objective debate with NAMBLA on the good, logical reasons that child porn and sex with minors should be crimes, and you'll find out EXACTLY how "objective and widespread" your definition of reality really is.


Yeah they're fringe groups and nuts. They don't use logic and just because certain groups disagree with those laws doesn't mean they have a good reason for doing so.



Cecilie1200 said:


> Also, every single one of those cases, and the more severe ones in other countries, came about because of an attitude in the government of those areas that said that homosexuality is officially the equivalent of heterosexuality and therefore it is proper to use the power of government to impose that attitude onto others.



How the hell is allowing gay marriage forcing you to take any view? Once again you don't have to agree with anything the government does. 

Although I get it using the government to impose the attitude of homosexuals are bad is bad but imposing homosexuals are second class citizens is perfectly ok then. Or in the case of prohibition the attitude that drinking was bad. Why is it ok to impose that attitude? Because the majority agrees with that attitude? Sounds a lot like ad populum doesn't it?



Cecilie1200 said:


> It is a situation that will only become worse if and when legalized homosexual "marriage" becomes widespread, precisely because the underlying purpose of the push for it IS to enable activists to use the power of government to bludgeon their opponents.


The slippery slope fallacy
Tell me how on earth does allowing gay marriage mean we must allow gay activists to bludgeon opponents with the government.



Cecilie1200 said:


> Go break it to Abraham Lincoln, pal.  "Of the people, by the people, and for the people . . ."  Ring any bells?



Lincoln didn't found our country or give us the bill of rights. People who thought we had God given rights did.



Cecilie1200 said:


> Yes, the government DOES serve the people, because that is the reason why we the people invest our power in it.  And I see a very good reason why it shouldn't serve homosexual couples in this instance:  because it is not proper for the government to serve a small group's special interests over and in opposition to the interests of the majority.  Once again, that is the definition of "tyranny".  Real tyranny, not the whiny spoiled child kind.



Ah but one could argue that the minority were entitled to those rights and that government never had the right to take those away in the first place.
Which is pretty much the argument in a nutshell.



Cecilie1200 said:


> The only reason flag-burning, while distasteful to many and possibly most people, remains illegal:  because the people themselves do not find allowing it as distasteful as they find the idea of making it illegal.


It was overturned by the Supreme Court, citing the first amendment, not by a popular vote. 



Cecilie1200 said:


> The government has to allow that because the people want them to.  Once again, the people have the power to make that behavior illegal if they decide it is necessary.  You confuse "has not criminalized" with "cannot criminalize".  The Bill of Rights, and the rest of the US Constitution, are printed on sheepskin, not carved in stone.



Yes and they made it incredibly difficult to change for a reason.





Cecilie1200 said:


> You get the warm, fuzzy feeling of saying, "See what a good person I am, minding my own business and letting people live their lives just as they please", and you don't have to deal with the consequences of your attitudes, because YOU have taken YOUR family and moved away from those consequences.  What do you care if it hurts the people who can't make that choice?  It doesn't affect YOU, so you don't care.



Once again I'd LOVE to know about your psychic ability where you know about my real intentions. It's more comforting for you to assume I'm a hypocrite, so then you can dismiss me as a liberal nut, right?
I believe just like our founding fathers did that people have god-given rights that no one has the right to take away. Although hell if everyone is given free will so long as they don't harm others and they decide to turn the world upside down, was that not the will of the people? And I still don't see what I'm doing hurts others. Legalizing drugs for instance will not instantly turn neighborhoods into slums, in fact it would legitimize the drug dealers and let them settle disputes in court instead of violence. Go read up on prohibition and the wonder it did for organized crime. 



Cecilie1200 said:


> Your attitude is that a small, vocal minority should be allowed to run roughshod over everyone else and force their desires, attitudes, and beliefs on people against their will, and I not only find that sickening, I find it sickening that you DON'T find that sickening, or see how incredibly contrary to the founding principles of this country it is.



You either love straw man or just can't seem to grasp my points. No one has the right to force opinions onto others whether they be majority or not. I don't know how you came to the conclusion I think people should go roughshod over everyone else, when I specifically said people should have rights if they don't harm another non-consenting party. Once they break that rule then we get to prosecute and ban. (Murder bestiality pedophilia etc. all fall under those categories). I'm not an anarchist despite your attempts to paint me as one.




Cecilie1200 said:


> ALL liberty is limited.  It's limited by the boundaries of the guy next to you and HIS liberties.



Hence the doesn't affected a nonconsenting party clause. 




Cecilie1200 said:


> No one is stopping homosexuals from pursuing what will make them happy, but the pursuit in this case takes the form of convincing people to vote in the laws they want.  Don't blame me if MY pursuit of happiness has been more successful than theirs.



You don't think marrying someone you love makes people happy.



Cecilie1200 said:


> I also find it laughably hypocritical that you're solemnly preaching the virtues of untrammeled liberty and the pursuit of happiness as an argument for limiting the liberties of most of the country, and flat-out denying them the right to pursue THEIR happiness at all.


What liberties am I denying, your right to have the world be personally fine tuned for your desires? And once again I'm not arguing unlimited liberties.




Cecilie1200 said:


> Yes, and yes.  Opposing someone else's legal attempt to do something in no way invalidates the fact that it IS legal for them to attempt to do it.  Unlike some people, I don't find it necessary to dismantle the entire system of a free society and impose a dictatorship merely because I don't always get my own way.


When all else fails insult your opponent with baseless accusations. I don't want to dismantle anything. I'm only arguing that everyone has rights the majority can't take away. They're called inalienable rights.



Cecilie1200 said:


> Once again, you might be better served by actually shutting your flapping gob long enough to FIND OUT what my answer is, rather than asking with the assumption already in your head that you KNOW.  Why are you so afraid to let people express their own opinions instead of trying to be both sides of the debate at once?



Baseless accusations all around. I said IF you answered that, it was a complex argument, I made no assumptions about your answer. 



Cecilie1200 said:


> Well, obviously, YOU decide that the freedom of the masses should be limited at the point that you don't get your own way.


Jesus I think this is the 5th time you set up a straw man to make me look like an anarchist. Is that all you have? I never said that every time I don't get my way it's time to limit the masses. Never. And if you really think you can tell that those are my true desires without ever actually meeting me you're nuts.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 2, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> I think it's guys like Father time, that if they could, would take away your vote, and switch the country to communism if it meant their political agenda would be met.
> Because to them, our arguments are worthless and therefore shouldn't count.



I'm actually the polar opposite of a communist, (a libertarian).


----------



## Father Time (Dec 2, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I'm afraid I can't disagree.  That last line of his - "At what point do you decide that the freedom of the people should be limited?" - just makes my blood run cold.  How in God's name do you live in the United States and develop that sort of attitude?



Our founders father thought we had God given rights. I don't see how you come to the conclusion that bill of rights wasn't intended to be near absolute and that the founding fathers would agree with the philosophy of 51% dictating every last right and acceptable behavior to 49%.Here's the constitution on changing the err constitution.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths thereof, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress...,Provided...that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

You'll see nowhere in there are the words slight majority or 51%. It's a really difficult process and it was intended to be that way.


If the Bill of Rights were really intended for the majority to take away at every whim then it would be essentially worthless. In a democracy you don't need a piece of paper guaranteeing rights the majority agrees we should have anyway.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 2, 2008)

Father Time said:


> Our founders father thought we had God given rights. I don't see how you come to the conclusion that bill of rights wasn't intended to be near absolute and that the founding fathers would agree with the philosophy of 51% dictating every last right and acceptable behavior to 49%.Here's the constitution on changing the err constitution.
> 
> The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths thereof, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress...,Provided...that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
> 
> ...




Father time, you are allowed your weird opinion because of God given rights. But don't try to pretend you believe in God and say he would approve of homosexual "marriage" or acts. God has been clear on this issue.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 2, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> Father time, you are allowed your weird opinion because of God given rights. But don't try to pretend you believe in God and say he would approve of homosexual "marriage" or acts. God has been clear on this issue.



You know dude....you REALLY ought to expand your horizons.  Matter of fact, here's a link........

LGBT Texts

Now, if you're not the close minded moron that you appear to be, maybe you ought to look at that.

BTW........if you're a fucking Mormon, maybe you really ought to re-read the Old Testament again.  I wanna know what some idiot like YOU is doing quoting Leviticus, which is a manual written specifically for JEWISH priests.

You ain't a Jew, and you're pretty f-ing deluded.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 2, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> You know dude....you REALLY ought to expand your horizons.  Matter of fact, here's a link........
> 
> LGBT Texts
> 
> ...



Spoken like a true sailor  I am done trying to convince an angry and uninformed person like you of things that I know through study and prayer. You are not on my plane. You haven't seen or read the old testament yourself because you don't know anything about history or context of scripture. I have studied the scriptures from cover to cover for my whole life. All you can do is get angry and spew rectal matter from your mouth.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 2, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> Spoken like a true sailor  I am done trying to convince an angry and uninformed person like you of things that I know through study and prayer. You are not on my plane. You haven't seen or read the old testament yourself because you don't know anything about history or context of scripture. I have studied the scriptures from cover to cover for my whole life. All you can do is get angry and spew rectal matter from your mouth.



Listen 'tard.....I'd be willing to bet that I'm quite more well informed than you, because, unlike you, I've got an open mind. 

You should also realize that the OT was WRITTEN BY HEBREWS!  Therefore, it's THEIR book, and, you should realize as well, that things get lost in the translation from Hebrew to English.  Don't believe me?  Watch God's Learning Channel sometime, and catch a show by Uri Harrell called "Hidden in the Hebrew".  All you've got to go on is what some nutcase said that God had given to him, and hate to tell ya also, remember in the 10 Commandments when they said "Thou shalt have no gods before Me"?  I've got news for you asshole, Moroni is an idol that the Mormon church has used to replace God.  Kind of what a lot of Christians do with Yeshua.  

And.....reading the scriptures cover to cover all your life doesn't prove shit if you can't interpret it properly.  Muslims (which I hold in the same contempt as Mormons), do the same thing in their madrassas.  The only thing that they read is the Q'uaran, and their thought processes are pretty fucked up also.

Nope.....you're an idolator, get thee behind me SaTan.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 2, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Listen 'tard.....I'd be willing to bet that I'm quite more well informed than you, because, unlike you, I've got an open mind.
> 
> You should also realize that the OT was WRITTEN BY HEBREWS!  Therefore, it's THEIR book, and, you should realize as well, that things get lost in the translation from Hebrew to English.  Don't believe me?  Watch God's Learning Channel sometime, and catch a show by Uri Harrell called "Hidden in the Hebrew".  All you've got to go on is what some nutcase said that God had given to him, and hate to tell ya also, remember in the 10 Commandments when they said "Thou shalt have no gods before Me"?  I've got news for you asshole, Moroni is an idol that the Mormon church has used to replace God.  Kind of what a lot of Christians do with Yeshua.
> 
> ...



 I guess when you opened your mind, your brain fell out. Your words are so illogical and wrong that we can't have an intelligent conversation.
So I am not going to catfight with you. I guess now that I am SaTan as you describe I am behind you all the way supporting everything you say.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 2, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> I guess when you opened your mind, your brain fell out. Your words are so illogical and wrong that we can't have an intelligent conversation.
> So I am not going to catfight with you. I guess now that I am SaTan as you describe I am behind you all the way supporting everything you say.



Ya know, for someone who is supposedly a good Mormon moron, you sure as hell talk a lot of shit.

Tell ya what......check out this link (unless you're scared), and then get back to me.......if ya don't, then I'll know for a fact that you're a close-minded coward.

Universal Torah Network

Go ahead.......I'll wait........



Chances are though......you're a coward.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 2, 2008)




----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 2, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


>



Figures........ya pussy.........

How's the crisis of faith going?


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 2, 2008)

Ok quickly browsed the site. I don't know what your point is. I and everyone knows that the Bible was written by the Jews. I already know the old testament contained the law of moses which was a specific set of rules for the children of Israel to follow leading up to the atonement of Christ. I know there are many things lost in translation, which is why christianity has splintered into a million churches with different interpretations. 
The Book of Mormon helps clarify those misinterpretations which to me would make logical sense. but you are not about discussion, you are about insults and getting your way. so we are not going to get anywhere.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 2, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> Ok quickly browsed the site. I don't know what your point is. I and everyone knows that the Bible was written by the Jews. I already know the old testament contained the law of moses which was a specific set of rules for the children of Israel to follow leading up to the atonement of Christ. I know there are many things lost in translation, which is why christianity has splintered into a million churches with different interpretations.
> The Book of Mormon helps clarify those misinterpretations which to me would make logical sense. but you are not about discussion, you are about insults and getting your way. so we are not going to get anywhere.



Bullshit........the Book of Mormon is nothing more than a bunch of lies told by one man to enrich his own sense of power.

If you really want to understand what is there, you've gotta learn from the Rabbis and Torah Scholars......it's THEIR book!

And......like I said, there is a lot of stuff that gets lost in translation.  Ever been outside of the US?  I've been overseas for 10 years during my career in the Navy, and I can assure you.........unless you have someone that can help you translate from a foreign language into English, and make you aware of all the nuances, you're gonna get lost.

You may have perused it, and read a thing or two, but did you actually watch any of the programs?  No........how do I know?  Most of the programs are 30 min each, and you've not been gone long enough to check.

And.......very fucking few Mormons that I've known (and I grew up in Montana where there was a large population of them), speak Hebrew.

Try again dirtbag.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 2, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> Ok quickly browsed the site. I don't know what your point is. I and everyone knows that the Bible was written by the Jews. I already know the old testament contained the law of moses which was a specific set of rules for the children of Israel to follow leading up to the atonement of Christ. I know there are many things lost in translation, which is why christianity has splintered into a million churches with different interpretations.
> The Book of Mormon helps clarify those misinterpretations which to me would make logical sense. but you are not about discussion, you are about insults and getting your way. so we are not going to get anywhere.


ABikerSailor thinks everyone's world veiw should be centered around whether or not you support the right for two sodomites to pack each others fudge!!!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 2, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor thinks everyone's world veiw should be centered around whether or not you support the right for two sodomites to pack each others fudge!!!



No asshole.....yet another example of how you pick one thing to center on.

You DO realize that you look like an idiot every time you do that, right?

My world view is based on looking at everything with an open mind to see the truth in it, not be closed off like a fucking moron as you do.

Sunnidiot, try again.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 2, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Bullshit........the Book of Mormon is nothing more than a bunch of lies told by one man to enrich his own sense of power.
> 
> If you really want to understand what is there, you've gotta learn from the Rabbis and Torah Scholars......it's THEIR book!
> 
> ...



You seem to know so much about me with your crystal ball. I lived in South africa for two years surrounded by muslims in some of the communities I lived in. I know about idioms and nuances in translation. You don't know very many mormons like me who have done their research. It doesn't matter what I say. You are just going to insult me and claim you are God and know everything. You can't be taught. because you don't want to listen. As soon as you take a civil tone with me I could begin to educate you on the scriptures and history. Good luck with your little anger management problem


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 2, 2008)

I am going to see a client so I won't be able to respond till later


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 2, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> You seem to know so much about me with your crystal ball. I lived in South africa for two years surrounded by muslims in some of the communities I lived in. I know about idioms and nuances in translation. You don't know very many mormons like me who have done their research. It doesn't matter what I say. You are just going to insult me and claim you are God and know everything. You can't be taught. because you don't want to listen. As soon as you take a civil tone with me I could begin to educate you on the scriptures and history. Good luck with your little anger management problem



Wait a minute o Blasphemous One.......I've never compared myself to, or claimed I was, God.  I've not done it with Yeshua either, as I know where my place in the Universe is.  But......I should have expected it, what with you belonging to an idol worshipping cult.

2 years?  Maybe you do understand what I'm talking about.  Do YOU speak Hebrew?  I do a little bit.

And.....for someone that claims that I can't be taught, my career in the Navy would strongly disagree with you, as well as the fact that I've got many different awards.

Civil tone with a fuckwad like you?  Do something to earn it prick.


----------



## eots (Dec 2, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor thinks everyone's world veiw should be centered around whether or not you support the right for two sodomites to pack each others fudge!!!



hey they can have at it all they like for all I care...but I wont call it a marriage..and I don't want to pay for their treatment..I don't want it paraded down main street in celebration..or have my child taught that it is normal behavior...


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 2, 2008)

eots said:


> hey they can have at it all they like for all I care...but I wont call it a marriage..and I don't want to pay for their treatment..I don't want it paraded down main street in celebration..or have my child taught that it is normal behavior...



Normal is a setting on the washing machine.

And......what YOU consider "normal", IS NOT NORMAL in other places.

Think about that pedant, go please purists........


----------



## Father Time (Dec 2, 2008)

eots said:


> hey they can have at it all they like for all I care...but I wont call it a marriage..and I don't want to pay for their treatment..I don't want it paraded down main street in celebration..or have my child taught that it is normal behavior...



Fine by me, I personally think being gay is a really dumb thing to take pride in, especially if they consider being gay to not be a choice.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 2, 2008)

eots said:


> hey they can have at it all they like for all I care...but I wont call it a marriage..and I don't want to pay for their treatment..I don't want it paraded down main street in celebration..or have my child taught that it is normal behavior...


Good for you Eots!!!

I really can't figure out why some people support these sick homos and their gross lifestyle??

Then to top it all off. They teach their children that perverted, nasty homo sex is a wonderful thing!!!


----------



## Father Time (Dec 2, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Good for you Eots!!!
> Then to top it all off. They teach their children that perverted, nasty homo sex is a wonderful thing!!!



yeah because it's impossible to be abstinent and gay right?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 2, 2008)

Father Time said:


> I'm talking about anything in general, not just gay marriage. I've asked before why it should be banned no one has given me a good reason. And you're reason is that the majority wants it that way, and since it doesn't affect them that much I'm really unconvinced.



Of course you're unconvinced, because you've already decided that their position is silly - whatever it might happen to be, and you've already decided what it is, as well - and therefore, it's all settled.



Father Time said:


> You've made that clear but I'm talking in general, that we shouldn't ban stuff just because we find them immorral without good reason.



Sorry, but "most people find it immoral" IS a good reason.  "Most people find it immoral enough to make the effort to pass a law to that effect" is a really good reason.

Quite frankly, if you can find a better reason that society should be set up in a certain way than the fact that the people who live in that society WANT it to be that way, I'd like to know what it is.  

The rules in my house are set up the way they are for one reason, and one reason only:  I want them that way.  That's how I like it to be.  Are the rules in your house the same? Probably not.  Why?  Because YOU don't like things the same way I do.  Should I come to your house and make you do things my way?  No.  Does it matter if I argue six different reasons why my way is better?  No, because the fact that you don't want to live the way I do trumps my opinion on the subject.



Father Time said:


> 51% can oppress 49%. That's tyranny of the majority.



No, because it's neither oppression nor tyranny.  It's just being outvoted.



Father Time said:


> Or you can have our system where every citizen is guaranteed the same rights and those cannot be taken away even if the majority decide otherwise (save extreme circumstances). Hey that's what we got.



Yes, but that isn't what you're recommending.  You're recommending that ANYTHING anyone wants to do should be a protected right, and that there should be NO circumstances in which that can be changed, and that the protected rights that currently exist should only apply to SOME people, and that those rights should be taken from most of the people in order to give rights not currently in existence to a minority.

In other words, you're recommending tyranny.



Father Time said:


> Tyranny is not simply someone not getting their way, and I've never argued that.



That is EXACTLY what you are arguing when you try to claim that it's "tyranny" for the majority vote to carry the day.  That's all losing a vote is:  You didn't get your way this time around.



Father Time said:


> Our country was founded on individual liberty. God given rights and all that. Read up on it sometime.



That's a very cute and facile and nice-sounding argument.  Too bad it's empty, meaningless, and without any real substance.



Father Time said:


> Yes it gives everyone the same guarantees, and when the majority propose a law that violates one of them, it gets rules unconstitutional. That's how our damn country works. But let's make it simple.



Unless the law being proposed is a Constitutional Amendment itself.  And in this case, this particular topic is irrelevant, because marriage is not currently an issue addressed by the US Constitution.



Father Time said:


> The majority want to dictate laws to the populace.
> In order to do that they need government.
> The bill of rights stops government from making those laws.
> Thus the bill of rights protects us from even the will of the majority.



Actually, no.  Usually, if a law is being proposed that REALLY violates Constitutional rights, as opposed to bullshit spin-doctoring attempts to claim that, it's not being proposed by the people.  It's being proposed by a government entity that has lost touch with the will of the people and is serving a small special interest group to the detriment of the people at large.  Thus, the Bill of Rights - and the rest of the Constitution - protects the majority from the minority.

I can give you scads of examples of laws that have been proposed - and sometimes even fraudulently passed - that have violated Constitutional rights and were done so at the behest of a minority.  I challenge you to show me one instance where the majority of people pressured the government into passing a law that violated Constitutional rights.



Father Time said:


> I never argued that the bill of rights was "meant to shield minorities from EVER having to live with any laws or strictures they don't like." It never says that. We have more rights than what's there, it never said we had unlimited rights.



And the Tenth Amendment - not to mention the entire system of government - leaves the power over those rights and their delineation in the hands of lower governments.  In other words, the state and local governments.



Father Time said:


> Although do you have a source that the founding fathers created the bill of rights and still wanted absolute rule by majority? It seems strange and illogical that they would think that every human has God given rights but would be perfectly OK with 51% taking them away.



Um, that source would be the laws they wrote down and left us.  Hello?!  Look at the governments they set up, federal and otherwise.  How are things decided?  Some things are put in the hands of representatives, some things are done by appointment, and many things are done by  . . . say it with me now:  popular vote.

One of the God-given rights they thought people should be accorded was the right of self-determination.  What do you have trouble understanding about that?



Father Time said:


> Get a grip and knock off the straw men. Please. The whole concept is that people are born with rights you can't take away.



Actually, that isn't what it means at all, because OBVIOUSLY, you can take them away.  Go tell the people who lived under the former Soviet Union how their rights were God-given and couldn't be taken away.

A lot of people misunderstand the word "inalienable" and what it actually means.  It is a legal term referring to a right which is fundamentally inherent in a person, as opposed to a right which can be sold or transferred to someone else, as in the rights to certain property.  Obviously, the right to personal judgement, for example, would be inalienable, since it is inherent to the person and he cannot very well give it away or sell it.

The Founding Fathers believed - as did the philosophers who influenced them - that there were certain natural rights that God intended all human beings to be able to exercise, and with which the government should not interfere in an ideal society.  It is important to note that not all of the people who agree on the concept of natural rights agreed on what those rights were.  That is because this is a philosophical theory, not an empirical fact.

In our case, the Founding Fathers wrote up the Bill of Rights to enshrine ten rights which the citizens of the new country were already accustomed to having and exercising, or which they felt were important to protect because they had experienced such disastrous results when they were denied.  It is important to note HERE that if rights could truly be God-given and inalienable in the sense which you define it, there would have been no need to protect them at all.

The upshot is that there is one right which overarches all of this, and is not spelled out in any one specific Article or Amendment, but is outlined for us in each and every word of the government and laws that our Founding Fathers handed down:  the right of the people to govern themselves and decide for themselves what kind of country they would have.  When Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of government the Founding Fathers had provided, he responded, "A republic, madam, if you can keep it."  So they clearly DID recognize the fact that they were giving the people the option to change the type of government on a fundamental level, if that was what they wished.

Free will is not truly free unless it includes the ability to make bad choices.



Father Time said:


> Yeah you're keeping an arguably bad status quo and you want things to remain banned, same thing really. The only difference is that it is banned and if wasn't you'd be asking for one.



I might be asking for a ban if it had ever become legal, that's true.  So what?  The fact still remains that it has NOT been banned, because it would have to have existed first.  It's actually just never come up before.



Father Time said:


> It sounds like you're arguing that every law or every change in the law affects you which isn't the case.



Sure it does.  Oh, it might not be a direct, personal effect, much like giving me the right to a legal abortion didn't personally affect me, since it's a right I would never exercise, and the Second Amendment doesn't personally affect me, since I don't own a gun or have any plans to purchase one.  Nevertheless, I live in a society where abortion is legal and gun ownership is legal, and I live with the effects that has on our society and its attitudes.  I also live with the fact that, as a citizen, these laws are being acted upon and enforced in my name.  Maybe you don't consider that important, but I do.



Father Time said:


> Oh so I can't ask that question without being pompous and arrogant than. Please tell me how you came up with that conclusion. It seems like a bad excuse to dismiss the question. You think it affects you because you think everything the government does affects you. I find that logic really really weak sorry for assuming there must've been more to it than that.



It's not asking for an explanation of my position and the reasons behind it that's pompous and arrogant.  It's the way you worded it.  You are making it clear that you aren't really interested in hearing what I think, that you've already decided in your own mind what my reasons are, you have then dismissed them as being unworthy, and are now really only asking how I can be stupid enough not to agree with you.

I can't see any reason why I would waste my time when you've made it painfully obvious that you aren't going to listen, anyway.  Ask me in a way that indicates honest curiosity and an open mind, and you will get better results.



Father Time said:


> Everyone who does something wrong thinks it should've been legal. Everyone makes excuses. That doesn't mean they have objective reasons as to why it should be legal.



They're as objective as yours are.  See, this is your problem.  You assume that YOUR position is the real, hard, objective fact that everyone else secretly knows perfectly well, and everyone ELSE'S position is just silly, subjective, self-serving excuses.  You're utterly incapable of accepting that your positions are just as opinion-based as anyone else's, and that other people might have concerns equally valid to yours.

I'm not saying you have to consider all opinions and positions to be equally correct or good.  I'm saying you should at least consider other opinions, period.  I can tell you exactly why supporters of homosexual "marriage" hold the positions they do.  Hell, I could probably argue the position better than you can.  That's because I listened - really LISTENED - to what they had to say about it, and then I thought it through carefully before I came to the conclusion that I didn't agree with them.  But in all the time you and I have been talking about this, you've never once even geniunely ASKED me why I hold my position.  You've TOLD me multiple times why I think what I do, despite having been told that you're wrong and that I find it offensive, but you've never asked.



Father Time said:


> Yeah they're fringe groups and nuts. They don't use logic and just because certain groups disagree with those laws doesn't mean they have a good reason for doing so.



There you go again.  "My opinions are the right ones, and anyone who disagrees is automatically a fringe nut job and illogical, and therefore I can simply dismiss their views without ever even hearing them."  I'm not saying that many groups are NOT, in fact, fringe nut jobs, but your blanket assumption that any group who doesn't march in lockstep with you falls into that category is a very real problem you should address.



Father Time said:


> How the hell is allowing gay marriage forcing you to take any view? Once again you don't have to agree with anything the government does.



How is it forcing me to take a view?  Dude, you're trying to make something a law.  That automatically forces everyone who votes to take a position on that proposed law, because, y'know, that's how the legislative process in this country is supposed to work.

I don't personally have to agree with everything the government does, but the majority of the people who make up that government DO have to agree.  And in this case, they don't.



Father Time said:


> Although I get it using the government to impose the attitude of homosexuals are bad is bad but imposing homosexuals are second class citizens is perfectly ok then.



Spare me the fuzzy-wuzzy appeals to emotional blackmail.  I've warned you repeatedly about putting words in my mouth, and "making homosexuals second-class citizens is okay then" is the worst sort of propaganda spin-doctoring bullshit.  YOU think it makes them second-class citizens.  I don't, and I take GREAT umbrage to you even implying that I agree with your assessment and am therefore taking my position precisely because I WANT to harm others.  If you can't do this on a logical basis without attacking me personally, then just say so and I will move on to a more mature debater.



Father Time said:


> Or in the case of prohibition the attitude that drinking was bad. Why is it ok to impose that attitude? Because the majority agrees with that attitude? Sounds a lot like ad populum doesn't it?



There's a big difference, as I keep saying, between "It's a good idea to do this" and "we have the legal right to do it".  Look how many people have the legal right to say whatever they want, and use it to say stupid shit they should have shut their back teeth on.

The question in this particular segment of conversation is not "Should it be done?" but "Do the people have the legal right to do it?"  And they do.  Now, if you think they shouldn't EXERCISE that right in that way, then it is your job to convince them of it, not take their rights away from them on the grounds that you think they're not using them wisely enough.  That is what happened with Prohibition:  enough people were convinced to change their mind about what should be done, and they repealed it.  Note that what DIDN'T happen was someone stepping in and saying, "Well, then, you're obviously just not bright enough to exercise this power, so I'll just take that and tell you how things should be."



Father Time said:


> The slippery slope fallacy
> Tell me how on earth does allowing gay marriage mean we must allow gay activists to bludgeon opponents with the government.



Finally, a question that you didn't subsequently answer for yourself.

First of all, there's the fact that changing the fabric of society and bludgeoning opponents into silence is the stated INTENT of the homosexual "marriage" activists.  Paula Ettelbrick, former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, states, "Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and ... transforming the very fabric of society." 

Evan Wolfson, the former president of the LAMBDA Legal Defense and Education Fund, had this to say:  We can win the freedom to marry . . . We can seize the terms of the debate, tell our diverse stories, engage the non-gay persuadable public, enlist allies, work the courts, and the legislatures in several states, and achieve a legal breakthrough within five years. Im talking about not just any legal breakthrough but an actual change in the law in one state, ending discrimination in civil marriage and permitting same-sex couples to lawfully wed. _This wont be a change in the law either; it will be a change in society. For if we do it right, the struggle to win the freedom to marry will bring much more along the way_ [emphasis added]. 

Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, in an article in OUT:  [You should] fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits,
and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage
entirely. The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can
undertake is to transform the notion of family entirely.

Homosexual Activist William Eskridge:  [We] will dethrone the traditional family based on blood relationships in favor of the families we choose.

Mitchel Raphael, the editor of a Toronto "gay" magazine, said, "I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever." 

The reason they are taking this particular tack is that if the law is changed to recognize homosexual "marriage" as exactly equivalent to heterosexual marriage, that is the ultimate stamp of approval and provides strong legal ground for lawsuits and legislation forcing everyone to treat homosexuality as equivalent to heterosexuality.  You can see this by the fact that this is what has actually happened in other countries and is beginning to happen here. 



Father Time said:


> Lincoln didn't found our country or give us the bill of rights. People who thought we had God given rights did.



Straw man.  Topic-hopping will not work with me.  If you can't dispute that our government is very much one made up of the people, and that this has been the accepted view throughout our history, then just say so.  Don't try to dodge it by switching to another, unrelated topic.



Father Time said:


> Ah but one could argue that the minority were entitled to those rights and that government never had the right to take those away in the first place.
> Which is pretty much the argument in a nutshell.



Yeah, except you're mis-defining "right" to mean "something it is a good idea to do".  You can argue whether or not it was a good idea to make a change, but that isn't the same argument as whether or not it had the legally-justifiable right to do so.



Father Time said:


> It was overturned by the Supreme Court, citing the first amendment, not by a popular vote.



There you go topic-hopping again.  The topic is not "what happened the last time someone proposed a lesser law against flag-burning?"  The topic is, "Why is flag-burning legal?"  The Supreme Court would not have been able to declare a law against flag-burning Unconstitutional if the people had chosen to change the Constitution.  So flag-burning does not remain legal because the Supreme Court said so.  It remains legal because the people have chosen not to amend the Constitution.



Father Time said:


> Yes and they made it incredibly difficult to change for a reason.



More irrelevancy.



Father Time said:


> Once again I'd LOVE to know about your psychic ability where you know about my real intentions. It's more comforting for you to assume I'm a hypocrite, so then you can dismiss me as a liberal nut, right?



I have said nothing about your intentions that are not evident in your own posts and actions, unlike you and your obsessive need to tell me in every single post that I oppose homosexual "marriage" on religious grounds and because I think it's immoral and yucky, things I have myself never said or even indicated as my reasons.  So if anyone is playing Miss Cleo here, it's you.

I think you're a hypocrite, that's true.  Do I find it comforting?  No, I find it alarming.  And I clearly have not "dismissed you", as a liberal nut or anything else, because I'm still talking to you.



Father Time said:


> I believe just like our founding fathers did that people have god-given rights that no one has the right to take away.



Dear, you don't even understand what the Founding Fathers believed, much less agree with them.



Father Time said:


> Although hell if everyone is given free will so long as they don't harm others and they decide to turn the world upside down, was that not the will of the people?



If the people decide they want to give up all government in favor of anarchy, then yes.  I don't see what the relevance to anything is, though.



Father Time said:


> And I still don't see what I'm doing hurts others. Legalizing drugs for instance will not instantly turn neighborhoods into slums, in fact it would legitimize the drug dealers and let them settle disputes in court instead of violence. Go read up on prohibition and the wonder it did for organized crime.



Instantly?  What does "instantly" have to do with anything?  Are you saying that as long as negative changes take a while to come about, they're okay and no blame should therefore accrue to those who instigated those changes?

Ask yourself why it is that you live where you do, instead of in a slum.  If you're honest, you'll realize that it's because the very behaviors you claim you would like to legalize, among others, have led to circumstances that have made that area undesirable, and that you chose to live where you do because it does not have those same behaviors and circumstances.

As for the fact that criminals will pounce on any new opportunity to make money, that isn't the point.  You don't lower crime rates by simply making certain actions legal so that you don't have to count them any more.  That's like saying I'm going to count all the pieces of fruit in my refrigerator, and then lower the number by no longer classifying apples as fruit.

Go read up on the positive changes brought about by Prohibition.



Father Time said:


> You either love straw man or just can't seem to grasp my points.



Yeah, or maybe you just blankly dismiss all of MY points as "straw men" so that you won't ever have to think about them, let alone respond to them.



Father Time said:


> No one has the right to force opinions onto others whether they be majority or not.



See, there you go.  Just dismiss the rebuttal point as a straw man and pigheadedly restate your position as objective fact, because you cannot refute what I said.  



Father Time said:


> I don't know how you came to the conclusion I think people should go roughshod over everyone else, when I specifically said people should have rights if they don't harm another non-consenting party.



Actually, I came to that conclusion because that's exactly what you're advocating.  You're saying that the only acceptable criteria for passing laws are the ones YOU have designated as "good enough", and that all other criteria that don't meet your specifications should be excluded, and that therefore, the will of one minority should take precedence over the will of the majority, since YOU, in your omniscience, have declared that the minority's reasons are superior to the majority's.  Screw what most of the people have said that they want, because they're just a bunch of ignorant oiks who want it for the wrong reasons, so they should just sit down, shut the hell up, and live with laws they don't like for their own damned good.



Father Time said:


> Once they break that rule then we get to prosecute and ban. (Murder bestiality pedophilia etc. all fall under those categories). I'm not an anarchist despite your attempts to paint me as one.



No, actually, you're an elitist who occasionally sounds like an anarchist because you've never bothered to think through the tripe you spew.

Who the hell are you, again, to say, "THIS is the only valid rule to be applied, and therefore, everything that doesn't fall under that heading is all right, forever and ever, amen, only my standards work"?  I feel certain that if God had died and left you in charge, there would have been a memo.



Father Time said:


> Hence the doesn't affected a nonconsenting party clause.



See above regarding "Who the hell made you supreme arbiter?"



Father Time said:


> You don't think marrying someone you love makes people happy.



I think I don't particularly care one way or another.  None of my business, and not the law's concern.  The point is that they don't have a right to BE happy, only to PURSUE happiness.  If getting legal sanction to their relationship as a "marriage" is what will make them happy, then they have the right to PURSUE that, as in "to try to get the law changed to make that happened."  It doesn't follow that the government is at all obligated to give people whatever they ask for simply because it will make them happy.  I'd be happy if I had a million dollars - at least, I think I would - but that doesn't mean I have a legal right to demand that the government hand me a check.

And you're also not considering that I have the same right to pursue happiness that they do.  Having legal marriage defined as "one man, one woman" makes me happy.  I pursued that happiness by campaigning for the constitutional Amendment in Arizona, and voting in favor of it.  Unlike the homosexual activists, I caught what I was pursuing, and I am happy.  Where do you get off saying that MY pursuit of happiness should be taken away?



Father Time said:


> What liberties am I denying, your right to have the world be personally fine tuned for your desires? And once again I'm not arguing unlimited liberties.



Actually, yes, you would be denying my right to have the laws reflect my desires, since my desires - unlike yours - are seconded by most of the voters.

I know you desperately want to make this all about me, personally, as an individual, because you simply have no answer for the fact that the majority of people just don't want what you're selling, but it ain't gonna happen.  I convinced people to agree with me; you didn't.  I have the legal right to carry the day, and you want to deny me that right.



Father Time said:


> When all else fails insult your opponent with baseless accusations. I don't want to dismantle anything. I'm only arguing that everyone has rights the majority can't take away. They're called inalienable rights.



"Insult your opponent with baseless accusations."  You mean like "You oppose this for religious reasons" and "You just think it's immoral and yucky"?  Or my personal favorite, "Although I get it using the government to impose the attitude of homosexuals are bad is bad but imposing homosexuals are second class citizens is perfectly ok then."

You DO want to dismantle something.  You want to dismantle the millennia-old definition of "marriage" and make it mean something it never has before.  And I've already dealt with your misunderstanding of the word "inalienable", not to mention the fact that it's irrelevant to the topic.  Legal sanction of relationships is not and never has been an "inalienable right".



Father Time said:


> Baseless accusations all around. I said IF you answered that, it was a complex argument, I made no assumptions about your answer.



::yawn::  No, you just rushed ahead and finished up the conversation with yourself, because apparently it would be too much trouble to actually let me answer, read it, think about what I said, and THEN respond to me, the ACTUAL person you're debating with, as opposed to the me you're imagining in your head and thinking up all sorts of words for that bear no relation to anything I'm saying.

I still don't understand why you're bothering to post here, instead of simply sitting in front of a mirror and talking to yourself.  The results are the same.  You even have my permission to call your reflection "Cecilie" if that'll make it more fun.



Father Time said:


> Jesus I think this is the 5th time you set up a straw man to make me look like an anarchist.



Jesus, I think this is about the nth time you've dismissed a point you cannot refute as a "straw man" in order to run and hide from the possibility of ever hearing an opposing opinion.



Father Time said:


> I never said that every time I don't get my way it's time to limit the masses. Never. And if you really think you can tell that those are my true desires without ever actually meeting me you're nuts.



If you can't deal with the reality of what you said, don't blame me.  Maybe you should think before you make such chillingly monstrous remarks.

And I don't have to look you in the eye to understand exactly what you said.  Unless you have it printed on your face, just looking at your posts is good enough.

You said, and I quote:  ". . . at what point do you decide that the freedom of majority to control society needs to be limited?"  A person only asks such a question when he thinks there IS a point at which it needs to be limited.  I, of course, would never even think of such a question.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 2, 2008)

Father Time said:


> Our founders father thought we had God given rights. I don't see how you come to the conclusion that bill of rights wasn't intended to be near absolute and that the founding fathers would agree with the philosophy of 51% dictating every last right and acceptable behavior to 49%.Here's the constitution on changing the err constitution.



Of course you don't understand how I came to that conclusion.  I've only explained it half-a-dozen times or so, and every time you've simply ignored it or airily dismissed it as a "straw man".  For you to understand my explanation, you would first have to actually read it and think about it.

>>snip an utterly pointless and insultingly condescending quotation<<



Father Time said:


> You'll see nowhere in there are the words slight majority or 51%. It's a really difficult process and it was intended to be that way.



Now THAT is a straw man.  While you're wasting time and space on quotations, howsabout you quote the place where I said a "slight majority of 51%" was all that was necessary to amend the Constitution of the United States?  Hmmm?  Think you can manage that?  Or would that require you to admit that you don't want to argue the point I ACTUALLY made, and would much rather argue against this point that you invented to pretend that I made?



Father Time said:


> If the Bill of Rights were really intended for the majority to take away at every whim then it would be essentially worthless.



Okay, NOW cite me the point where I said it was "intended to be taken away at every whim."



Father Time said:


> In a democracy you don't need a piece of paper guaranteeing rights the majority agrees we should have anyway.



No, you need a piece of sheepskin, which is what the Constitution was written on, if I remember correctly.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 2, 2008)

Father Time said:


> Fine by me, I personally think being gay is a really dumb thing to take pride in, especially if they consider being gay to not be a choice.



Yeah, well, people take pride in being black, Hispanic, whatever, and we know THAT isn't a choice.  It's like me being proud of having green eyes.  It wasn't actually an accomplishment.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 2, 2008)

Father Time said:


> yeah because it's impossible to be abstinent and gay right?



Impossible?  No.  Highly unlikely?  Yes.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 2, 2008)

Bravo cecilie


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 2, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Dudesker.........you haven't answered SHIT!  All you're doing is posting rhetoric and other nonsense because YOU are too dumb to listen to.
> 
> Mormonism and Muslims, I hold in equal contempt.



The depth of your ignorance is unfathomable.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 2, 2008)

If there weren't people like Biker sailor, this would be no fun, because his responses are like something out of movie. You just never know in what new and exciting way he finds to embarass himself.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 2, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> If there weren't people like Biker sailor, this would be no fun, because his responses are like something out of movie. You just never know in what new and exciting way he finds to embarass himself.



Well, then, I admire your patience and easy-going attitude.  Personally, I have no use for people who are so pointlessly crude and low-class, and I always assume that behavior and language like Biker's is an attempt to compensate for . . . shall we say, _short_comings in other areas.  Which means he wouldn't be worthy of my time and attention, anyway.


----------



## Macintosh (Dec 2, 2008)

Bass, Glock, Cecile, Sunni, and everyone else who opposes same-sex marriage. Explain to me - without quoting the Bible - why you are opposed to same-sex civil marriage?


----------



## glockmail (Dec 2, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> Bass, Glock, Cecile, Sunni, and everyone else who opposes same-sex marriage. Explain to me - without quoting the Bible - why you are opposed to same-sex civil marriage?


 Mainly because you will then have to allow adoptions to these couple as well as teach kids in public schools that gay marriage is the equivalent of traditional marriage when it is clearly not, since homosexuality is not normal, moral or healthy, and it is a lousy way to raise kids.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 2, 2008)

Good response Glockmail

I feel the same way. 

Homosexuality has the potential to destroy our society and morals, trash our culture, and ruin our children and families.


----------



## Macintosh (Dec 2, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Mainly because you will then have to allow adoptions to these couple as well as teach kids in public schools that gay marriage is the equivalent of traditional marriage when it is clearly not, since homosexuality is *not normal, moral or healthy*,and it is a lousy way to raise kids.



I can respect this opinion, except the bold portion. I disagree with all of it, basically, but I can understand it.


----------



## Macintosh (Dec 2, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Homosexuality has the potential to destroy our society and morals, trash our culture, and ruin our children and families.



I've thought of this, too, but I'm not convinced it would happen.


----------



## glockmail (Dec 2, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> I've thought of this, too, but I'm not convinced it would happen.


 Why chance it?


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 2, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> Spoken like a true sailor  I am done trying to convince an angry and uninformed person like you of things that I know through study and prayer. *You are not on my plane*. You haven't seen or read the old testament yourself because you don't know anything about history or context of scripture. I have studied the scriptures from cover to cover for my whole life. All you can do is get angry and spew rectal matter from your mouth.



Truth--

You sound arrogant and insulting in this post.  How do you know what 'plane' this man is on?  How ever much you dislike biker/sailors posts, he has every right to his opinions, his crudeness, and to his anger.

How do you expect to communicate with a challenging person when you put yourself so far above him?

Is he not your brother?


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 2, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Truth--
> 
> You sound arrogant and insulting in this post.  How do you know what 'plane' this man is on?


It's all in the user name ABikerSailor.

I think in reality, he is on a "Boat"


----------



## WhiteLion (Dec 2, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Good response Glockmail
> 
> I feel the same way.
> 
> Homosexuality has the potential to destroy our society and morals, trash our culture, and ruin our children and families.


*S*ocietal *I*ndentity *R*obbery-*SIR*


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 2, 2008)

I believe that marriage is a sociological and anthropological institution, not a religious, emotional, or legal one.  It is a fundamental aspect of human society, arising out of the necessity of reproducing and perpetuating the species and the inherent necessities of the type of animal humans happen to be.

What I mean by this:

First of all, obviously, humans reproduce sexually, by means of a male human impregnating a female human.  So the basic production of a child is going to require one of each.

Second, humans are social animals.  By that, I mean that we live banded together in groups and operate collectively in some regards, as opposed to animals that are solitary in nature, and only interact with others of their kind for the purpose of mating.  Because nature gives all animals the instinct to protect and nurture their offspring to some extent in order to ensure the survival of the species, this is with humans as with other species one of the primary purposes of the "packs" that we form.

Third, we are relatively weak physically compared to other animals.  Where nature gave them strength, stamina, speed, vicious fighting skills and weapons, etc. to survive, nature gave us intelligence.  We use this intelligence, coupled with the fact of our individual physical weakness and vulnerability, to team up and work together for the mutual benefit of all concerned, particularly the helpless offspring who, as I mentioned earlier, we have the instinct to protect and nurture.  We do this on multiple levels, being intelligent and complex creatures.  The smallest and most basic "team" that we form is a family, consisting ideally and most logically of the helpless offspring needing care and the two people who created that offspring and now feel the natural instinct of protection toward that child.

Therefore, I do not view marriage as a romantic relationship based on sexual interest, emotional fulfillment, infatuation, love, any of the quaint and poetic notions that have grown up around it.  I view it much more as a business partnership with very specific goals and purposes, the primary one of which is . . . you get the idea.

Okay, this being said, I obviously then do not view marriage as a set of benefits bestowed by society, but as a set of obligations and restrictions recognized by society, and legal sanction as an acknowledgement that society as a whole benefits from a man and a woman entering into the commitment of marriage, and should therefore encourage and facilitate it.

Now, obviously, some of you are saying, "But Cecilie, not all married couples have children, either because they are unable to or because they choose not to.  Are they not as married, and should society not recognize their marriages?"  No, and for a couple of reasons.

First, laws by definition are fairly broad and generalized.  A barren or elderly or disabled couple made up of a man and a woman is still of the same _type _and _makeup _that produces children, and it is that essential _type _of relationship that society sanctions.  It is also possible that a couple not expecting to have children can get a little surprise (says the 40-year-old woman who's 8 months pregnant  ).  They could also choose at some point to offer care and nurture for a child not biologically their own who does not have parents.

Second, while society admittedly has much less benefit to itself at stake in a marriage that does not involve the production of its future citizens, it still does receive overall benefits from encouraging and facilitating these relationships.  A married man is much less likely to be out impregnating other women to whom he has no commitment and producing children who will then be raised in less than optimal conditions, just as an example.  

If anyone needs me to explain in more detail WHY I believe that a heterosexual marriage is the optimal and ideal situation in which to raise children, please let me know.

To move on, I do not believe that society derives or will derive any of the same benefits from same-sex "marriage" as it does from heterosexual marriage.  Therefore, I do not believe that society has any compelling reason to recognize or sanction same-sex relationships, because I do not believe that it does so for the benefit of the individuals involved, but for itself (society, that is).

I believe that rights belong to individuals, not couples or groups.  Many people say, "I have the right to marry whomever I want" or "I have the right to marry the person I love".  You don't, because the law does not consider it that way.  Emotions and motivations are not relevant to the law.  Every individual is legally free to marry a person of the opposite sex who is old enough to give consent, is not a blood relative, is not already married, etc.  WHY you are doing so is a matter of no interest to the law, nor should it be, because the concept of "marriage for love" is relatively quite new in human history, and still not the norm among many cultures.

This is also why I say that the law is not being applied unequally.  EVERYONE has that exact same legal right, spelled out exactly the same way.

I also consider the analogy to interracial marriage to be invalid because the race of the people involved in no way changes the fundamental nature and definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman.

I feel that changing the definition of marriage in our society would change the perception and understanding of marriage, something that has already begun and progressed to a dangerous degree.  We already have entirely too many broken homes, births-out-of-wedlock, etc.  In fact, many people will point out - in a very snarky tone - that "heterosexuals have already lost respect for the sanctity of marriage", as though that somehow either means that homosexuals might do better at it, or that we should just give up entirely and throw it open to all comers, because who cares anymore?  As it happens, though, I consider this to be a compelling argument against redefining marriage, because I believe it is necessary on ALL fronts to return to an earlier understanding of and respect for the institution of marriage.

For more in-depth analysis of how marriage benefits society, what its purpose is, how redefining marriage to include homosexuals would harm the institution of marriage and society, or any other issue I've raised here, please ask.  I feel that this particular post has already become long enough.  

I hope everyone will notice that not once have I mentioned religion, morality, or "yuckiness" to explain my opposition to same-sex "marriage".


----------



## Macintosh (Dec 2, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I believe that marriage is a sociological and anthropological institution, not a religious, emotional, or legal one.  It is a fundamental aspect of human society, arising out of the necessity of reproducing and perpetuating the species and the inherent necessities of the type of animal humans happen to be.
> 
> What I mean by this:
> 
> ...





I disagree with quite a lot of it, but it is indeed compelling. And no, you didn't mention religion, bash homosexuals or mention morality.


----------



## Macintosh (Dec 2, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Why chance it?



 Good one.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 2, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Sorry, but "most people find it immoral" IS a good reason.  "Most people find it immoral enough to make the effort to pass a law to that effect" is a really good reason.



No it never has been.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202904864073
"Just as in Lawrence, the state here wants to use its laws to enforce a public moral code by restricting private intimate conduct,"
this coming from an appeals court judge.



Cecilie1200 said:


> Quite frankly, if you can find a better reason that society should be set up in a certain way than the fact that the people who live in that society WANT it to be that way, I'd like to know what it is.



What I've been talking about this whole damn time.



Cecilie1200 said:


> The rules in my house are set up the way they are for one reason, and one reason only:  I want them that way.  That's how I like it to be.  Are the rules in your house the same? Probably not.  Why?  Because YOU don't like things the same way I do.  Should I come to your house and make you do things my way?  No.  Does it matter if I argue six different reasons why my way is better?  No, because the fact that you don't want to live the way I do trumps my opinion on the subject.



Right and if the entire neighborhood didn't like what you did you'd still have the right to do it. 



Cecilie1200 said:


> No, because it's neither oppression nor tyranny.  It's just being outvoted.



When you have your rights taken away that's being oppressed.



Cecilie1200 said:


> Yes, but that isn't what you're recommending.  You're recommending that ANYTHING anyone wants to do should be a protected right, and that there should be NO circumstances in which that can be changed


Were you not listening to a damn word I said or are you just thick? I'm not an anarchist, I believe we have certain rights the majority can't take away I do not believe those rights are unlimited. The fact that you keep pretending I'm an anarchist just screams either ignorance or desperation on your part.



Cecilie1200 said:


> and that the protected rights that currently exist should only apply to SOME people, and that those rights should be taken from most of the people in order to give rights not currently in existence to a minority.



Hooray for telling others what they believe, how sad. I've argued they've always had that right and there was no reason why they ever should've lost that right. Once again knock off the straw men.



Cecilie1200 said:


> In other words, you're recommending tyranny.


tyranny n)
1.arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority. 

I'm arguing that the majority should not arbitrarily take away whatever they want, you're arguing that they can because they're the majority (again sounds a lot like ad populum). You're definition is a lot closer to tyranny than mine.



Cecilie1200 said:


> That is EXACTLY what you are arguing when you try to claim that it's "tyranny" for the majority vote to carry the day.  That's all losing a vote is:  You didn't get your way this time around.



I've made it crystal clear that it's not tyranny of the majority every time the majority votes for something. Knock off the straw men.



Cecilie1200 said:


> That's a very cute and facile and nice-sounding argument.  Too bad it's empty, meaningless, and without any real substance.



That's an empty meaningless shallow argument without any real substance.

I can baselessly insult arguments too. You really should explain why it's baseless in meaningless. The founding fathers took the time to make sure king George III knew they thought that way why do you dismiss it so quickly.



Cecilie1200 said:


> Actually, no.  Usually, if a law is being proposed that REALLY violates Constitutional rights, as opposed to bullshit spin-doctoring attempts to claim that, it's not being proposed by the people.  It's being proposed by a government entity that has lost touch with the will of the people and is serving a small special interest group to the detriment of the people at large.  Thus, the Bill of Rights - and the rest of the Constitution - protects the majority from the minority.



And vice versa. Is it really that hard to get it through your thick skull. Although you say the government is run by the people,. unless they rule something unconstitutional in which case it was temporarily over run by special interests groups how convenient.



Cecilie1200 said:


> I can give you scads of examples of laws that have been proposed - and sometimes even fraudulently passed - that have violated Constitutional rights and were done so at the behest of a minority.  I challenge you to show me one instance where the majority of people pressured the government into passing a law that violated Constitutional rights.



Sodomy I think, but even if the courts have always said these laws guarantee the rights of majorities.

"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, the court wrote, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

This taken from the supreme court's decision on flag burning.

So so far I've quoted supreme court justices, the declaration of independence, and the constitution. You've got your own personal assurances that I'm wrong and secretly long for tyranny.



Cecilie1200 said:


> And the Tenth Amendment - not to mention the entire system of government - leaves the power over those rights and their delineation in the hands of lower governments.  In other words, the state and local governments.


Sometimes the court rules that 9th amendment covers laws that people thought were covered by the 10th amendment.



Cecilie1200 said:


> Um, that source would be the laws they wrote down and left us.  Hello?!  Look at the governments they set up, federal and otherwise.  How are things decided?  Some things are put in the hands of representatives, some things are done by appointment, and many things are done by  . . . say it with me now:  popular vote.



What many things? Federal law is made through representatives and gosh darnit those things get overturned.  But tell me where does it say democratically elected laws can't get overturned eh? We have one here in CA called prop 9 that's likely to be overturned.



Cecilie1200 said:


> One of the God-given rights they thought people should be accorded was the right of self-determination.  What do you have trouble understanding about that?


self-determination
1.	determination by oneself or itself, without outside influence. 
2)	freedom to live as one chooses, or to act or decide without consulting another or others. 

It means freedom to decide for yourself not have it be decided by others.



Cecilie1200 said:


> Actually, that isn't what it means at all, because OBVIOUSLY, you can take them away.  Go tell the people who lived under the former Soviet Union how their rights were God-given and couldn't be taken away.



Ok fine shouldn't be taken away.




Cecilie1200 said:


> A lot of people misunderstand the word "inalienable" and what it actually means.  It is a legal term referring to a right which is fundamentally inherent in a person, as opposed to a right which can be sold or transferred to someone else, as in the rights to certain property.  Obviously, the right to personal judgement, for example, would be inalienable, since it is inherent to the person and he cannot very well give it away or sell it.
> 
> The Founding Fathers believed - as did the philosophers who influenced them - that there were certain natural rights that God intended all human beings to be able to exercise, and with which the government should not interfere in an ideal society.  It is important to note that not all of the people who agree on the concept of natural rights agreed on what those rights were.  That is because this is a philosophical theory, not an empirical fact.
> 
> In our case, the Founding Fathers wrote up the Bill of Rights to enshrine ten rights which the citizens of the new country were already accustomed to having and exercising, or which they felt were important to protect because they had experienced such disastrous results when they were denied.  It is important to note HERE that if rights could truly be God-given and inalienable in the sense which you define it, there would have been no need to protect them at all.





Cecilie1200 said:


> They thought they had God given rights that the king had taken away and the wrote up the bill of rights to be certain they would not be taken away again.





Cecilie1200 said:


> The upshot is that there is one right which overarches all of this, and is not spelled out in any one specific Article or Amendment, but is outlined for us in each and every word of the government and laws that our Founding Fathers handed down:  the right of the people to govern themselves and decide for themselves what kind of country they would have.  When Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of government the Founding Fathers had provided, he responded, "A republic, madam, if you can keep it."  So they clearly DID recognize the fact that they were giving the people the option to change the type of government on a fundamental level, if that was what they wished.



Yeah they also made it incredibly difficult to do. In a poll over 50% of the people wanted flag burning illegal but it got overturned and there's still attempts to overturn that ruling but it hasn't happened because of the difficulties in creating new amendments (as I've said eralier you'd need around 75%, not 51% and even then it's not everyone vote). A republic is different from a democracy though.



Cecilie1200 said:


> They're as objective as yours are.  See, this is your problem.  You assume that YOUR position is the real, hard, objective fact that everyone else secretly knows perfectly well, and everyone ELSE'S position is just silly, subjective, self-serving excuses.  You're utterly incapable of accepting that your positions are just as opinion-based as anyone else's, and that other people might have concerns equally valid to yours.


You've never talked with Nambla then if you honestly think all their arguments are objective. I've given them the opinions of psychologists on underage sex and yet the refuse to listen to it. I've actually had first hand experience with them.



Cecilie1200 said:


> I'm not saying you have to consider all opinions and positions to be equally correct or good.  I'm saying you should at least consider other opinions, period.  I can tell you exactly why supporters of homosexual "marriage" hold the positions they do.  Hell, I could probably argue the position better than you can.  That's because I listened - really LISTENED - to what they had to say about it, and then I thought it through carefully before I came to the conclusion that I didn't agree with them.  But in all the time you and I have been talking about this, you've never once even geniunely ASKED me why I hold my position.  You've TOLD me multiple times why I think what I do, despite having been told that you're wrong and that I find it offensive, but you've never asked.



To be honest this entire conversation has drifted towards this pathetic back and forth we're having about absolute rule by majority (and it's pathetic because neither of us will let it die despite it being blatantly obvious neither of us will budge, I blame myself for this). I'd ask you what they were right now but you seemed to answer that later.



Cecilie1200 said:


> There you go again.  "My opinions are the right ones, and anyone who disagrees is automatically a fringe nut job and illogical, and therefore I can simply dismiss their views without ever even hearing them."  I'm not saying that many groups are NOT, in fact, fringe nut jobs, but your blanket assumption that any group who doesn't march in lockstep with you falls into that category is a very real problem you should address.



You were specifically mentioning NAMBLA right? I have talked to them, them specifically. I don't agree with socialists, commies or people who think we should have a truly free market with no safety standrads, licensing requirements or any of that, yet I don't automatically dismiss any of them as nuts. Nambla I do because I've heard their arguments.



Cecilie1200 said:


> The question in this particular segment of conversation is not "Should it be done?" but "Do the people have the legal right to do it?"  And they do.  Now, if you think they shouldn't EXERCISE that right in that way, then it is your job to convince them of it, not take their rights away from them on the grounds that you think they're not using them wisely enough.  That is what happened with Prohibition:  enough people were convinced to change their mind about what should be done, and they repealed it.  Note that what DIDN'T happen was someone stepping in and saying, "Well, then, you're obviously just not bright enough to exercise this power, so I'll just take that and tell you how things should be."



My argument is there are certain thing, like the right to drink that the majority should never be allowed to take away. Anything that doesn't fall under that category should then be majority rules (I'm opposed to the death penalty but if 50.00000001% of the masses decided to ban it I wouldn't dream of arguing tyranny of the majority inalienable rights etc.)



Cecilie1200 said:


> Finally, a question that you didn't subsequently answer for yourself.
> 
> [deleted to save space]


Ok there are some who want to purge the idea of a traditional family, but if we give them one thing, marraige, we don't have to give them anything else. There are nuts in every movement and on every side even in the gay movement, that doesn't mean if we give them one thing we must give them everything. In California prop 2 passed demanding that preslaughtered animals be given enough room to stretch and turn around. Animal rights groups supported it and some of the more wacky ones (especially PETA, which is the largest animal rights group) are truly out there in terms of what they want (total animal liberation, banning rodeos, animal testing, pets etc.) and just because we gave them a concession doesn't mean we have to give them anything else they demand. It's possible that we can peel back the hate speech laws and still allow gay marriage without letting the wack the definition of traditional family.



Cecilie1200 said:


> Straw man.  Topic-hopping will not work with me.  If you can't dispute that our government is very much one made up of the people, and that this has been the accepted view throughout our history, then just say so.  Don't try to dodge it by switching to another, unrelated topic.





Cecilie1200 said:


> More irrelevancy.



No it isn't. They made it hard to change for a reason. They specifically said you'd need 2/3 or 3/4 majority not a majority. Based on this I doubt very much that they intended for the rules to be changed by a 51% majority.



Cecilie1200 said:


> I have said nothing about your intentions that are not evident in your own posts and actions, unlike you and your obsessive need to tell me in every single post that I oppose homosexual "marriage" on religious grounds and because I think it's immoral and yucky, things I have myself never said or even indicated as my reasons.  So if anyone is playing Miss Cleo here, it's you.



You misunderstand me, I take objections to your idea that if 51% decide something is immoral everyone else has to go along with it. I know you don't think homosexuality is immoral.




Cecilie1200 said:


> Dear, you don't even understand what the Founding Fathers believed, much less agree with them.



Yes, they talked quite a bit about liberty and whatnot. Jefferson was a fan of limited government and letting the government do anything as long as it gets the o.k. from 51% doesn't seem to fit the description in my opinion.




Cecilie1200 said:


> Instantly?  What does "instantly" have to do with anything?  Are you saying that as long as negative changes take a while to come about, they're okay and no blame should therefore accrue to those who instigated those changes?



Exaggeration mostly. I dob't believe that negative change will come gradually either.



Cecilie1200 said:


> Ask yourself why it is that you live where you do, instead of in a slum.  If you're honest, you'll realize that it's because the very behaviors you claim you would like to legalize, among others, have led to circumstances that have made that area undesirable



I don't think the reasons why places become slums are ever that simple.  I honestly believe everyone will be better off if weed was legalized.



Cecilie1200 said:


> As for the fact that criminals will pounce on any new opportunity to make money, that isn't the point.  You don't lower crime rates by simply making certain actions legal so that you don't have to count them any more.  That's like saying I'm going to count all the pieces of fruit in my refrigerator, and then lower the number by no longer classifying apples as fruit.



The street gangs kill each other over drugs because
a. they can and
b. there's no other way to settle disputes in the black market
If it was legalized they could settle disputes in court and if another drug agency attacked them they could go to the police without having to admit to doing something illegal.




Cecilie1200 said:


> Go read up on the positive changes brought about by Prohibition.



Like what? There were a lot of advocates for prohibition who thought it would lead to less crime and a better world and after a while they begrudgingly admitted it didn't work.



Cecilie1200 said:


> Yeah, or maybe you just blankly dismiss all of MY points as "straw men" so that you won't ever have to think about them, let alone respond to them.



You told me what my attitude was, and that wasn't my attitude hence the straw man accusation.


Cecilie1200 said:


> See, there you go.  Just dismiss the rebuttal point as a straw man and pigheadedly restate your position as objective fact, because you cannot refute what I said.



I'm saying that what you think I believe is not what I actually believe. I should've been clearer that that was my opinion.



Cecilie1200 said:


> Actually, I came to that conclusion because that's exactly what you're advocating.  You're saying that the only acceptable criteria for passing laws are the ones YOU have designated as "good enough",



Did I not give objective reasons for what qualifies as good enough? Never mind. The main point once again is of minority rights. I think there needs to be acceptable criteria for taking away freedoms and I don't think it need to be based on what I think.



Cecilie1200 said:


> and that all other criteria that don't meet your specifications should be excluded, and that therefore, the will of one minority should take precedence over the will of the majority



I'm arguing the minority have certain things that the majority should not be able to take away, you can argue that marriage isn't one of them but I disagree. Although now the topic has drifted into whether minority rights exist at all so yeah I think minorities have rights the majority should not be allowed to take away. You believe the majority should get away with whatever they want because they're the majority.



Cecilie1200 said:


> , since YOU, in your omniscience, have declared that the minority's reasons are superior to the majority's.  Screw what most of the people have said that they want, because they're just a bunch of ignorant oiks who want it for the wrong reasons, so they should just sit down, shut the hell up, and live with laws they don't like for their own damned good.



I say it shouldn't be up to the majority in this case because it barely affects them. The majority can all believe in something for stupid reasons. I don't think there's a good reason to ban gay marriage and just because a lot of people disagree with me it won't change my mind.




Cecilie1200 said:


> Who the hell are you, again, to say, "THIS is the only valid rule to be applied, and therefore, everything that doesn't fall under that heading is all right, forever and ever, amen, only my standards work"?  I feel certain that if God had died and left you in charge, there would have been a memo.



I'm giving you my opinion on how minority rights (which seems like a foreign concept to you) should work. Nothing more.




Cecilie1200 said:


> Actually, yes, you would be denying my right to have the laws reflect my desires, since my desires - unlike yours - are seconded by most of the voters.



I'm making this about the whole concept of minority rights. I say that once again that if your desires take away liberties of people it shouldn't always be up to the popular vote.



Cecilie1200 said:


> I know you desperately want to make this all about me, personally, as an individual,



I don't



Cecilie1200 said:


> because you simply have no answer for the fact that the majority of people just don't want what you're selling, but it ain't gonna happen.


I'm selling the concept that there are some rights others get to have that can't be taken away.




Cecilie1200 said:


> You DO want to dismantle something.  You want to dismantle the millennia-old definition of "marriage" and make it mean something it never has before.  And I've already dealt with your misunderstanding of the word "inalienable", not to mention the fact that it's irrelevant to the topic.  Legal sanction of relationships is not and never has been an "inalienable right".



You're original accusation was that I was dismantling society by advocating minority rights, not that I was dismantling marriage.



Cecilie1200 said:


> ::yawn::  No, you just rushed ahead and finished up the conversation with yourself, because apparently it would be too much trouble to actually let me answer, read it, think about what I said, and THEN respond to me, the ACTUAL person you're debating with, as opposed to the me you're imagining in your head and thinking up all sorts of words for that bear no relation to anything I'm saying.



I gave you what my response would be if I said yes, and what my response would be if you said no. You know to save time.



Cecilie1200 said:


> Jesus, I think this is about the nth time you've dismissed a point you cannot refute as a "straw man" in order to run and hide from the possibility of ever hearing an opposing opinion.


Because you keep saying I advocate x, y, and z, when I'm trying to make it clear to you that I don't support x, y or z.





Cecilie1200 said:


> You said, and I quote:  ". . . at what point do you decide that the freedom of majority to control society needs to be limited?"  A person only asks such a question when he thinks there IS a point at which it needs to be limited.  I, of course, would never even think of such a question.



Yeah I think it needs to be limited, but I never said everytime I disagree it needs to be limited.

Every textbook on government I've ever seen talks about our government being based in part off minority rights, I've read what some of the founding fathers have to say and I doubt very much they'd agree with you.

You know why don't we just stop this endless blather right here and now. Don't bother responding to my post because we'll keep going around in circles. Like a merry go round. We'll go around the same points over and over and over again and end up in the same positions we started at.

I'll keep arguing minority rights, you'll keep saying they shouldn't exist.
Maybe if we keep arguing you'll stop thinking I'm an anarchist or that I'm using that as a personal excuse to get my way all the time, but I don't think the effort it will take will be worth it.

I know I asked some questions in my post but if you're willing to drop the conversation right here and now I won't care if you don't answer them.

So yeah all for burying this conversation say aye.


----------



## WhiteLion (Dec 2, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Mainly because you will then have to allow adoptions to these couple as well as teach kids in public schools that gay marriage is the equivalent of traditional marriage when it is clearly not, since homosexuality is not normal, moral or healthy, and it is a lousy way to raise kids.


And the sexual diseases whew wee anal staphylococcus only way to get this is sexual intercourse up the poop shoot, mother natures a bitch remember that


----------



## eots (Dec 2, 2008)

Father Time said:


> No it never has been.
> Law.com - 5th Circuit Overturns Texas Sex Toys Ban
> "Just as in Lawrence, the state here wants to use its laws to enforce a public moral code by restricting private intimate conduct,"
> this coming from an appeals court judge.
> ...



so it is decided then..NO..to gay marriage..


----------



## Father Time (Dec 2, 2008)

Just in case anyone's interested numerous studies have been done about the effects on children of being raised in a gay household.

"These studies, reports, and articles all reach the same conclusion: Children raised by lesbians and gay men do not differ from children raised by heterosexuals "on measures of popularity, social adjustment, gender role behavior, gender identity, intelligence, self-concept, emotional problems, interest in marriage and parenting, locus of control, moral development, independence, ego functions, object relations, or self esteem." Additionally, no significant differences have been observed in regard to "teachers' and parents' evaluations of emotional and social behavior, fears, sleep disturbances, hyperactivity, and conduct differences." (Meyer, "Legal, Psychological, and Medical Considerations in Lesbian Parenting," 2 Law & Sexuality: Rev. Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues 239-240 [1992])",

Bibliography of Articles on Gay and Lesbian Parenting

The Future of Children - Sub-Sections


----------



## Father Time (Dec 2, 2008)

eots said:


> so it is decided then..NO..to gay marriage..


No to long pointless exchanges over minority rights.

I'm still not convinced gay marriage is bad and I'd rather not debate cecile on it because we'd most likely be going in circles... again.


----------



## eots (Dec 2, 2008)

gay agenda propaganda studies paid for by the velvet Mafia...


----------



## Father Time (Dec 2, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Yeah, well, people take pride in being black, Hispanic, whatever, and we know THAT isn't a choice.  It's like me being proud of having green eyes.  It wasn't actually an accomplishment.



I also think race pride is equally dumb, in case you were wondering. 

I go by the George Carlin system

"pride should be reserved for something you attain or achieve on your own, not something that happened by accident of birth" He then goes on to compare pride in that stuff with pride in being 5'11 or susceptible to colon cancer.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 2, 2008)

eots said:


> gay agenda propaganda studies paid for by the velvet Mafia...


There's no way in hell you could've gone through all those studies or even read the abstract to those studies in three minutes. 
You are just dismissing them because they don't say what you believe.


----------



## eots (Dec 2, 2008)

its a lesbian site...I read it




Some studies report that children, particularly daughters, of lesbian parents adopt more accepting and open attitudes toward various sexual identities and are *more willing to question their own sexuality*

Finally, many gay and lesbian parents worry about their children being teased, and children often expend emotional energy hiding or otherwise controlling information about their parents, mainly to avoid ridicule. *The evidence is mixed*, however, on whether the children have *heightened difficulty *with peers



The only negative suggestion to have been uncovered about the emotional development of children of same-sex parents is a* fear on the part of the children&#8212;**which seems *to dissipate during adolescence when sexual orientation is first expressed&#8212;that they might be homosexual.22


First, lesbian mothers, and gay fathers *(about whom less is known), *are much like other parents. Where differences are found, *they sometimes favor same-sex parents*. For instance, although one study finds that *heterosexual fathers had greater emotional involvement with their children than did lesbian co-mothers,*


----------



## Father Time (Dec 2, 2008)

Ok so some admit worse results, how does that make them paid for by the 'velvet mafia'.


----------



## eots (Dec 2, 2008)

I mean people with a agenda..they considered it a positive that children would be more willing to question there own sexuality as a plus...misery loves company


----------



## WhiteLion (Dec 2, 2008)

eots said:


> I mean people with a agenda..they considered it a positive that children would be more willing to question there own sexuality as a plus...misery loves company


 True children are to young to make decisions like those and are not fully mentally developed enough to understand and are easily molded and this's one of the major things we must fight the legalities of the homosexual adoption agenda. Homosexual families are social debauchery and can destroy national identity and eventually the nation as a whole in just a short time if not kept in check. I guarantee that when, not if, the USA splits or states succession and it will happen, Homosexuality will be one of the leading causes mark it down.....


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 2, 2008)

Father Time said:


> No it never has been.
> Law.com - 5th Circuit Overturns Texas Sex Toys Ban
> "Just as in Lawrence, the state here wants to use its laws to enforce a public moral code by restricting private intimate conduct,"
> this coming from an appeals court judge.



Amazingly enough, I do not base my understanding or opinion of the law on the opinions of a bunch of lawyers in black robes who have set themselves up as unelected oligarchs for exactly the same reason I don't support changing the entire society to please a tiny, complaining minority:  I'm not in favor of tyranny and dictatorships.



Father Time said:


> What I've been talking about this whole damn time.



Which would be what?  Your own personal understanding of what's right and wrong, which should be superimposed over that of everyone else?  What, EXACTLY, is this great and all-powerful reason for making law that takes precedence over the will of the people?



Father Time said:


> Right and if the entire neighborhood didn't like what you did you'd still have the right to do it.



Sorry, but that's a false analogy.  My house is analogous to the society of the United States of America, so the correct analogy to YOUR sentence would be if all the other countries in the world didn't like the way the US sets up its society.  And in that case, you'd be right:  we WOULD still have the right to do it and tell them to kiss our collective ass.



Father Time said:


> When you have your rights taken away that's being oppressed.



Nope.  Only if it's being done illegally and/or unjustly with no recourse on my part.  



Father Time said:


> Were you not listening to a damn word I said or are you just thick?



Is it just beyond your comprehension limits that I was listening and I'm quite intelligent, but just happen to think your arguments are so full of shit they squeak?



Father Time said:


> I'm not an anarchist,



I didn't say you were an anarchist.  I said you were an elitist who happens to espouse some positions he hasn't thought through clearly enough to realize where they lead.  For me to actually think you are an anarchist, I would have to assume you understand what you're talking about.



Father Time said:


> I believe we have certain rights the majority can't take away I do not believe those rights are unlimited. The fact that you keep pretending I'm an anarchist just screams either ignorance or desperation on your part.



Boy, I sure am glad you keep mindlessly parroting the exact same bullshit phrases in the mistaken assumption that I just didn't understand them the first time and would admit the overwhelming wisdom and brilliance of them if you just say it ONE MORE TIME.  I would hate for you ever read my responses and realize that I DO understand what you think and why, and that I think you're foolish and mistaken to do so.

No matter how many times you say, "No, you don't get it, I think we have rights that can't be taken away," I am NOT going to go, "Oh, okay.  I was wrong.  I didn't realize that you thought we had rights that can't be taken away.  You're right."  I'm STILL going to say, "Yeah, and you're wrong to think that."



Father Time said:


> Hooray for telling others what they believe, how sad.



Yeah, it is.  So why do you keep doing it?



Father Time said:


> I've argued they've always had that right and there was no reason why they ever should've lost that right. Once again knock off the straw men.



So NOW your position is that homosexuals have ALWAYS had the right to legal sanction for their relationships, and that it has been wrongfully taken away from them?  You have now sunk to new levels of idiocy.

Once again, knock off the pretense of "straw men" in order to avoid dealing with points you can't dispute.  You and I both know there are no "straw men" in what I say, just your intellectual cowardice.



Father Time said:


> tyranny n)
> 1.arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.



Way to edit and skip the parts you don't want to admit to.  Kinda the way you pretend you've read my responses.

This is the part that constitutes your lie of omission:

a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler ; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state b: the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant

Here we have the definition from the American Heritage dictionary:

A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power. 
The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler. 
Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly: "I have sworn . . . eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" (Thomas Jefferson). 

Use of absolute power. 
A tyrannical act. 
Extreme harshness or severity; rigor.

And while we're at it:

1.  a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)  
2.  dominance through threat of punishment and violence [syn: absolutism]  

It is clear that merely exercising the legal and just right of voting on an issue and winning the vote cannot be defined as a "tyranny of the majority", and that this is merely a euphemism used for propaganda and emotional blackmail.

I'm arguing that the majority should not arbitrarily take away whatever they want, you're arguing that they can because they're the majority (again sounds a lot like ad populum). You're definition is a lot closer to tyranny than mine.



Father Time said:


> I've made it crystal clear that it's not tyranny of the majority every time the majority votes for something. Knock off the straw men.



Knock off the "knock off the straw men".  The fact that you are willing to accept majority rule when you happen to be part of that majority, and only consider it tyranny when they have the sheer gall to disagree with you just makes you a hypocrite.  It doesn't invalidate my argument in the slightest, much less make it a "straw man".  From here on in, every time you say, "Knock off the straw man", I expect you to demonstrate clearly EXACTLY what was "straw man" about what I said.



Father Time said:


> That's an empty meaningless shallow argument without any real substance.



In other words, you can't formulate a response, and desperately want it to go away.



Father Time said:


> I can baselessly insult arguments too. You really should explain why it's baseless in meaningless. The founding fathers took the time to make sure king George III knew they thought that way why do you dismiss it so quickly.



It's baseless and meaningless because it's baseless and meaningless.  It's a mishmash of quotes welded together to provoke a kneejerk response to certain buzzwords, but doesn't actually SAY anything, and certainly doesn't relate to anything being discussed here.

What part of that didn't you understand the FIRST time I said it sounded pretty but was meaningless?



Father Time said:


> And vice versa. Is it really that hard to get it through your thick skull. Although you say the government is run by the people,. unless they rule something unconstitutional in which case it was temporarily over run by special interests groups how convenient.



It's hard to get through my skull because it's not true.  That would probably be why I asked for examples and don't happen to see any.  You just have a vague idea of how the world works, and the fact that it's never actually worked that way is no reason why you should change your perceptions.



Father Time said:


> Sodomy I think, but even if the courts have always said these laws guarantee the rights of majorities.



I don't think I asked you to give me examples of where a bunch of judges SAID something was Unconstitutional in order to impose their own brand of tyranny onto people.  I asked for an example of an occasion when the majority pressed for a law that was ACTUALLY Unconstitutional.



Father Time said:


> "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, the court wrote, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."



Don't recall the majority clamoring for flag-burning, so that's strike two.



Father Time said:


> So so far I've quoted supreme court justices, the declaration of independence, and the constitution. You've got your own personal assurances that I'm wrong and secretly long for tyranny.



So far, you've quoted unelected, self-appointed tyrants in black robes, utterly irrelevant, unrelated phrases, and your own misunderstanding of the law.

Just the fact that you're so eager to accept that the law is whatever a bunch of judges say it is, rather than what the law itself says, tells me that you're an elitist who likes tyranny.  This is borne out by the fact that you're desperately, passionately arguing in favor of overruling laws duly and correctly passed by the overwhelming majority of voters in order to suit a minority - and your own received, superior wisdom, naturally.



Father Time said:


> Sometimes the court rules that 9th amendment covers laws that people thought were covered by the 10th amendment.



I don't even know what that's supposed to mean, but since I don't define laws by whatever some judge decides he likes, it's pretty irrelevant, anyway.



Father Time said:


> What many things? Federal law is made through representatives and gosh darnit those things get overturned.  But tell me where does it say democratically elected laws can't get overturned eh? We have one here in CA called prop 9 that's likely to be overturned.



Where does it say that judges CAN overturn laws?  Please find me that anywhere in the actual, written, codified law.



Father Time said:


> self-determination
> 1.	determination by oneself or itself, without outside influence.
> 2)	freedom to live as one chooses, or to act or decide without consulting another or others.
> 
> It means freedom to decide for yourself not have it be decided by others.



Well, no shit, Captain Obvious.  And your point in wasting space to tell me something I already knew was . . . ?  Oh, right, I forgot.  Your position is that your opinions are SO brilliant and objectively correct that the only POSSIBLE reason anyone could disagree with you is just that they didn't understand what you said, and therefore you just need to repeat it over and over until they see the light and fall to their knees in awe of your wisdom.



Father Time said:


> Ok fine shouldn't be taken away.



Which admission thus makes your entire argument moot.



Father Time said:


> Yeah they also made it incredibly difficult to do. In a poll over 50% of the people wanted flag burning illegal but it got overturned and there's still attempts to overturn that ruling but it hasn't happened because of the difficulties in creating new amendments (as I've said eralier you'd need around 75%, not 51% and even then it's not everyone vote). A republic is different from a democracy though.



"Incredibly difficult to do" doesn't have a damned thing to do with anything being said here, and certainly refutes none of my argument, so please stop parroting it as though it is somehow going to miraculously become a breakthrough winner for you.

No, a republic is not different from a democracy.  It is a type of democracy.

Democracy - 1 a: government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly _or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections_

Republic - 1 a (1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1): a government _in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives _responsible to them and governing according to law 

See the resemblance?



Father Time said:


> You've never talked with Nambla then if you honestly think all their arguments are objective. I've given them the opinions of psychologists on underage sex and yet the refuse to listen to it. I've actually had first hand experience with them.



I don't think their arguments are objective, Comprehension Boy.  That's my point.  They aren't objective, and neither are yours.  Your view that "everyone knows sex with children is wrong" is negated by the painfully obvious fact that not everyone shares your opinion, and that IS your opinion.  I happen to share it, but that doesn't mean it isn't still an opinion, and therefore subjective.



Father Time said:


> To be honest this entire conversation has drifted towards this pathetic back and forth we're having about absolute rule by majority (and it's pathetic because neither of us will let it die despite it being blatantly obvious neither of us will budge, I blame myself for this). I'd ask you what they were right now but you seemed to answer that later.



I wish it was really a back-and-forth, but the problem here is that you flatly refuse to even try to comprehend what's being said.  You just keep parroting the same talking points over and over, and dismissing everything I say as "straw men" without ever responding to it.  This has basically become me trying to have a conversation with a tape recording.



Father Time said:


> You were specifically mentioning NAMBLA right? I have talked to them, them specifically. I don't agree with socialists, commies or people who think we should have a truly free market with no safety standrads, licensing requirements or any of that, yet I don't automatically dismiss any of them as nuts. Nambla I do because I've heard their arguments.



I'm glad to know there are some people whose opinions you utterly ignore without classifying them as nuts.  That doesn't change the fact that you are entirely too quick to dismiss people as irrational and illogical for no other reason than that they disagree with you, and I see no reason to believe that you ever DON'T ignore an opinion that you don't share.



Father Time said:


> My argument is there are certain thing, like the right to drink that the majority should never be allowed to take away.



Well, actually, that WASN'T your argument.  If you're making it your argument now, then I'd have to say it's irrelevant, because this isn't about whether or not a law is a good idea.  It's about whether or not the people have the legal and just right to pass a law.  If you don't think that law is a good idea, then it's your job to convince people that it isn't, not to take away their right to pass it until they wise up and agree with you.



Father Time said:


> Anything that doesn't fall under that category should then be majority rules (I'm opposed to the death penalty but if 50.00000001% of the masses decided to ban it I wouldn't dream of arguing tyranny of the majority inalienable rights etc.)



So how come the majority can decide to execute people, but can't decide not to sanction same-sex "marriage"?  What makes capital punishment inside your boundaries of "I will allow the people to pass laws on this"?

Of course, that still leaves the question of who elected YOU as arbiter of what laws are and aren't allowed.



Father Time said:


> Ok there are some who want to purge the idea of a traditional family, but if we give them one thing, marraige, we don't have to give them anything else.



The problem here being, why give them marriage?  Who gets to set the boundary of "this far, and no farther" there?



Father Time said:


> There are nuts in every movement and on every side even in the gay movement, that doesn't mean if we give them one thing we must give them everything.



Sorry, but you don't just get to dismiss it as "nuts in every movement".

And once again, you have neglected to make any case for giving them that one thing.  It's not even vaguely time to argue whether or not we give them anything ELSE until you convince me we should give them THAT.



Father Time said:


> In California prop 2 passed demanding that preslaughtered animals be given enough room to stretch and turn around. Animal rights groups supported it and some of the more wacky ones (especially PETA, which is the largest animal rights group) are truly out there in terms of what they want (total animal liberation, banning rodeos, animal testing, pets etc.) and just because we gave them a concession doesn't mean we have to give them anything else they demand. It's possible that we can peel back the hate speech laws and still allow gay marriage without letting the wack the definition of traditional family.



Or it's possible that you could just accept that the people have not indicated any interest whatsoever in letting you and yours set the terms.



Father Time said:


> No it isn't. They made it hard to change for a reason. They specifically said you'd need 2/3 or 3/4 majority not a majority. Based on this I doubt very much that they intended for the rules to be changed by a 51% majority.



Wow, that still has absolutely nothing to do with the argument at hand, AND still dishonestly pretends that I made an assertion I never made.



Father Time said:


> You misunderstand me, I take objections to your idea that if 51% decide something is immoral everyone else has to go along with it. I know you don't think homosexuality is immoral.



You can object all you like.  It would be nice, though, if you offered some substantiation other than your blanket assertion that it's wrong and not allowed, or shouldn't be allowed.  So you don't like it.  So what?  I didn't ask you if you did.  It's still the way the system works.



Father Time said:


> Yes, they talked quite a bit about liberty and whatnot. Jefferson was a fan of limited government and letting the government do anything as long as it gets the o.k. from 51% doesn't seem to fit the description in my opinion.



You should possibly hop in your time machine and go back and explain to THEM how conflicted they were, then, because that IS the system they gave us, whatever you think it OUGHT to be.



Father Time said:


> Exaggeration mostly. I dob't believe that negative change will come gradually either.



Well, the problem there is that it doesn't matter what you think in this case, because you are not the majority.



Father Time said:


> I don't think the reasons why places become slums are ever that simple.  I honestly believe everyone will be better off if weed was legalized.



I'm sure you do, and like everything else you've said, I think you're wrong.



Father Time said:


> The street gangs kill each other over drugs because
> a. they can and
> b. there's no other way to settle disputes in the black market
> If it was legalized they could settle disputes in court and if another drug agency attacked them they could go to the police without having to admit to doing something illegal.



All pointless and irrelevant to the topic of slums and crimes, let alone to the topic of homosexual "marriage".



Father Time said:


> Like what? There were a lot of advocates for prohibition who thought it would lead to less crime and a better world and after a while they begrudgingly admitted it didn't work.



That actually is not why they promoted and passed Prohibition.  Well, a better world in a manner of speaking, but in that case, it did show positive results.

Prohibition brought about reductions in alcohol consumption, cirrhosis of the liver, alcohol psychosis, and arrests for drunk and disorderly conduct.  Since health concerns caused by increased medical knowledge of the ill effects of alcohol and increases in antisocial and unacceptable behavior due to alcohol influence were the reasons Prohibition was suggested, it clearly DID work.



Father Time said:


> You told me what my attitude was, and that wasn't my attitude hence the straw man accusation.



Except it very much WAS the attitude conveyed by your post, which is more than I can say for your constant insistence that I oppose homosexual "marriage" because of religion or because I think it's "yucky".



Father Time said:


> I'm saying that what you think I believe is not what I actually believe. I should've been clearer that that was my opinion.



At least my interpretation of what you believe is drawn from your actual words, so the problem is that you either aren't expressing yourself adequately, or you just don't hear what you sound like.  What's your excuse for erroneously attributing religious motivations to me?



Father Time said:


> Did I not give objective reasons for what qualifies as good enough?



No, you gave subjective reasons which you BELIEVE to be objective on the grounds that your opinion is just so obviously right.



Father Time said:


> Never mind. The main point once again is of minority rights.



Not really, in terms of legalized same-sex "marriage", since it is not and never has been a "right", minority or otherwise.



Father Time said:


> I think there needs to be acceptable criteria for taking away freedoms and I don't think it need to be based on what I think.



No?  There IS a criteria in place for limiting freedom, and you don't like it, so you think it should be changed simply because you don't like it.

If you don't want to base it on your own personal, subjective opinion of what's good and bad, what DO you want to base it on?



Father Time said:


> I'm arguing the minority have certain things that the majority should not be able to take away, you can argue that marriage isn't one of them but I disagree.



Disagree all you like.  Doesn't make you right, and doesn't mean you have any proof to back it up.



Father Time said:


> Although now the topic has drifted into whether minority rights exist at all so yeah I think minorities have rights the majority should not be allowed to take away. You believe the majority should get away with whatever they want because they're the majority.



Wrong again.  You just cannot seem to stop confusing "can" with "should".  I never said the majority SHOULD take away anything.  I said they CAN, because they have the legal right.

Write this down somewhere:  "I think this is a bad idea" is NOT the same thing as "You have no right to do this".



Father Time said:


> I say it shouldn't be up to the majority in this case because it barely affects them.



And I say that's YOUR opinion, and not one you have any right to impose on others.  It's not for you to decide what does and doesn't affect others, and it CERTAINLY is not for you to make laws in place of the majority because you've decided they have no stake in the matter.  Whether they do or not, it is THEIR job, ultimately, to decide what the law is going to be.



Father Time said:


> The majority can all believe in something for stupid reasons. I don't think there's a good reason to ban gay marriage and just because a lot of people disagree with me it won't change my mind.



Who's trying to change your mind?  What I'm trying to get through to you is that no one gives a rat's ass what you think of the reasons for passing these laws, because YOU do not get to arbitrarily impose YOUR standards on others.  THEY think there's a good reason for these laws, and they outnumber you, so they win.



Father Time said:


> I'm giving you my opinion on how minority rights (which seems like a foreign concept to you) should work. Nothing more.



Oh, good grief.  More misplaced "should" and "shouldn't".  I am so incredibly not interested in how you believe the world ought to work.  The question at hand is solely how it DOES work.  And how it DOES work is that the majority of voters have the legal right to pass laws.  Period.



Father Time said:


> I'm making this about the whole concept of minority rights. I say that once again that if your desires take away liberties of people it shouldn't always be up to the popular vote.



You're really arrogant, you know that?  "YOU'RE making it about . . ."  "YOU think it should work this way."  You don't get to set the laws and the parameters for society, and you don't get to set the parameters for the debate.  Take notes:  NO ONE CARES HOW YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE.  What matters is how it IS.



Father Time said:


> I'm selling the concept that there are some rights others get to have that can't be taken away.



Which is incorrect because you can't seem to tell the difference between "can" and "should".



Father Time said:


> You're original accusation was that I was dismantling society by advocating minority rights, not that I was dismantling marriage.



Actually, I believe I've accused you of trying to dismantle marriage - which you are - AND trying to dismantle society by promoting rule of the minority over the will of the people - which you also are.

Busy little thing, aren't you?



Father Time said:


> I gave you what my response would be if I said yes, and what my response would be if you said no. You know to save time.



Yeah, I can see where plugging your ears and never hearing anything you don't want to have to think about would be a big timesaver.  As it happens, though, I'm not in a hurry, so please feel free to listen up and think.



Father Time said:


> Because you keep saying I advocate x, y, and z, when I'm trying to make it clear to you that I don't support x, y or z.



And all you're accomplishing is to convince me further that you ARE advocating those things, and are just so fuzzy-headed that you can't read your own words and realize what you're saying.



Father Time said:


> Yeah I think it needs to be limited, but I never said everytime I disagree it needs to be limited.



Well, hooray.  So you only want to advocate tyranny SOME of the time, rather than all the time.  Want a merit badge for that?



Father Time said:


> Every textbook on government I've ever seen talks about our government being based in part off minority rights, I've read what some of the founding fathers have to say and I doubt very much they'd agree with you.



Textbooks?  Oh, my paws and whiskers.  

While you were reading what the Founding Fathers had to say, did you bother to read the parts of it that were actually, you know, passed into law?



Father Time said:


> You know why don't we just stop this endless blather right here and now. Don't bother responding to my post because we'll keep going around in circles. Like a merry go round. We'll go around the same points over and over and over again and end up in the same positions we started at.



Or you could just attempt to converse with me, instead of talking to yourself.  I swear to God, I don't think you've actually answered a single, solitary point I've made except to call it a "straw man" or just repeat your original assertion.



Father Time said:


> I'll keep arguing minority rights, you'll keep saying they shouldn't exist.



You'll keep arguing minority rule while pretending it's about rights, and fraudulently attributing positions to me that don't even remotely resemble anything I've said because you're too chickenshit to actually read my words.



Father Time said:


> Maybe if we keep arguing you'll stop thinking I'm an anarchist or that I'm using that as a personal excuse to get my way all the time, but I don't think the effort it will take will be worth it.



You'll keep insisting that I think you're an anarchist, despite being told multiple times that I think you're an elitist, because you're only talking to yourself, not me.  And most likely, you'll continue telling me how my only objections are religion and immorality and "yuckiness", and you won't ever, EVER simply ask me what I think or why.



Father Time said:


> I know I asked some questions in my post but if you're willing to drop the conversation right here and now I won't care if you don't answer them.
> 
> So yeah all for burying this conversation say aye.



I never object to letting people tuck tail and run when they're thoroughly outclassed.  Run along.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 2, 2008)

Father Time said:


> Just in case anyone's interested numerous studies have been done about the effects on children of being raised in a gay household.
> 
> "These studies, reports, and articles all reach the same conclusion: Children raised by lesbians and gay men do not differ from children raised by heterosexuals "on measures of popularity, social adjustment, gender role behavior, gender identity, intelligence, self-concept, emotional problems, interest in marriage and parenting, locus of control, moral development, independence, ego functions, object relations, or self esteem." Additionally, no significant differences have been observed in regard to "teachers' and parents' evaluations of emotional and social behavior, fears, sleep disturbances, hyperactivity, and conduct differences." (Meyer, "Legal, Psychological, and Medical Considerations in Lesbian Parenting," 2 Law & Sexuality: Rev. Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues 239-240 [1992])",
> 
> ...



Show of hands, everyone who is utterly unsurprised that Father Time very carefully and selectively ONLY found the studies that met with his agenda, and ignored the numerous studies showing the opposite?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 2, 2008)

Father Time said:


> There's no way in hell you could've gone through all those studies or even read the abstract to those studies in three minutes.
> You are just dismissing them because they don't say what you believe.



Could just be that we've already been there and heard that so often that we might as well have it engraved and hanging on our walls.


----------



## WhiteLion (Dec 2, 2008)

Father Time said:


> Just in case anyone's interested numerous studies have been done about the effects on children of being raised in a gay household.
> 
> "These studies, reports, and articles all reach the same conclusion: Children raised by lesbians and gay men do not differ from children raised by heterosexuals "on measures of popularity, social adjustment, gender role behavior, gender identity, intelligence, self-concept, emotional problems, interest in marriage and parenting, locus of control, moral development, independence, ego functions, object relations, or self esteem." Additionally, no significant differences have been observed in regard to "teachers' and parents' evaluations of emotional and social behavior, fears, sleep disturbances, hyperactivity, and conduct differences." (Meyer, "Legal, Psychological, and Medical Considerations in Lesbian Parenting," 2 Law & Sexuality: Rev. Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues 239-240 [1992])",
> 
> ...


Those rationa*LIE*zations were propagated by homosexuals for the homosexual agenda. Homosexual parenting is lethally DANGEROUS to the survival of mankind, let alone the American way of life, just that dam simple you idiotic moron......


----------



## Father Time (Dec 3, 2008)

Cecile you've only used the term elitist in one other post. But I'll keep my argument simple

Everyone, not just minorities should have certain rights that neither the government nor the majority should be allowed to take away.

Is that so hard to comprehend? If you disagree we're pretty much freaking deadlocked and I think that's the case.

On some unrelated notes
I stopped saying long ago you're only objections were religious ones or 'it's immoral' I was mostly talking about your sickening idea that rights exist only at the whims of the majorities.

And many suggested prohibition because they were under the mistaken impression that alcohol was the cause of most crime. The Root of all Evil (tm). Since crime shot up during prohibition it clearly didn't work.

and since when do supreme court justices set themselves up as anything. They're appointed by democratically elected presidents. Hell some people vote for presidents specifically on who they'll likely put in the supreme court,

As per the straw man you said that and I quote
"The fact that you are willing to accept majority rule when you happen to be part of that majority, and only consider it tyranny when they have the sheer gall to disagree with you"

I never said that nor anything like that. THAT'S why it's a damn straw man. You keep saying that I only want it when it's convenient for me and I don't. You keep saying you want to have a clear intelligent dialogue but I doubt you're capable of that. You miss my points so damn often.

Here's an example.
"I don't think I asked you to give me examples of where a bunch of judges SAID something was Unconstitutional in order to impose their own brand of tyranny onto people. I asked for an example of an occasion when the majority pressed for a law that was ACTUALLY Unconstitutional."

Sodomy laws were my damn example of a majority voted on law that was deemed unconstitutional. No idea how you missed that

But whatever because I'm sick of having a 'debate' that basically boils down to a shouting match, I must be a coward. Great way to think that you've won without actually convincing someone of anything. Goodbye, I'm sick of this argument. Truly sick of it.


----------



## eots (Dec 3, 2008)

so we call it a flawless victory then...


----------



## Father Time (Dec 3, 2008)

What do you mean we, you weren't even in it.
And victory is defined as convincing your opponent of your position or someone else who didn't all ready have the same position.

I'm not convinced and you all ready had the same damn position.

Victory is not, 'play til your opponent gets sick of it then leaves'.


----------



## eots (Dec 3, 2008)

Father Time said:


> What do you mean we, you weren't even in it.
> And victory is defined as convincing your opponent of your position or someone else who didn't all ready have the same position.
> 
> I'm not convinced and you all ready had the same damn position.
> ...



spoken like a true loser...


----------



## Father Time (Dec 3, 2008)

eots said:


> spoken like a true loser...



Spoken like a man with no arguments.


----------



## eots (Dec 3, 2008)

Father Time said:


> Spoken like a man with no arguments.



HEY!.. I thought you threw in the toweL Mr _I have to have the last word..._


----------



## Father Time (Dec 3, 2008)

eots said:


> Mr _I have to have the last word..._


Bad habit of mine.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 3, 2008)

Father Time said:


> Cecile you've only used the term elitist in one other post. But I'll keep my argument simple.



I've called you an elitist repeatedly, but I'm not surprised to find out that you've only just now found out about it.  I've also commented several times on the fact that you're not listening to anyone but yourself.

And I'm sure we're all deeply excited to hear that you are, once again, going to parrot your pigheaded talking points because OBVIOUSLY, the only reason everyone isn't gaping in awe at your wisdom is that they were JUST too complex and brilliant for us to get the first time.

Never mind the fact that you claimed you were done with this argument.



Father Time said:


> Everyone, not just minorities should have certain rights that neither the government nor the majority should be allowed to take away.



"Should not" was not before, is not now, and never will be the same as "cannot", therefore your babbling about your personal vision of utopia was before, is now, and always will be a waste of everyone's time and irrelevant to the discussion.



Father Time said:


> Is that so hard to comprehend? If you disagree we're pretty much freaking deadlocked and I think that's the case.



Is it so hard to comprehend that I have never disagreed with that, but only pointed out that you're wasting everyone's time prattling about it over and over?  Yes, apparently it is.  Whenever it's impossible to debate the issue on the facts, make it about your personal, superior vision of cosmic justice, regardless of how unrelated it is:  important liberal debate technique.



Father Time said:


> On some unrelated notes



Wouldn't that essentially be everything you ever have to say?



Father Time said:


> I stopped saying long ago you're only objections were religious ones or 'it's immoral' I was mostly talking about your sickening idea that rights exist only at the whims of the majorities.



Two posts ago, and you never acknowledged how incredibly rude, hubristic, and WRONG you were to do so, nor did you apologize, nor did you hesitate to falsely accuse me of your own unrepented sin.  So don't blame me if you get it thrown in your face every time you LIE about me.

They DO only exist because the majority recognizes them, and the only thing that's sickening is your fraudulent insistence on dishonestly using the word "whim".



Father Time said:


> And many suggested prohibition because they were under the mistaken impression that alcohol was the cause of most crime. The Root of all Evil (tm). Since crime shot up during prohibition it clearly didn't work.



Well, I'm CERTAINLY going to believe it JUST because you helpfully insisted on reiterating that YOU know it to be a fact, since we all know how much YOUR word for something means, particularly coupled with the ability to scream it mindlessly over and over.  As I keep saying, I didn't believe it when you blankly and with no evidence asserted it the FIRST three times, but now that you've done so a FOURTH, I realize that THAT must make it true.



Father Time said:


> and since when do supreme court justices set themselves up as anything.



ALL levels of judges set themselves up as unelected dictators when they illegally and Unconstitutionally take it upon themselves to create legislation from the bench, rather than leaving it up to the duly-elected legislatures and the people themselves to make the law.  Go look up "judicial activism".  Have you been living under a rock somewhere?



Father Time said:


> They're appointed by democratically elected presidents. Hell some people vote for presidents specifically on who they'll likely put in the supreme court,



Which certainly makes it okay for them to usurp the powers of the rest of government.    But then, an elitist like you who so deeply fears the will of the people would approve of that, wouldn't you?



Father Time said:


> As per the straw man you said that and I quote
> "The fact that you are willing to accept majority rule when you happen to be part of that majority, and only consider it tyranny when they have the sheer gall to disagree with you"



Don't blame ME if people correctly interpret your words and attitude.  Maybe instead if shouting, "Straw man!" you ought to do a little self-examination.

And by the way, you should also look up "straw man", because as I suspected, you don't know what it actually means and have been misusing it all this time.



Father Time said:


> Here's an example.
> "I don't think I asked you to give me examples of where a bunch of judges SAID something was Unconstitutional in order to impose their own brand of tyranny onto people. I asked for an example of an occasion when the majority pressed for a law that was ACTUALLY Unconstitutional."
> 
> Sodomy laws were my damn example of a majority voted on law that was deemed unconstitutional. No idea how you missed that



I didn't miss it.  The problem here is that YOU missed - twice - the fact that I asked you to name me a law the majority pushed for that WAS Unconstitutional, not one that had some judge apply his own morality to strike down.

But of course, instead of reading the response, you just assumed that I didn't understand the wisdom and brilliance of what you said, and just needed it asserted to me again.

So take notes, dumbass:  If I want to hear about some utterly inappropriate act of judicial activism and tyranny, I will specifically ask for it.  When I ask to talk about ACTUAL law and the ACTUAL Constitution, and you say, "Well, the courts say . . ." you have just lost the argument, and proven yourself an elitist.  Again.



Father Time said:


> But whatever because I'm sick of having a 'debate' that basically boils down to a shouting match, I must be a coward. Great way to think that you've won without actually convincing someone of anything. Goodbye, I'm sick of this argument. Truly sick of it.



Yeah, I can tell you're "truly sick of it".  So sick that you just HAD to come back and write this whole long, rambling diatribe to reassert all your positions again, just so that maybe we could all FINALLY realize how frigging brilliant they really were if only we could JUST comprehend them.

How can we miss you if you won't ever frigging LEAVE, already?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 3, 2008)

eots said:


> so we call it a flawless victory then...



Well, I certainly do.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 3, 2008)

Father Time said:


> What do you mean we, you weren't even in it.
> And victory is defined as convincing your opponent of your position or someone else who didn't all ready have the same position.
> 
> I'm not convinced and you all ready had the same damn position.
> ...



He means "we" because, in case you hadn't noticed, this is a public forum and people are actually reading what we write.  I hope this news wasn't too shocking to you.

And no, victory is not defined as changing minds.  In politics, it's often defined as demonstrating to your audience how utterly incapable of responding effectively your opponent is.  That has been accomplished.  Having your opponent run away like a scalded dog, however much he tries to pretend he's making a dignified, principled exit, is not actually necessary, but it's a nice extra.

I'm sorry, WHY are you still here yapping?


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 3, 2008)

He is gone. He is probably trying to research for something else he will try to use to his disadvantage because the point is, deep down inside people think homosexuality is ok for them to indulge in with their friends. Everybody wants to be Socrates now, and explain  their whole existence away, so they try anything and everything they can to try and get a grip on reality, experimenting with everything except prayer to God for the truth.  Religion ain't such a bad thing.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 3, 2008)

Father Time said:


> Cecile you've only used the term elitist in one other post. But I'll keep my argument simple
> 
> Everyone, not just minorities should have certain rights that neither the government nor the majority should be allowed to take away.
> 
> ...




Debate is debate.    We don't live in a time when debate is appreciated.  Turn on the TV and watch shouting matches called 'debates'.  

If someone is incapable of debate--ignore them--move on.  You've made some good points here.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 3, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Debate is debate.    We don't live in a time when debate is appreciated.  Turn on the TV and watch shouting matches called 'debates'.
> 
> If someone is incapable of debate--ignore them--move on.  You've made some good points here.



You are not capable of debate. If we could hear you, our ears would go deaf.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 3, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> You are not capable of debate. If we could hear you, our ears would go deaf.



You didn't find it amusing that someone who just laid low and contributed nothing whatsoever to the debate popped up after his/her champion got his ass waxed to snipe about how _I _can't debate?  I did.  Apparently, the secret to being "capable of debate" is to allow someone ELSE to do the fighting, and then hurl impotent insults at the winner.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 4, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> You are not capable of debate. If we could hear you, our ears would go deaf.



Debate is the presentation of points of view with justification and argument.  Back up your assertion with a reference to a specific post and we may be back into debate again.

Or if you'd rather just swap insults, we can do that too.  Poo poo face.


----------



## KittenKoder (Dec 4, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> He is gone. He is probably trying to research for something else he will try to use to his disadvantage because the point is, deep down inside people think homosexuality is ok for them to indulge in with their friends. Everybody wants to be Socrates now, and explain  their whole existence away, so they try anything and everything they can to try and get a grip on reality, experimenting with everything except prayer to God for the truth.  Religion ain't such a bad thing.



Translation To Reality:
They choose to live instead of act as brainwashed sheep following what someone claims to be right an wrong.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 4, 2008)

KittenKoder said:


> Translation To Reality:
> They choose to live instead of act as brainwashed sheep following what someone claims to be right an wrong.



Whatever you say.


----------



## KittenKoder (Dec 4, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> Whatever you say.



Admitting the truth is the first step. Of course Mormons these days seem to want women to be slaves now, so men would love that religion, the women are just trapped because of marriage or brainwashing.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 4, 2008)

KittenKoder said:


> Admitting the truth is the first step. Of course Mormons these days seem to want women to be slaves now, so men would love that religion, the women are just trapped because of marriage or brainwashing.



Hello Kitty is


----------



## Dante (Dec 7, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> It's somehow news to you that there are actual, openly-avowed Communists in the United States, and that there are many more who advocate trends and policies that lead in that direction?  Did you just fly in from another solar system?
> 
> cpusa.orgCPUSA Online - CPUSA Online -



as a matter of fact I know a few of those open communists and they have absolutely nothing in common with any liberals I know. A few have things in common with some progressives and then there is the issue of the anarchists.


what the communists I know have in common with righties and christians is their intolerance for others and the idea that they think they own the truth. also, they have no problem demonizing and hurting others over ideas.


did I forget to mention there are so few commies it is laughable to even consider them a threat? now the right wing christians, that's another story. burn books? bomb gay bars and health centers and abortion clinics?


----------



## Dante (Dec 7, 2008)

Father Time said:


> I'm actually the polar opposite of a communist, (a libertarian).





shhh, it's dangerous to the mental health of a christian right wingnut to destroy their idiocies without a team of mental health professionals present.


----------



## Dante (Dec 7, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> Spoken like a true sailor  I am done trying to convince an angry and uninformed person like you of things that I know through study and prayer. You are not on my plane. You haven't seen or read the old testament yourself because you don't know anything about history or context of scripture.* I have studied the scriptures from cover to cover for my whole life. *All you can do is get angry and spew rectal matter from your mouth.







how many years is that oh wise one?


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 7, 2008)

The pro-homosexual movement is going to peter out soon, they're losing battle after battle in their mission to make homosexuality more acceptable and just as normal as heterosexuality and Mr. Bass is very confident that this fad of supporting homosexuality will die out.


----------



## KittenKoder (Dec 7, 2008)

eeep! It's  ghost!


----------



## Father Time (Dec 7, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> The pro-homosexual movement is going to peter out soon, they're losing battle after battle in their mission to make homosexuality more acceptable and just as normal as heterosexuality and Mr. Bass is very confident that this fad of supporting homosexuality will die out.



Just look at the poll numbers and how much closer they were than last time it was voted on. I sincerely doubt it's going to go away any time soon.

But yeah if you look at Canada and most of Europe you will clearly see that the movement is failing. Oh wait that's backwards. Hell even Nepal's legalized gay marriage.

Gay marriage gets court nod in Nepal- Hindustan Times


----------



## Dante (Dec 7, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> The pro-homosexual movement is going to peter out soon, they're losing battle after battle in their mission to make homosexuality more acceptable and just as normal as heterosexuality and Mr. Bass is very confident that this fad of supporting homosexuality will die out.



and here I thought homosexuality was acceptable to most as long as the word marriage was kept sacred.

exactly where do you live, exactly?

http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml


----------



## Father Time (Dec 7, 2008)

DevNell said:


> exactly where do you live, exactly?



Does it matter? Having a pompous holier than though attitude is never a good thing.


----------



## Dante (Dec 7, 2008)

Father Time said:


> Does it matter? Having a pompous holier than though attitude is never a good thing.


where I come from people do not wear such ignorance on their sleeves and get to keep their self respect


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 7, 2008)

Father Time said:


> Just look at the poll numbers and how much closer they were than last time it was voted on. I sincerely doubt it's going to go away any time soon.
> 
> But yeah if you look at Canada and most of Europe you will clearly see that the movement is failing. Oh wait that's backwards. Hell even Nepal's legalized gay marriage.
> 
> Gay marriage gets court nod in Nepal- Hindustan Times



What you fail to realise is that the resistance will forever remain stiff and the voices of the faithful in Christ will never be stymied nor silenced. PC governments are making the calls, not the people because when the power is in the hands of the people to chose its almost always against homosexual marriage and homosexuality in general.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 7, 2008)

DevNell said:


> where I come from people do not wear such ignorance on their sleeves and get to keep their self respect



Why do sodomites wear their immoral lifestyles on their sleeves?


----------



## Shogun (Dec 7, 2008)

funny... thats exactly what was said about the people voting to keep ******* from using white only toilets at one time in America too.  I guess all THAT took was a little government interaction.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 7, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Why do sodomites wear their immoral lifestyles on their sleeves?



says the guy whose SOLE input in this forum eternally revolves around gay sex.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 7, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> What you fail to realise is that the resistance will forever remain stiff and the voices of the faithful in Christ will never be stymied nor silenced. PC governments are making the calls, not the people because when the power is in the hands of the people to chose its almost always against homosexual marriage and homosexuality in general.



52 -48 is almost always against gay marriage? Really? I think it's delusional thinking to assume everyone will always be on your side, the numbers will never change etc. etc.

Yes some people will never change their minds, but not everyone is that dead set.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 7, 2008)

Father Time said:


> 52 -48 is almost always against gay marriage? Really? I think it's delusional thinking to assume everyone will always be on your side, the numbers will never change etc. etc.
> 
> Yes some people will never change their minds, but not everyone is that dead set.




Look at the entire country and not just California, only two states allow gay marriage, 48 do not, the people have spoken now gays wish to make everyone who doesn't support gay marriage some kind of hatemongers, what trash and sore losership.


----------



## Dante (Dec 7, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Look at the entire country and not just California, only two states allow gay marriage, 48 do not, the people have spoken now gays *wish to make everyone who doesn't support gay marriage some kind of hatemongers, what trash and sore losership.*


ahhh, the damn blacks said the same thing about the jim crow laws. now we'll have to put up with the courts having their say.


geesh!


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 7, 2008)

Shogun said:


> funny... thats exactly what was said about the people voting to keep ******* from using white only toilets at one time in America too.  I guess all THAT took was a little government interaction.



being a sodomite is based on sexual behaviour, being black isn't, there is no way one can have don't ask, don't tell for blacks, nor can a person be a closeted black, don't compare nor place on the same level Mr Bass' people to sodomites  because there is no comparison.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 7, 2008)

DevNell said:


> ahhh, the damn blacks said the same thing about the jim crow laws. now we'll have to put up with the courts having their say.
> 
> 
> geesh!



Are you comparing Jim Crow[which keep blacks economically, socially and financially as second class citizens] to resistance to gay marriage? Seriously, you don't want to go there and you wonder why so many blacks voted against gay marriage, its because of nonsense like this, a bunch of sexually deviant immoral idiots making their so called "plight" seem similar to the plight of a people who really had oppression.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 7, 2008)

Father Time said:


> 52 -48 is almost always against gay marriage? Really? I think it's delusional thinking to assume everyone will always be on your side, the numbers will never change etc. etc.
> 
> Yes some people will never change their minds, but not everyone is that dead set.



not to mention, just as we saw racial taboos become standard, everyday observations within the last 20 years The Bass's archie bunker routine WILL die off with his generation.  Those who won't change their minds will die off.  Archie Bunkers of the US would have shit a brick at the movie "Save the last dance" if screened in 1975.  Now it's no bid deal.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 7, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Look at the entire country and not just California, only two states allow gay marriage, 48 do not



That can change though. And based on the changing numbers I think it will.  Maybe it will never be all 50 but I doubt it will remain 2 forever.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 7, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> being a sodomite is based on sexual behaviour, being black isn't, there is no way one can have don't ask, don't tell for blacks, nor can a person be a closeted black, don't compare nor place on the same level Mr Bass' people to sodomites  because there is no comparison.



But the arguments used to prohibit both groups were exactly the same.  I really don't care if you can only see as far as your black nose, dude.  We already saw segregation for race.  We saw how that worked out.  Trust me, it's only a matter of time.  And, just so you know, your meager 20% of the American population won't mean shit in this decision that a younger generation will make.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 7, 2008)

Father Time said:


> That can change though. And based on the changing numbers I think it will.  Maybe it will never be all 50 but I doubt it will remain 2 forever.




hey, at one time only a few states allowed free blacks too.  Now what do we see.  Im sure we'll see the same thing happen for gays despite the raving froth of a black population that wants to feel like the only whipping boy that has ever existed.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 7, 2008)

Shogun said:


> not to mention, just as we saw racial taboos become standard, everyday observations within the last 20 years The Bass's archie bunker routine WILL die off with his generation.  Those who won't change their minds will die off.  Archie Bunkers of the US would have shit a brick at the movie "Save the last dance" if screened in 1975.  Now it's no bid deal.



My point exactly. It's like what Bob Dylan sang about. Oh the times they are a changing.

20 Years ago I bet everyone would've been shocked that 2 states would let you marry gays. It would be foolish on my part to say that that means that all 50 will eventually go but still I think society is becoming more permissive.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 7, 2008)

Shogun said:


> hey, at one time only a few states allowed free blacks too.  Now what do we see.  Im sure we'll see the same thing happen for gays despite the raving froth of a black population that wants to feel like the only whipping boy that has ever existed.



I think they just got angry that people compared the black and gay movements.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 7, 2008)

Father Time said:


> I think they just got angry that people compared the black and gay movements.



oh sure.. it's like the youngest child having a fucking fit when baby brother comes home because they are no longer cute little attention whores themselves.  The social dynamic is exactly the same even if blacks don't want to believe that another minority group in the US has ever been shat upon besides them.  Hell, the reperations argument weakens as soon as they have to share the whipping post spotlight with anyone else.  It's a good things there are hardly any native Americans left or we'd be seeing charles bass insist that natives have it so good that they get their own reservations to live on.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 7, 2008)

Shogun said:


> But the arguments used to prohibit both groups were exactly the same.  I really don't care if you can only see as far as your black nose, dude.  We already saw segregation for race.  We saw how that worked out.  Trust me, it's only a matter of time.  And, just so you know, your meager 20% of the American population won't mean shit in this decision that a younger generation will make.




White cracker racists and people who opposed gy marriage on religious and moral grounds cannot be compared nor are they the same, thats what your jackass fails to realise. People who opposed gay marriage do *NOT* necessarily believe in restricting gay from jobs, housing, voting rights, nor do they believe gays are inferior.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 7, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> White cracker racists and people who opposed gy marriage on religious and moral grounds cannot be compared nor are they the same, thats what your jackass fails to realise. People who opposed gay marriage do *NOT* necessarily believe in restricting gay from jobs, housing, voting rights, nor do they believe gays are inferior.



YOU may not want to accept that they are directly comparable but such is the facts of life.  Hell, dogma changes.  You don't hold your faith to the same standard of a christian did in 1774.  So, you lose on the moral grounds.  And yes, you blacks hypocrite bastards are too stupid to realize the irony of your position given the same excuses used to keep your sambo asses in the cotton fields.  Which, again, doesn't matter in the long run because you WILL lose this little quest you are on eventually.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 7, 2008)

Shogun said:


> oh sure.. it's like the youngest child having a fucking fit when baby brother comes home because they are no longer cute little attention whores themselves.  The social dynamic is exactly the same even if blacks don't want to believe that another minority group in the US has ever been shat upon besides them.  Hell, the reperations argument weakens as soon as they have to share the whipping post spotlight with anyone else.  It's a good things there are hardly any native Americans left or we'd be seeing charles bass insist that natives have it so good that they get their own reservations to live on.



I think it's more of a case of hurt pride. You dare hurt my pride by comparing it to to gays, I'll show you.

Although if they really wanted to remain persecuted whipping boy they would give them marriage so they can elevate them past whipping boy status.

That way they can also boast that it took them X years longer to move up.

Come to think of it they could've elected Mccain then the more paranoid blacks could decry persecution (again).


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 7, 2008)

Shogun said:


> oh sure.. it's like the youngest child having a fucking fit when baby brother comes home because they are no longer cute little attention whores themselves.  The social dynamic is exactly the same even if blacks don't want to believe that another minority group in the US has ever been shat upon besides them.  Hell, the reperations argument weakens as soon as they have to share the whipping post spotlight with anyone else.  It's a good things there are hardly any native Americans left or we'd be seeing charles bass insist that natives have it so good that they get their own reservations to live on.



Gays are *NOT* a minority group, some may belong to minority groups like some gay blacks, Latinos and Asians, but gays themselves are *NOT* a minority group. Sexual acts does *NOT* qualify a group to be considered a minority. Blacks do sympathise with Latinos, Asians and other non-whites who have faced discrimination based on race and country of national origin, but there is no way one should expect blacks to sympathise with group that is identified soley because of their sex acts. Don't even attempt to use this jackass of an argument of yours to demonise blacks because its not only blacks who oppose gay marrige, why aren't you racially attacking those whites who also oppose gay marriage? Its hard to play the racist card against your own isn't it?


----------



## Shogun (Dec 7, 2008)

yea dude.. gays sure are not a minority group.  Way to put that ghetto education on display.  Hey, stupid.. not all minority groups are defined by your ethnicity.  Which, I guess  really illustrates the core of your laughable ignorance.  Clearly, you are a mater at statistics.



see, THIS is a solid half of your problem, dude.. you are too fucking stupid to really understand whats going on.  You are like a 4 year old trying to offer input about horse race betting.


A minority or subordinate group is a sociological group that does not constitute a politically dominant voting majority of the total population of a given society. A sociological minority is not necessarily a numerical minority &#8212; it may include any group that is subnormal with respect to a dominant group in terms of social status, education, employment, wealth and political power. To avoid confusion, some writers prefer the terms "subordinate group" and "dominant group" rather than "minority" and "majority", respectively. *In socioeconomics, the term "minority" typically refers to a socially subordination ethnic group (understood in terms of language, nationality, religion and/or culture). Other minority groups include people with disabilities, "economic minorities" (working poor or unemployed), "age minorities" (who are younger or older than a typical working age) and sexual minorities.*
Minority group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 7, 2008)

Shogun said:


> YOU may not want to accept that they are directly comparable but such is the facts of life.  Hell, dogma changes.  You don't hold your faith to the same standard of a christian did in 1774.  So, you lose on the moral grounds.  And yes, you blacks hypocrite bastards are too stupid to realize the irony of your position given the same excuses used to keep your sambo asses in the cotton fields.  Which, again, doesn't matter in the long run because you WILL lose this little quest you are on eventually.



No, they are *NOT* comparable, people who practice specific sex acts cannot be compared to blacks, period nor a can a white supremacist racist be compared to those of us who oppose gay marriage, it is *NOT* the same. gays are not being enslaved, sprayed with water hoses in the streets, having dogs sic on them, were never considered as 3/5 human, don't get disproportionately longer jail sentences, do not have to face nor see gay water fountains/straight water fountains, are not economically depressed,etc the list goes on, those are the things white racists did to blacks, people who oppose gay marriage do none of those things to gays, nor are gays facing those types of things, so your comparison is feces, just like the smell of your breath.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 7, 2008)

hey, go ahead and continue being wrong, dude.  you don't represent my race so do what you will to the reputation of yours..


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 7, 2008)

Father Time said:


> I think it's more of a case of hurt pride. You dare hurt my pride by comparing it to to gays, I'll show you.
> 
> Although if they really wanted to remain persecuted whipping boy they would give them marriage so they can elevate them past whipping boy status.
> 
> ...




its not about hurt pride, its about outright disgust at people who are trying to compare their struggle to a real authentic struggle, not to mention piggybacking off the backs of those who really struggled to promote their gay agenda of acceptance of homosexuality.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 7, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Gays are *NOT* a minority group, some may belong to minority groups like some gay blacks, Latinos and Asians, but gays themselves are *NOT* a minority group.



There are less gays than straights in the U.S. therefore they are a minority group. Even if it is something you choose that still puts you in the minority group. Do you think Jews should be considered a minority group?



Charlie Bass said:


> Sexual acts does *NOT* qualify a group to be considered a minority.



Why not?



Charlie Bass said:


> Blacks do sympathise with Latinos, Asians and other non-whites who have faced discrimination based on race and country of national origin, but there is no way one should expect blacks to sympathise with group that is identified soley because of their sex acts.



Why shouldn't you sympathise with them? They're being treated as second class citizens and hated on for no good reason.



Charlie Bass said:


> Don't even attempt to use this jackass of an argument of yours to demonise blacks because its not only blacks who oppose gay marrige, why aren't you racially attacking those whites who also oppose gay marriage? Its hard to play the racist card against your own isn't it?



Who says we don't? May I point you to the topic title, that you started.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 7, 2008)

Shogun said:


> hey, go ahead and continue being wrong, dude.  you don't represent my race so do what you will to the reputation of yours..



No, Mr Bass isn't wrong, its your mind thats screwed up, but hey, Mr Bass knows for sure that you would not make these racist statements of yours in front of or in the face of blacks, you know what the outcome would be, so continue to be a cyber racist and say ****** all you like.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 7, 2008)

Father Time said:


> There are less gays than straights in the U.S. therefore they are a minority group. Even if it is something you choose that still puts you in the minority group. Do you think Jews should be considered a minority group?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If sex acts qualifies a group to be considered as a minority group, do you consider pedophiles zoophiles, incestphiles and necrophiles to be minority groups? If you believe sex acts qualifies a group to be considered as a minority group you ust likewise consider the above to also be minorities.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 7, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> gays are not being enslaved, sprayed with water hoses in the streets, having dogs sic on them, were never considered as 3/5 human,



Technically slaves were considered 3/5 of a person and only when deciding representative count. Free people were considered a whole person. Oh and you apparently have no trouble giving yourself a feeling of superiority over gays (at least that's the impression I got).

The argument is that the reasons for oppressing the two were just as equally dumb.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 7, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> If sex acts qualifies a group to be considered as a minority group, do you consider pedophiles zoophiles, incestphiles and necrophiles to be minority groups? If you believe sex acts qualifies a group to be considered as a minority group you ust likewise consider the above to also be minorities.



I do but I don't think they should be given equal rights.

Bestiality, pedophilia and necrophilia are pretty much rape and incest has been shown to cause birth defects.

Religion is clearly a choice, and yet most people consider Jews for minority status, wouldn't you?


----------



## Father Time (Dec 7, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> No, Mr Bass isn't wrong, its your mind thats screwed up, but hey, Mr Bass knows for sure that you would not make these racist statements of yours in front of or in the face of blacks, you know what the outcome would be, so continue to be a cyber racist and say ****** all you like.



So if we were to have this same argument to your face you would threaten violence. How classy of you.

And calling people names is not an argument it's just childish.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 7, 2008)

Father Time said:


> I do but I don't think they should be given equal rights.
> 
> Bestiality, pedophilia and necrophilia are pretty much rape and incest has been shown to cause birth defects.
> 
> Religion is clearly a choice, and yet most people consider Jews for minority status, wouldn't you?




No, Jews are *NOT* a minority to the Bass, they are white people, whites who enjoy privilege and higher status than non-Jewish whites. If sex acts qualifies people to be protected minority group they should all be given equal rights, using your logic, so why are *YOU* discriminating? People's sex acts are their personal biz and those sexual acts should *NOT* be given special government protection.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 7, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> No, they are *NOT* comparable, people who practice specific sex acts cannot be compared to blacks, period nor a can a white supremacist racist be compared to those of us who oppose gay marriage, it is *NOT* the same. gays are not being enslaved, sprayed with water hoses in the streets, having dogs sic on them, were never considered as 3/5 human, don't get disproportionately longer jail sentences, do not have to face nor see gay water fountains/straight water fountains, are not economically depressed,etc the list goes on, those are the things white racists did to blacks, people who oppose gay marriage do none of those things to gays, nor are gays facing those types of things, so your comparison is feces, just like the smell of your breath.



Hey asshole.........did YOU ever go through any of this?  If so, congratulations, you've earned a reason to bitch.  If not?  Well.....in that case, shut the fuck up.  

You're just a hanger on who wants to jump up in the fight and act indignant, but only for your own selfish bullshit purposes.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 7, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> No, Jews are *NOT* a minority to the Bass, they are white people, whites who enjoy privilege and higher status than non-Jewish whites. If sex acts qualifies people to be protected minority group they should all be given equal rights, using your logic, so why are *YOU* discriminating? People's sex acts are their personal biz and those sexual acts should *NOT* be given special government protection.



I just said why they shouldn't be given equal protection 3/4 of those cases are practically rape the other leads to birth defects.

And letting gay couples marry is not giving them special treatment it's giving them equal treatment.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 7, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> No, Mr Bass isn't wrong, its your mind thats screwed up, but hey, Mr Bass knows for sure that you would not make these racist statements of yours in front of or in the face of blacks, you know what the outcome would be, so continue to be a cyber racist and say ****** all you like.



yea.. whatever you say, Archie.  And yes, dude, i'd make whatever comments that were necessary.  Remember, all that thuggish shit is just an MTV video.  When push comes to shove you'd find your black ass dominated by white people again if you wanna try and act all bad to the bone.  don't forget WHO has already dominated the fuck out of WHOM...  

******.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 7, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> If sex acts qualifies a group to be considered as a minority group, do you consider pedophiles zoophiles, incestphiles and necrophiles to be minority groups? If you believe sex acts qualifies a group to be considered as a minority group you ust likewise consider the above to also be minorities.



I posted evidence about minority groups.  Truly, you do your race no favors by conveying just how ignorant you are.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 7, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> *No, Jews are *NOT* a minority to the Bass*, they are white people, whites who enjoy privilege and higher status than non-Jewish whites. If sex acts qualifies people to be protected minority group they should all be given equal rights, using your logic, so why are *YOU* discriminating? People's sex acts are their personal biz and those sexual acts should *NOT* be given special government protection.





hilarious.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 7, 2008)

Shogun said:


> yea.. whatever you say, Archie.  And yes, dude, i'd make whatever comments that were necessary.  Remember, all that thuggish shit is just an MTV video.  When push comes to shove you'd find your black ass dominated by white people again if you wanna try and act all bad to the bone.  don't forget WHO has already dominated the fuck out of WHOM...
> 
> ******.



Dude that's really unnecessary. For the love of everything good can we please not make this 'my race is better than yours' that's just stupid and well ... racist.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 7, 2008)

Father Time said:


> Dude that's really unnecessary. For the love of everything good can we please not make this 'my race is better than yours' that's just stupid and well ... racist.



Hey, I replied in kind to the tone of this post 
*
No, Mr Bass isn't wrong, its your mind thats screwed up, but hey, Mr Bass knows for sure that you would not make these racist statements of yours in front of or in the face of blacks, you know what the outcome would be, so continue to be a cyber racist and say ****** all you like. *


it's not a matter of which race is "better" so much as it is a lesson in the reality of our ethnic dynamic.  20% ain't doing shit to the white majority besides crying about reparations and, ironically, repeating the sins of racists in years gone by.  I invite the bass to discover a little reality.  No one is the least bit afraid of some ghetto warrior trying to act all tough on a message board.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 7, 2008)

Why is it that this has to downgrade into insults from every side?

Insults are not an argument nor have they ever convinced anyone to switch sides. All they do is anger people and make things so much more bitter.

Insults are the last desperate attempts of someone with no argument.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 7, 2008)

Father Time said:


> Why is it that this has to downgrade into insults from every side?
> 
> Insults are not an argument nor have they ever convinced anyone to switch sides. All they do is anger people and make things so much more bitter.
> 
> Insults are the last desperate attempts of someone with no argument.



I suggest you scroll up and apply that standard to more than the new white scapegoat.  If you think to appeal to the bass with anything other than the rank hatred he puts forth then you are destined to be one disappointed soul.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 7, 2008)

DevNell said:


> as a matter of fact I know a few of those open communists and they have absolutely nothing in common with any liberals I know. A few have things in common with some progressives and then there is the issue of the anarchists.



So first you're confused that anyone thinks there are Communists in America, and when it's pointed out to you that they not only exist, but have an organized political party, NOW you're all aware of them and acquainted with them, and your REAL objection was that they're just nothing like leftists.

So basically, you're a liar.  



DevNell said:


> what the communists I know have in common with righties and christians is their intolerance for others and the idea that they think they own the truth. also, they have no problem demonizing and hurting others over ideas.



You want to talk about "intolerance for others", call me when conservatives and Christians start assaulting old ladies at protest rallies, defending rioters and looters on national television, and running people over with their cars for having the wrong bumper sticker.

EVERYONE thinks they own the truth, lackwit.  What kind of complete fool believes something WITHOUT thinking it's the truth and every contradictory belief is wrong?  What the hell would even be the POINT in believing something if you didn't think it was the truth?  Duhh.



DevNell said:


> did I forget to mention there are so few commies it is laughable to even consider them a threat? now the right wing christians, that's another story. burn books? bomb gay bars and health centers and abortion clinics?



It's the belief system and mindset that's a threat, dummy.  And while we're on the subject of "laughably few in number", why don't you give me some proof that book burning and bombings are a major, widespread, mainstream movement among "right-wing Christians"?  Hypocrite much?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 7, 2008)

DevNell said:


> where I come from people do not wear such ignorance on their sleeves and get to keep their self respect



So how long have YOU been without self-respect, exactly?


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 7, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> So how long have YOU been without self-respect, exactly?



How long have YOU been spreading insults?


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 7, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> You didn't find it amusing that someone who just laid low and contributed nothing whatsoever to the debate popped up after his/her champion got his ass waxed to snipe about how _I _can't debate?  I did.  Apparently, the secret to being "capable of debate" is to allow someone ELSE to do the fighting, and then hurl impotent insults at the winner.



Cecilie, I think somewhere you got confused, I was agreeing with you all along. I wasn't saying you weren't capable of debate. i was talking to skydancer. carefull nellie.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 7, 2008)

DevNell said:


> how many years is that oh wise one?



28. how many years do u need?


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 7, 2008)

I've been watching this circus go on for a long time. Fortunately, due to my LACK of hatred
for people who disagree with me, I would have to think that a person who deliberately calls the black man on this thread a ******, is an angry liberal brainwashed racist, completely devoid of the ability to debate and so makes up for it with heavy language in an attempt to make his "arguments" stronger. Who do you think you are fooling dude?


----------



## Father Time (Dec 7, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> for people who disagree with me, I would have to think that a person who deliberately calls the black man on this thread a ******, is an angry liberal brainwashed racist, completely devoid of the ability to debate and so makes up for it with heavy language in an attempt to make his "arguments" stronger.



Or he could be doing it just to get a rise out of her. I think that's more likely than being liberal brainwashed racist (which is an odd accusation considering the liberal party just got a black guy president)

Remember occam's razor.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 7, 2008)

the liberals will vote for whoever is most liberal, race means little compared to their agenda. I was speaking of an individual who is both liberal and racist. A big league double whammy of a person. And yes I remember Occam's Razor.

Now comes the backlash............


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 8, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> the liberals will vote for whoever is most liberal, race means little compared to their agenda. I was speaking of an individual who is both liberal and racist. A big league double whammy of a person. And yes I remember Occam's Razor.
> 
> Now comes the backlash............



Thats what Mr Bass has been saying all along about Shogun, its apparent he is  liberal racist. ABikersailor doesn't agree with Mr Bass either, the same for Gunny, but neither have racially insulted blacks, nor have they used blacks and race as a race card to promote the homosexual agenda.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 8, 2008)

What is a Minority Group?


----------



## eots (Dec 8, 2008)

Father Time said:


> Or he could be doing it just to get a rise out of her. I think that's more likely than being liberal brainwashed racist (which is an odd accusation considering the liberal party just got a black guy president)
> 
> Remember occam's razor.



after condi and powell opened the door for him....so there..who's the racist party now mofo


----------



## Father Time (Dec 8, 2008)

eots said:


> after condi and powell opened the door for him....so there..who's the racist party now mofo



Neither.

I never said republicans/conservatives were racist.


----------



## Macintosh (Dec 8, 2008)

Father Time said:


> Neither.
> 
> I never said republicans/conservatives were racist.



No. And some of us aren't bigoted against homosexuals, either. Let us not forget who freed the slaves and what party he belonged to, and what party gave Johnson the votes for his Civil Rights Act.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 8, 2008)

Macintosh said:


> No. And some of us aren't bigoted against homosexuals, either.



Did I ever say Republicans were?

In fact I don't remember mentioning the Republican party at all on these boards before.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 8, 2008)

Are none of you familiar with the greater internet dickwad theory?
It's that if you give most people total anonymity and an audience they'll act like dicks. Either for kicks or because that's their true nature.

That's why I don't think he's a brainwashed racist guy.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 8, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> I've been watching this circus go on for a long time. Fortunately, due to my LACK of hatred
> for people who disagree with me, I would have to think that a person who deliberately calls the black man on this thread a ******, is an angry liberal brainwashed racist, completely devoid of the ability to debate and so makes up for it with heavy language in an attempt to make his "arguments" stronger. Who do you think you are fooling dude?



Do you really want to throw the gauntlet down, mormon?  I see that your criticism doesn't extend to every derogatory infliction used by charles bass... I guess it's easier to feel like some PC hero than it is to be honest about the application of your criticism.  


Wold I be more convincing if I had a gold plate in my hand?  Maybe told a laughable tale of an angel visiting me were no one else can bear witness?


----------



## Shogun (Dec 8, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> the liberals will vote for whoever is most liberal, *race means little* compared to their agenda. I was speaking of an individual who is both liberal and racist. A big league double whammy of a person. And yes I remember Occam's Razor.
> 
> Now comes the backlash............



wow.  way to use that melon, guy!  Race means nothing... until you wanna call someone a racist!  Good job!  




Me and moroni are proud of your savvy mental skills!


----------



## Shogun (Dec 8, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Thats what Mr Bass has been saying all along about Shogun, its apparent he is  liberal racist. ABikersailor doesn't agree with Mr Bass either, the same for Gunny, but neither have racially insulted blacks, nor have they used blacks and race as a race card to promote the homosexual agenda.



you poor victim.  Where should I send the check to for the horror and dehumanizing treatment of feeding you your own cracker hating racism?  Clearly, it takes a mormon (who, lets be honest, probably never even looked upon a black man until being sent out on a mission) to put on your diaper and validate your hatred of white people, eh?


ahh well.. at least you and the mormon can high five each other about prop 8, eh?


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 8, 2008)

Shogun said:


> you poor victim.  Where should I send the check to for the horror and dehumanizing treatment of feeding you your own cracker hating racism?  Clearly, it takes a mormon (who, lets be honest, probably never even looked upon a black man until being sent out on a mission) to put on your diaper and validate your hatred of white people, eh?
> 
> 
> ahh well.. at least you and the mormon can high five each other about prop 8, eh?



You must be mentally retarded if you believe Mr Bass is crying victim, Mr Bass is continuing to make you look like an idiot with every post he makes. using racial insults doesn't do anything to boost your so-called counter argument, just imagine if the pro-homosexual crowd attacked blacks with racial insults to promote their agenda just as your retarded jackass is doing, would that tactic advance or stifle their cause?


----------



## Shogun (Dec 8, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> You must be mentally retarded if you believe Mr Bass is crying victim, Mr Bass is continuing to make you look like an idiot with every post he makes. using racial insults doesn't do anything to boost your so-called counter argument, just imagine if the pro-homosexual crowd attacked blacks with racial insults to promote their agenda just as your retarded jackass is doing, would that tactic advance or stifle their cause?



of course you are crying like a victim.  Hell, as soon as the mormon piped in you spared no time crawling over so he could lick your wounded fingertips.  Indeed, reminding you that you sat in the same hot seat that they get to enjoy these days might do more for your street level input than your blackilicious definition of minority group does.  Again, at the end of the day you and super mormon still have hating gays in common!


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 8, 2008)

Shogun said:


> of course you are crying like a victim.  Hell, as soon as the mormon piped in you spared no time crawling over so he could lick your wounded fingertips.  Indeed, reminding you that you sat in the same hot seat that they get to enjoy these days might do more for your street level input than your blackilicious definition of minority group does.  Again, at the end of the day you and super mormon still have hating gays in common!



Retard, if you have to create the image that the Bass is crying victim in order to placate and boost your wounded ego, believe whatever the hell you wish to believe. Mr Bass' point stand strong and firm, the use of racist personal attacks isn't boosting your argument, nor is it an effective counter argument, its the sign of a desperate trolling loser  with no other recourse to take.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 8, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Retard, if you have to create the image that the Bass is crying victim in order to placate and boost your wounded ego, believe whatever the hell you wish to believe. Mr Bass' point stand strong and firm, the use of racist personal attacks isn't boosting your argument, nor is it an effective counter argument, its the sign of a desperate trolling loser  with no other recourse to take.




scroll up, dude.  I'll quote you if you wanna see your own words..   After all, you should probably be the guy making statements about racist comments with all the cracker this and cracker that you throw around, eh?


----------



## user_name_guest (Dec 8, 2008)

Is gay marriage legal in Iran?  I believe if gays can make marriage a reality in America, they should take their cause to the Middle East.  Let's see if gays can convince their populous that gays are equal too.  Obviously, they label mormons harsh.  But what would Muslim do to gay people in Tehran if they demonstrate for gay marriage.  Would the mullahs open their arms and allow the freedom of gays to marry.  Or will stones be tossed.  Let's see gays.  Let's make marriage to gays available to all.  Not one country.  Not one state.  But all countries.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 8, 2008)

user_name_guest said:


> Is gay marriage legal in Iran?  I believe if gays can make marriage a reality in America, they should take their cause to the Middle East.  Let's see if gays can convince their populous that gays are equal too.  Obviously, they label mormons harsh.  But what would Muslim do to gay people in Tehran if they demonstrate for gay marriage.  Would the mullahs open their arms and allow the freedom of gays to marry.  Or will stones be tossed.  Let's see gays.  Let's make marriage to gays available to all.  Not one country.  Not one state.  But all countries.



I'd rather see the feminists go down there myself.

If they do one of two things will probably happen.

Women won't be forced to wear those all over cover thing, whatever they're called and may be treated a little fairer.

or

The feminists will spend the rest of their live there wasting their time or just get killed.

It's a win-win situation really.


----------



## revolutionary (Dec 8, 2008)

Homosexuality is a sin and should not be allowed because it is purely immoral. God made Adam & Eve not Adam & Steve.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 8, 2008)

Shogun said:


> scroll up, dude.  I'll quote you if you wanna see your own words..   After all, you should probably be the guy making statements about racist comments with all the cracker this and cracker that you throw around, eh?



Jeez this guy is a maniac who just never runs out of harmless ammo. His gun sure makes a loud sound but it's just a little pea shooter that does no damage. Please come a little stronger not a little louder. By the way, are you ready to get embarrassed if you want to use your weak little anti-mormon ammo?
And since I never met a black person before I went to South Africa and lived there for two years, why don't you tell everyone where I grew up. In Oakland if you wouldn't believe. No wonder your words are so jumbled when they come out. I'd be pissed off at the world too if I couldn't get my foot out of my mouth.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 8, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> Jeez this guy is a maniac who just never runs out of harmless ammo. His gun sure makes a loud sound but it's just a little pea shooter that does no damage. Please come a little stronger not a little louder. By the way, are you ready to get embarrassed if you want to use your weak little anti-mormon ammo?
> And since I never met a black person before I went to South Africa and lived there for two years, why don't you tell everyone where I grew up. In Oakland if you wouldn't believe. No wonder your words are so jumbled when they come out. I'd be pissed off at the world too if I couldn't get my foot out of my mouth.



sure, dude.. lemme guess.  you lived right off of compton, right?  Just because your non-mormon friend let you borrow a copy of Dr. Dre's Chronic Album back in the early 90s doesn't mean that your farcical input is relevant outside of Utah.  Hell, given the dogma you have faith it it's clear that you'd believe anything as long as someone claims to have been told by an angel.. out in the woods.. with no evidence or witness...  Clearly, your masterful use of smileys is as intimidating as your one sided criticism of racist vocabulary.  Then again, you are probably too naive to imagine the bass meaning anything other than saltines.


put that in your laughable little holy underoos and pray to it, bukko.


----------



## glockmail (Dec 8, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> Jeez this guy is a maniac who just never runs out of harmless ammo. ....


 Never runs out of semen as he's jacking off.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 8, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Never runs out of semen as he's jacking off.



gosh, Glock.. Do you think it surprises anyone that it would be YOU who posts about my cock?

really?


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 8, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Never runs out of semen as he's jacking off.



And probably wanking off to gay sex acts at that. Why is this chick o militant about defending gay sex acts? Shogun is proof that homosexuality is indeed a mental disorder.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 8, 2008)

Shogun said:


> sure, dude.. lemme guess.  you lived right off of compton, right?  Just because your non-mormon friend let you borrow a copy of Dr. Dre's Chronic Album back in the early 90s doesn't mean that your farcical input is relevant outside of Utah.  Hell, given the dogma you have faith it it's clear that you'd believe anything as long as someone claims to have been told by an angel.. out in the woods.. with no evidence or witness...  Clearly, your masterful use of smileys is as intimidating as your one sided criticism of racist vocabulary.  Then again, you are probably too naive to imagine the bass meaning anything other than saltines.
> 
> 
> put that in your laughable little holy underoos and pray to it, bukko.



Shogun is jealous and hateful of blacks and Mr bass because he can't grow an Afro like the Bass and his people.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 8, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> And probably wanking off to gay sex acts at that. Why is this chick o militant about defending gay sex acts? Shogun is proof that homosexuality is indeed a mental disorder.



says the ironic negro.  for real, for all the anti-gay shit you spew you sure did pounce on the topic of my cock.  Talk about affirmation, dude.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 8, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Shogun is jealous and hateful of blacks and Mr bass because he can't grow an Afro like the Bass and his people.



yea dude.. clearly everyone wants hair like the fuzzy part of velcro!


----------



## Father Time (Dec 8, 2008)

It's amazing how this turned into an insult contest and an excuse to spew hate so quickly.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 8, 2008)

you just fucked up, son.. Behold the (laughable) input of NARTH!


----------



## glockmail (Dec 8, 2008)

Father Time said:


> It's amazing how this turned into an insult contest and an excuse to spew hate so quickly.


 It always does with shogun around.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 8, 2008)

glockmail said:


> It always does with shogun around.



says the guy with an infatuation with my cock.  


Hey, dude.. it's a good thing gunny wouldn't let that poll commence, eh?  Where  would you have stomped off to after the results were tallied?


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 8, 2008)

Shogun said:


> sure, dude.. lemme guess.  you lived right off of compton, right?  Just because your non-mormon friend let you borrow a copy of Dr. Dre's Chronic Album back in the early 90s doesn't mean that your farcical input is relevant outside of Utah.  Hell, given the dogma you have faith it it's clear that you'd believe anything as long as someone claims to have been told by an angel.. out in the woods.. with no evidence or witness...  Clearly, your masterful use of smileys is as intimidating as your one sided criticism of racist vocabulary.  Then again, you are probably too naive to imagine the bass meaning anything other than saltines.
> 
> 
> put that in your laughable little holy underoos and pray to it, bukko.



Thank you for acknowledging to the world that I have mastered the use of similes. Thank you also for giving a good laugh as you assume Oakland isn't 600 miles north of Comptonsmartypants.
Also, you seem to be aware that I have never lived in Utah as of course you ignored that there are mormons outside of that "cult" society of 15 million members. Now I live in San FranSicko. The gays certainly have a lot of money which I am happy to take. They spend it very easily on things like clothes, which I sell, and gay propaganda shirts, and those artsy little Obama pins and shirts which look strangely enough like that Chez Guevarra guy.
I bet you have one of those too don't you. 
You don't even know anything about California do you, or wherever you're  from even?


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 8, 2008)

Shogun said:


> says the guy with an infatuation with my cock.
> 
> 
> Hey, dude.. it's a good thing gunny wouldn't let that poll commence, eh?  Where  would you have stomped off to after the results were tallied?



Says the idiot who militantly support gay sex acts, ie, men taking it up the anus from other men.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 8, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> Thank you for acknowledging to the world that I have mastered the use of similes. Thank you also for giving a good laugh as you assume Oakland isn't 600 miles north of Comptonsmartypants.
> Also, you seem to be aware that I have never lived in Utah as of course you ignored that there are mormons outside of that "cult" society of 15 million members. Now I live in San FranSicko. The gays certainly have a lot of money which I am happy to take. They spend it very easily on things like clothes, which I sell, and gay propaganda shirts, and those artsy little Obama pins and shirts which look strangely enough like that Chez Guevarra guy.
> I bet you have one of those too don't you.
> You don't even know anything about California do you, or wherever you're  from even?



Gosh, super mormon, did I rattle you with all those non-vanilla words?  Did I give you the impression that I gave the first flying fuck where you now reside?  hell, any cult to reach 15 million sure is VALID, eh?    Hell, if thats your standard then you must stand in awe of actual religions like Hinduism and Buddhism!  If only some snake oil salesman sold some dumb settlers a religion that didn't require holy underoos, eh guy?  

How consistent of you to act so reproachful about gay rights.. while letting them remain your clientèle.  Gosh, mormon.. what would moroni do (besides reside as a figment of your collective imagination)?



Hell, if you don't like san fran then perhaps you should take your silly ass back to Utah where your social cancer hails from.  And, since you asked and i'm proud as hell of the history thereof, I'm from Missouri.. you know.. a state that kicked your little cultist asses down the proverbial highway back in the day?


----------



## glockmail (Dec 8, 2008)

Shogun said:


> says the guy with an infatuation with my cock.
> 
> 
> Hey, dude.. it's a good thing gunny wouldn't let that poll commence, eh?  Where  would you have stomped off to after the results were tallied?



I didn't think that you had a cock. 

Not too late to post that poll, boy. I'm sure Gunny won't mind....


----------



## Shogun (Dec 8, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Says the idiot who militantly support gay sex acts, ie, men taking it up the anus from other men.



equal application of the Constitution, homey.. I don't expect you to understand that given your prison education.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 8, 2008)

glockmail said:


> I didn't think that you had a cock.
> 
> Not too late to post that poll, boy. I'm sure Gunny won't mind....



and yet HERE YOU WERE talking about my cock!

seriously, dude.  I think it's about time for you to stop dwelling on my CHICKpleaser.  Did you read that?  CHICK pleaser.  CHICK being the key word, ya creepy fucker.


and please, PLEASE tell Gunny that you want to see the poll happen, dude.  I already asked and am still willing to abide by the results.  He knows MY willingness so, again PLEASE, express to himi yours and let's get this little game played.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 8, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Gosh, super mormon, did I rattle you with all those non-vanilla words?  Did I give you the impression that I gave the first flying fuck where you now reside?  hell, any cult to reach 15 million sure is VALID, eh?    Hell, if thats your standard then you must stand in awe of actual religions like Hinduism and Buddhism!  If only some snake oil salesman sold some dumb settlers a religion that didn't require holy underoos, eh guy?
> 
> How consistent of you to act so reproachful about gay rights.. while letting them remain your clientèle.  Gosh, mormon.. what would moroni do (besides reside as a figment of your collective imagination)?
> 
> ...



Gosh Super Moron, So I guess then, since you know your history and are so proud of the extermination order placed by your favorite governer Lilburn W. Boggs, then I guess you were proud of the extermination order placed by the Nazis on the Jews. Wow what a humanitarian you are. Why don't we just place an extermination order against everyone who disagrees with Shogun. What a wonderful role model you are and exemplary geographist as well. A true lover of all mankind, especially the man-kind.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 8, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Gosh, super mormon, did I rattle you with all those non-vanilla words?  Did I give you the impression that I gave the first flying fuck where you now reside?  hell, any cult to reach 15 million sure is VALID, eh?    Hell, if thats your standard then you must stand in awe of actual religions like Hinduism and Buddhism!  If only some snake oil salesman sold some dumb settlers a religion that didn't require holy underoos, eh guy?
> 
> How consistent of you to act so reproachful about gay rights.. while letting them remain your clientèle.  Gosh, mormon.. what would moroni do (besides reside as a figment of your collective imagination)?
> 
> ...



By the way oh smart one, The definition of cult reads: A specific set of religious beliefs or practices. 
ooooooohhhh. so devilish.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 8, 2008)

dude.. you gotta make this more fun than that.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 8, 2008)

I think I am done here


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 8, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> I think I am done here


I think you are too.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 9, 2008)

Truthspeaker, you've probably created the most useless thread on USMB.  Besides your religion being a cult of stupidity as evidenced by your angel Moroni the Moron, you also have to be one of the sneakier bastards I've seen in a while.

Brilliant though, evangelizing on a messageboard, looking for weak minded people to call faithful.

Your religion sucks, and your beliefs are flawed.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 9, 2008)

ZING!

Have you seen the movie Orgazmo, mormon guy?


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 9, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Truthspeaker, you've probably created the most useless thread on USMB.  Besides your religion being a cult of stupidity as evidenced by your angel Moroni the Moron, you also have to be one of the sneakier bastards I've seen in a while.
> 
> Brilliant though, evangelizing on a messageboard, looking for weak minded people to call faithful.
> 
> Your religion sucks, and your beliefs are flawed.



A dumb liberal attacking somebody's religion while preaching tolerance and preaching against intolerance, you neo-libtards are such shameless hypocrites.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 9, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> A dumb liberal attacking somebody's religion while preaching tolerance and preaching against intolerance, you neo-libtards are such shameless hypocrites.



please, give us another lecture on how dumb it is to talk shit while, in fact, talking some shit, dude.  It's probably not as ironic as calling someone a racist after using every epitaph in the book from cracker to honky.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 9, 2008)

Shogun said:


> please, give us another lecture on how dumb it is to talk shit while, in fact, talking some shit, dude.  It's probably not as ironic as calling someone a racist after using every epitaph in the book from cracker to honky.





in&#8901;sig&#8901;nif&#8901;i&#8901;cant :unimportant, trifling, or petty 

in&#8901;co&#8901;her&#8901;ent: without logical or meaningful connection; disjointed; rambling 

retard: a person who is stupid, obtuse, or ineffective in some way


----------



## Shogun (Dec 9, 2008)

HA!

don't spend your whole welfare check in one liquor store, dude!

I must be significant enough to reply to, eh Toby?


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 9, 2008)

Shogun said:


> HA!
> 
> don't spend your whole welfare check in one liquor store, dude!
> 
> I must be significant enough to reply to, eh Toby?





in&#8901;sig&#8901;nif&#8901;i&#8901;cant :unimportant, trifling, or petty 

in&#8901;co&#8901;her&#8901;ent: without logical or meaningful connection; disjointed; rambling 

retard: a person who is stupid, obtuse, or ineffective in some way


----------



## Shogun (Dec 9, 2008)

come on, genius.. keep hopping through my hoops...


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 9, 2008)

Shogun said:


> come on, genius.. keep hopping through my hoops...




in&#8901;sig&#8901;nif&#8901;i&#8901;cant :unimportant, trifling, or petty 

in&#8901;co&#8901;her&#8901;ent: without logical or meaningful connection; disjointed; rambling 

retard: a person who is stupid, obtuse, or ineffective in some way


----------



## Shogun (Dec 9, 2008)

poor guy.. is the malt liquor already nailin' you down?


----------



## catzmeow (Dec 9, 2008)

Shogun said:


> poor guy.. is the malt liquor already nailin' you down?



See how repetition kills what was probably, at one time, a rather clever riff?


----------



## Shogun (Dec 9, 2008)

please, don't compare the awesomeness that is my vocabulary mastery with lame as hell, repeated definitions.


----------



## glockmail (Dec 9, 2008)

Shogun said:


> and yet HERE YOU WERE talking about my cock!
> 
> seriously, dude.  I think it's about time for you to stop dwelling on my CHICKpleaser.  Did you read that?  CHICK pleaser.  CHICK being the key word, ya creepy fucker.
> 
> ...



1. Please link to where I ever mentioned your cock. Seriously, I didn't think you had one.

2. Chick pleaser in your cream dreams, maybe. Needle dick bug fucker more likely. 

3. Gunny knows my position. I've never backed away from a challenge. Just ask him. Then post the poll and stop whining about it.


----------



## catzmeow (Dec 9, 2008)

glockmail said:


> 1. Please link to where I ever mentioned your cock. Seriously, I didn't think you had one.
> 
> 2. Chick pleaser in your cream dreams, maybe. Needle dick bug fucker more likely.
> 
> 3. Gunny knows my position. I've never backed away from a challenge. Just ask him. Then post the poll and stop whining about it.



Aren't you the same dude who sent me a PM trying to recruit me to a different board where "personal insults won't be tolerated"?


----------



## Shogun (Dec 9, 2008)

glockmail said:


> 1. Please link to where I ever mentioned your cock. Seriously, I didn't think you had one.
> 
> 2. Chick pleaser in your cream dreams, maybe. Needle dick bug fucker more likely.
> 
> 3. Gunny knows my position. I've never backed away from a challenge. Just ask him. Then post the poll and stop whining about it.




1. Ironic comment in 3.. 2..

2. 1.

3. Yea right, dude.  It's probably easier to claim that this side of "oh g-g-gunny, please don't let Shogun send me packing...  I'm already banned at www.oldfuckers.com!"

You ain't got to lie, Craig, you ain't got to lie.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 9, 2008)

catzmeow said:


> Aren't you the same dude who sent me a PM trying to recruit me to a different board where "personal insults won't be tolerated"?



sounds like he was trying to lure you into his moth ball smellin' Stabbin' Cabin.  I suggest you bring a large can of mace.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 9, 2008)

Over 14,000 posts on one message board, some retards truly have no life outside of this board except for pro-homosexual activism and hurling insults on message boards at people who don't agree with the fag movement.


----------



## glockmail (Dec 9, 2008)

catzmeow said:


> Aren't you the same dude who sent me a PM trying to recruit me to a different board where "personal insults won't be tolerated"?


 An eye for an eye. I've never insulted anyone who didn't insult me first. _Never. _


----------



## glockmail (Dec 9, 2008)

Shogun said:


> 1. Ironic comment in 3.. 2......


  Again, show me where I mentioned your Johnson while not responding to your post about your Johnson. If you can find one instance, I'll remove myself from this board. If you can't, then you remove yourself.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 9, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Over 14,000 posts on one message board, some retards truly have no life outside of this board except for pro-homosexual activism and hurling insults on message boards at people who don't agree with the fag movement.



says the guy whose SOLE usmb participation boils down to trying to convince everyone that he's not gay by posting homophobe threads..


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 9, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Truthspeaker, you've probably created the most useless thread on USMB.  Besides your religion being a cult of stupidity as evidenced by your angel Moroni the Moron, you also have to be one of the sneakier bastards I've seen in a while.
> 
> Brilliant though, evangelizing on a messageboard, looking for weak minded people to call faithful.
> 
> Your religion sucks, and your beliefs are flawed.



1.It seems mister our sailor of the seven seas and seven curse words can't leave me alone. He has posted two personal messages to me which read:
_Don't post the content of Private Messages. They are private.
~Abelian Sea_

This guy has really got something against me. Maybe it's because he can't wipe the smile off my avatar. He's not sure if I am a decent person. That's nice. Well since it seems you are infatuated with following me around, let's bring up some of these topics you just won't let slide. My stance against homosexuals has infuriated you to the explosion point. You must be gay. That's ok. You are entitled to and fit the stereotype for a true sailor in every way. Way to be. 
Since you say my religion is a cancer on society, let's get everyone vaccinated right away so they don't have to be infected with it. Knowledge is prevention right?
So what exactly is your proof that it is so false?
What makes you say Joseph Smith was a false prophet?
Why this intolerable shaking anger towards me and us?
Is it because you are gay and you feel we don't like you?
Has someone wronged you from our church and how so?
Are you incapable or unwilling to answer these questions?

I think I can hear your answer and the anger behind it right now:

 "Why would I want to answer some fucking moron mormon cultist bastard. Your bitch-ass is a cock sucking shit barfing cuntface."

 Someone better call the ambulance cuz he's gonna have an anneurism right....about....now.


----------



## catzmeow (Dec 9, 2008)

glockmail said:


> An eye for an eye. I've never insulted anyone who didn't insult me first. _Never. _



And the lack of practice definitely shows...


----------



## catzmeow (Dec 9, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> 1.It seems mister our sailor of the seven seas and seven curse words can't leave me alone. He has posted two personal messages to me which read:
> *
> 
> This guy has really got something against me. Maybe it's because he can't wipe the smile off my avatar. He's not sure if I am a decent person. That's nice. Well since it seems you are infatuated with following me around, let's bring up some of these topics you just won't let slide. My stance against homosexuals has infuriated you to the explosion point. You must be gay. That's ok. You are entitled to and fit the stereotype for a true sailor in every way. Way to be.
> ...



Hey Shogun, can you repost that video in this thread?


----------



## Shogun (Dec 9, 2008)

hey truthspeaker.. just a little fair warning, yo.. it's against the rules to post PMs in the public threads.  If you have problems with a particular user sending you PMs your option is to contact one of the mods.  You are new around here so I doubt you'll get das boot for that post but.. again, fair warning.


----------



## glockmail (Dec 9, 2008)

catzmeow said:


> And the lack of practice definitely shows...


 If you think spewing insults is a good thing then kindly ignore my previous invitation.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 9, 2008)

Ok, I didn't know, next time i won't. It's not much different from what he posts in public anyway.
No problem


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 9, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> 1.It seems mister our sailor of the seven seas and seven curse words can't leave me alone. He has posted two personal messages to me which read:
> *
> 
> This guy has really got something against me. Maybe it's because he can't wipe the smile off my avatar. He's not sure if I am a decent person. That's nice. Well since it seems you are infatuated with following me around, let's bring up some of these topics you just won't let slide. My stance against homosexuals has infuriated you to the explosion point. You must be gay. That's ok. You are entitled to and fit the stereotype for a true sailor in every way. Way to be.
> ...



Hey asshole.....you want to know what I have against you?  Cowardly cocksuckers like you who profess to know something when in reality, they don't know shit, because of the limits of their own preconceived notions, as well as being locked up in a really restrictive viewpoint.

You make fun of me for being a Sailor, but did you know that it is people like me, that allow cowardly pricks like you, who would never serve a day in the military as they are too scared of being put out of their comfort zone, as well as the fact that they could either die or be killing others.  I consider you to be on of the more cowardly assholes that I've seen in a long time, and, even though I really don't like the kind of crap and nonsense you've put on these boards, as someone who actually cares about this country, I don't have to agree with everything you say, I've just got to allow you the chance to say it.

And you've said it clearly.  You're full of shit FalseLiar.  You don't speak truth, you spew lies.


----------



## glockmail (Dec 9, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Again, show me where I mentioned your Johnson while not responding to your post about your Johnson. If you can find one instance, I'll remove myself from this board. If you can't, then you remove yourself.





Shogun said:


> hey truthspeaker.. just a little fair warning, yo.. it's against the rules to post PMs in the public threads.  If you have problems with a particular user sending you PMs your option is to contact one of the mods.  You are new around here so I doubt you'll get das boot for that post but.. again, fair warning.


 Just as I suspected. You are still unable to rise to a challenge.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 9, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Hey asshole.....you want to know what I have against you?  Cowardly cocksuckers like you who profess to know something when in reality, they don't know shit, because of the limits of their own preconceived notions, as well as being locked up in a really restrictive viewpoint.
> 
> You make fun of me for being a Sailor, but did you know that it is people like me, that allow cowardly pricks like you, who would never serve a day in the military as they are too scared of being put out of their comfort zone, as well as the fact that they could either die or be killing others.  I consider you to be on of the more cowardly assholes that I've seen in a long time, and, even though I really don't like the kind of crap and nonsense you've put on these boards, as someone who actually cares about this country, I don't have to agree with everything you say, I've just got to allow you the chance to say it.
> 
> And you've said it clearly.  You're full of shit FalseLiar.  You don't speak truth, you spew lies.



You and Shogun are vying for the king retard of the year award for the most insults with no substance posts in USMB.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 9, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> Ok, I didn't know, next time i won't. It's not much different from what he posts in public anyway.
> No problem



Figures.....you're too fucking stupid to read the rules.

No wonder you think you're telling the truth.....you're full blown retarded.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 9, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> Ok, I didn't know, next time i won't. It's not much different from what he posts in public anyway.
> No problem



it's all good.. Like I said, you are new and didn't know.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 9, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Just as I suspected. You are still unable to rise to a challenge.



still trying to allude to hard, throbbing meat sticks, eh?  For real, stop trying to flirt with me.  no means no, dude.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 9, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Figures.....you're too fucking stupid to read the rules.
> 
> No wonder you think you're telling the truth.....you're full blown retarded.



Another insult from the idiot squid who's jealous of Airdogsand frustrated at having a lack of buttbuddies on deck.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 9, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> You and Shogun are vying for the king retard of the year award for the most insults with no substance posts in USMB.



dont you have a liquor store to rob?  ONly a few more weeks until xmas, dude!


----------



## glockmail (Dec 9, 2008)

Shogun said:


> still trying to allude to hard, throbbing meat sticks, eh?  For real, stop trying to flirt with me.  no means no, dude.


 You're chicken.  All talk, no nads.
1. First you suggest a wrestling match, I accept, and you woos out.
2. Then you challenge me with a poll to vote one of us off the board; I accept, you woos out.
3. Finally I challenge you to back up your latest homosexual accusation, and you woos out.

I see an obvious pattern here...


----------



## Shogun (Dec 9, 2008)

glockmail said:


> You're chicken.  All talk, no nads.
> 1. First you suggest a wrestling match, I accept, and you woos out.
> 2. Then you challenge me with a poll to vote one of us off the board; I accept, you woos out.
> 3. Finally I challenge you to back up your latest homosexual accusation, and you woos out.
> ...



is that how you lure little boys into your van, dude?  I think you'll find that, again, when i say im not into men like you are that it means more than "try harder".

1.  quote me.  YOU suggested wrestling to which I made fun of you for suggesting something so stupid over the internet.

2.  Go ask Gunny about that. 

3.  All it takes is reading your latest post to get to the gay core of your lust for my cock, dude.  Again, if you can't see the irony of your above post then so be it.  Clearly, your nursing home meds are working for you.


now, for real.. stop being a creepy old lecherous dude on the internet.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 9, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Hey asshole.....you want to know what I have against you?  Cowardly cocksuckers like you who profess to know something when in reality, they don't know shit, because of the limits of their own preconceived notions, as well as being locked up in a really restrictive viewpoint.
> 
> You make fun of me for being a Sailor, but did you know that it is people like me, that allow cowardly pricks like you, who would never serve a day in the military as they are too scared of being put out of their comfort zone, as well as the fact that they could either die or be killing others.  I consider you to be on of the more cowardly assholes that I've seen in a long time, and, even though I really don't like the kind of crap and nonsense you've put on these boards, as someone who actually cares about this country, I don't have to agree with everything you say, I've just got to allow you the chance to say it.
> 
> And you've said it clearly.  You're full of shit FalseLiar.  You don't speak truth, you spew lies.



Ok so I was a few words off on my prediction of what he would say back. You speak of cowards. And how I am one. Do you think this message board is fightmatch.com "There's a boxing match for everyone out there, it's ok to look." Or did you come on here to have a discussion. Why are you trying to set up a physical confrontation with me? Even if I choked you out it wouldn't teach you anything. 
As for the military and my appreciation of it. Nobody appreciates it more than I do. You disgrace yourself by living up to every stereotype people have about the Navy. My brother is currently in the Army, my Uncle just got back from Iraq and is suffering from post traumatic stress disorder and mormons themselves have always had a respect for officers of every kind. 
You didn't answer any of my questions. You have called me a liar, but haven't said how I lied. Your statements have thus far been worthless. What is wrong with you dude? Why don't you state your objections like a normal human being? Why can't you speak civilly? Are you afraid of being wrong? It's ok, we are all wrong from time to time, we just need people to tell us how, where,why and what we are wrong about? Give me some specifics!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 9, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> Ok so I was a few words off on my prediction of what he would say back. You speak of cowards. And how I am one. Do you think this message board is fightmatch.com "There's a boxing match for everyone out there, it's ok to look." Or did you come on here to have a discussion. Why are you trying to set up a physical confrontation with me? Even if I choked you out it wouldn't teach you anything.
> As for the military and my appreciation of it. Nobody appreciates it more than I do. You disgrace yourself by living up to every stereotype people have about the Navy. My brother is currently in the Army, my Uncle just got back from Iraq and is suffering from post traumatic stress disorder and mormons themselves have always had a respect for officers of every kind.
> You didn't answer any of my questions. You have called me a liar, but haven't said how I lied. Your statements have thus far been worthless. What is wrong with you dude? Why don't you state your objections like a normal human being? Why can't you speak civilly? Are you afraid of being wrong? It's ok, we are all wrong from time to time, we just need people to tell us how, where,why and what we are wrong about? Give me some specifics!



Your fucked up religion is based on the ramblings of some crazy dude who says that God spoke to him and told him all sorts of crap, when in reality, all he was doing was manipulating the people to keep himself on easy street.

As far as you respecting the military?  Your posts on here would beg to differ.  And...if you think that some pussy assed motherchucker like you is going to be able to beat my ass, bring it on asshole, chances are you'd get your ass handed to you in less than 5 minutes.  Besides, aren't you mormon pricks pacifists anyway?

Nope....you're a pussy and a coward dude.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 9, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Your fucked up religion is based on the ramblings of some crazy dude who says that God spoke to him and told him all sorts of crap, when in reality, all he was doing was manipulating the people to keep himself on easy street.
> 
> As far as you respecting the military?  Your posts on here would beg to differ.  And...if you think that some pussy assed motherchucker like you is going to be able to beat my ass, bring it on asshole, chances are you'd get your ass handed to you in less than 5 minutes.  Besides, aren't you mormon pricks pacifists anyway?
> 
> Nope....you're a pussy and a coward dude.



I think you just spit on me while you were yelling all the way from wherever you are.. gross... Can you give some specifics about who this crazy dude is and how he manipulated us and how he lived on easy street while being tarred and feathered by people like you?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 9, 2008)

What, you don't know who your own false prophet Smith is?


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 9, 2008)

I do actually, and a lot better than you,  but it is your responsibility to back up your claims.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 9, 2008)

By the way, it is a miracle, that he responded without a curse word. REmarkable!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 9, 2008)

So, you're telling me, that some dude found some golden scrolls, yet nobody could ever see them, as well as the fact that he couldn't remember what he'd just said the night before, and you want to believe that crap?

Your brain is softer than cream cheese if that's what you believe dude.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 9, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> So, you're telling me, that some dude found some golden scrolls, yet nobody could ever see them, as well as the fact that he couldn't remember what he'd just said the night before, and you want to believe that crap?
> 
> Your brain is softer than cream cheese if that's what you believe dude.



Two straight posts!!! Wonderful.
Do you think that if Joseph Smith showed a 15 pound chunk of pure gold to everyone in 1825 that he would have lived to tell the tale. Apparently the mobsters believed he had them, otherwise they wouldn't have ransacked his home numerous times trying to find them! there were 15 people besides Joseph who never retracted their statements that they saw the angel give Joseph the plates and felt them with their own hands.
It would have been not only disobedient to show them to anyone else, but very dangerous and stupid of him to do so.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 9, 2008)

By the way I am a fan of staying on Topic so I think we should take all mormon questions to my mormon thread. Gays are blaming blacks about the passing of prop 8 but they don't attack them because they would definitely lose their lefty credentials as mentioned before.


----------



## glockmail (Dec 9, 2008)

Shogun said:


> ..... quote me.  YOU suggested wrestling to which I made fun of you for suggesting something so stupid over the internet.
> 
> .....





glockmail said:


> I figure you for a scrawny little twit.





Shogun said:


> Im willing to bet I could also pin you.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 9, 2008)




----------



## glockmail (Dec 9, 2008)

Thnx.


----------



## WhiteLion (Dec 9, 2008)

revolutionary said:


> Homosexuality is a sin and should not be allowed because it is purely immoral. God made Adam & Eve not Adam & Steve.


So very true friend so very true. oh and boycott the homosexual prop8 boycott its a farce...


----------



## WhiteLion (Dec 9, 2008)

glockmail said:


> You're chicken.  All talk, no nads.
> 1. First you suggest a wrestling match, I accept, and you woos out.
> 2. Then you challenge me with a poll to vote one of us off the board; I accept, you woos out.
> 3. Finally I challenge you to back up your latest homosexual accusation, and you woos out.
> ...


Typical Shogun huh Glock


----------



## glockmail (Dec 10, 2008)

WhiteLion said:


> Typical Shogun huh Glock


 Yup, sure is a disappointment.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 10, 2008)

WhiteLion said:


> So very true friend so very true. oh and boycott the homosexual prop8 boycott its a farce...




The queer lovers know full well that men sexing men and women sexing women is wrong, immoral and sexually deviant, yet to try to make the world seem more "harmonious" they will vigorously defend this sinful lifestyle. Too bad its creating more war than peace.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 10, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> The queer lovers know full well that men sexing men and women sexing women is wrong, immoral and sexually deviant, yet to try to make the world seem more "harmonious" they will vigorously defend this sinful lifestyle. Too bad its creating more war than peace.



By your definiton, maybe.  However....I think it is YOU who are the deviant Chucking Ass.

BTW......what the fuck makes you think you're qualified to comment about sin?  You're so worried about the sins of commission, that you totally miss your own sins of omission.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 10, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> By your definiton, maybe.  However....I think it is YOU who are the deviant Chucking Ass.



The more sodomites and their supporters try to force acceptance of homosexuality, the more war against it shall happen. Blaming blacks and trying to make the gay "struggle" the same as what the black struggle was  and or connecting it to the struggles of others is only going to alienate more people. Your personal attacks isn't winning more converts either you jackass squid, you're obiously not the sharpest tool in the shed



> BTW......what the fuck makes you think you're qualified to comment about sin?  You're so worried about the sins of commission, that you totally miss your own sins of omission.



The Bass goes by what the Bible says, not by his own qualifications you jackass, you sodomite lovers like to dance around this and continually attack the messenger because there is no refuting and attacking the Word of God.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 10, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> The more sodomites and their supporters try to force acceptance of homosexuality, the more war against it shall happen. Blaming blacks and trying to make the gay "struggle" the same as what the black struggle was  and or connecting it to the struggles of others is only going to alienate more people. Your personal attacks isn't winning more converts either you jackass squid, you're obiously not the sharpest tool in the shed
> 
> 
> 
> The Bass goes by what the Bible says, not by his own qualifications you jackass, you sodomite lovers like to dance around this and continually attack the messenger because there is no refuting and attacking the Word of God.



No douchebag, you don't go by what the Bible says, you go by your own fucked up interpretation of what you THINK the Bible says.

As far as the sharpest tool?  You're not even in the shed dude.  Matter of fact, you're about as sharp as a dull crayon that is tan.

As far as no attacking or refuting the Word?  Might wanna be careful there Ass Chucker........your blasphemous interpretations of what you want it to say may end up getting you more trouble than you want to deal with.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 10, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> No douchebag, you don't go by what the Bible says, you go by your own fucked up interpretation of what you THINK the Bible says.
> 
> As far as the sharpest tool?  You're not even in the shed dude.  Matter of fact, you're about as sharp as a dull crayon that is tan.
> 
> As far as no attacking or refuting the Word?  Might wanna be careful there Ass Chucker........your blasphemous interpretations of what you want it to say may end up getting you more trouble than you want to deal with.



Jackass, the Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin, no misinterpretations about that, OTOH, the Bible makes it clear that it is sinful and an abomination to chose and support sin over righteousness, which is what you're doing for political reasons, not for the Word of God's sake.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 10, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Jackass, the Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin, no misinterpretations about that, OTOH, the Bible makes it clear that it is sinful and an abomination to chose and support sin over righteousness, which is what you're doing for political reasons, not for the Word of God's sake.



No idiot, it says that SODOMY is a sin, which is defined as anal sex.  It also states that the priest class of Israel is forbidden from homosexual relations.

Nothing else.

You're just bastardizing the Word to reinforce your own screwed up viewpoint.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 10, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> No idiot, it says that SODOMY is a sin, which is defined as anal sex.  It also states that the priest class of Israel is forbidden from homosexual relations.
> 
> Nothing else.
> 
> You're just bastardizing the Word to reinforce your own screwed up viewpoint.




The Bible says that men having sex with men and likewise for women, is an abomination, period, it says nothing about homosexuality being ok, provided no examples of homosexual relationships, sex acts and marriages being supported and sanctioned by God, nothing of the sort period, you can dance around this all day if you like, the Bible clearly states its position.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 10, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> The Bible says that men having sex with men and likewise for women, is an abomination, period, it says nothing about homosexuality being ok, provided no examples of homosexual relationships, sex acts and marriages being supported and sanctioned by God, nothing of the sort period, you can dance around this all day if you like, the Bible clearly states its position.



Wrong again Ass Chucker........there is NOTHING in the Bible that says lesbian relations are a sin.  Find me ONE reference.  You can't.

And no......the Bible does NOT clearly state it's position.  It is written in metaphor and parables, as the original writers were Jewish (as was Jesus), and if you don't understand the Hebrew interpretation that goes along with it, you end up deluded as you now are.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 10, 2008)

I want to know sailor, why do you have a horse in this race? Are you gay or do you sympathize with gays?


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 10, 2008)

btw, the scripture in question is Leviticus 18:22. Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, it is abomination.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 10, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Wrong again Ass Chucker........there is NOTHING in the Bible that says lesbian relations are a sin.  Find me ONE reference.  You can't.
> 
> And no......the Bible does NOT clearly state it's position.  It is written in metaphor and parables, as the original writers were Jewish (as was Jesus), and if you don't understand the Hebrew interpretation that goes along with it, you end up deluded as you now are.



The bible states that men having sex with men is wrong period, no getting around that and that wasn't written in any parable you jackass, just as "Thou shalt not kill" was written in metaphorical form. The Bible does not support gay marrige and gay relationships, there are no examples of such in the Bible, the burden of proof is on *YOU* to prove otherwise, political activism and political correctness does *NOT* subject the Bible to change its message.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 10, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> I want to know sailor, why do you have a horse in this race? Are you gay or do you sympathize with gays?



Actually, no, I'm not gay.  I've been married before and have 3 boys.  Do I support gays?  Yep.  Why?  Simple.....I worked with a lot of them during the 20 years I spent in the Navy, and to tell you the truth, they were better workers, lots sharper, and a lot better in military bearing than their straight counterparts.

I also lived with a lesbian couple while stationed in Norfolk.  Cindy and Connie were 2 women that I thought a lot of and loved very much.  I rented a room from then while I was on sea duty.  One of the main reasons they wanted to have a male in the house, was because both were in the Navy, and they needed a cover.

As far as sympathizing with them, well........suffice it to say that quite a few of them were some of my better friends, as they always had inside info on what was going down, so yeah....I do.  Besides, it's not so much what you look like, or what your lifestyle or sexuality is, as how you treat others.

I mean.....would YOU like to be singled out for being Mormon or straight and have to deal with the shit that you keep throwing their way?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 10, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> btw, the scripture in question is Leviticus 18:22. Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, it is abomination.



Actually, what that means is a man shall not lie with a man in the same manner as what they lie with women.

By the way, what is a good Mormon doing using a book written specifically for, and by, the High Priests of Israel?  Are you Jewish or Mormon?


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 10, 2008)

The Bible right here clearly and without a doubt condemns male and female homosexual behaviour unequivocally:


Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Read it and weep you jackass, pathetic, moronic squid. What now? Is the Apostle Paul now an Ass-Chucking, Sucking Moronic homophobe like Charlie Bass? Is Jesus now one? Is God now one?


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 10, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Actually, what that means is a man shall not lie with a man in the same manner as what they lie with women.
> 
> By the way, what is a good Mormon doing using a book written specifically for, and by, the High Priests of Israel?  Are you Jewish or Mormon?



That means that gay sex acts, which is what homosexuality is wholly based on and solely identified by, is wrong, period, your jackass is refuted. How can gay sex acts be wrong by your logic, but homosexuality not be wrong?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 10, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> The bible states that men having sex with men is wrong period, no getting around that and that wasn't written in any parable you jackass, just as "Thou shalt not kill" was written in metaphorical form. The Bible does not support gay marrige and gay relationships, there are no examples of such in the Bible, the burden of proof is on *YOU* to prove otherwise, political activism and political correctness does *NOT* subject the Bible to change its message.



Hey Bible Scholar.......the REAL translation of that is "Thou Shalt Not Murder".

And...you do realize that King David had a very close relationship with another male, right?


----------



## Southpaw (Dec 10, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> The Bible right here clearly and without a doubt condemns male and female homosexual behaviour unequivocally:
> 
> 
> Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
> ...



I'm disturbed that you are using Scripture to prove the Bible's stance on homosexuality and yet also acting the way you are to this guy.

You are correct in that the Bible is quite clear on homosexuality being wrong but do you think it is possible you are forgetting to apply some other parts of it as well?

Unless you don't really care about following the Bible and are just proving a point about what it says, which is just fine.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 10, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> The Bible right here clearly and without a doubt condemns male and female homosexual behaviour unequivocally:
> 
> 
> Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
> ...





> Did you know?
> * Of 32,000 verses in the Bible, only five directly mention homosexuality.
> * The Qur'an only directly mentions homosexuality once.
> * Leviticus, the book of the Bible which stipulates death for homosexuality, requires the same punishment for adultery, pre-marital sex, disobedient children and blasphemy.
> ...



LGBT Texts


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 10, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Hey Bible Scholar.......the REAL translation of that is "Thou Shalt Not Murder".
> 
> And...you do realize that King David had a very close relationship with another male, right?



King David was *NOT* a homosexual, there is no proof of that. Two male friends who happen to be very close are *NOT* necessarily homosexuals and or engage is gay sex acts. Sodomites like spinning the David and Jonathan story to make it seem the two were an accepted homosexual couple.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 10, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> LGBT Texts



Great, the homosexual, bastardised translation of the Bible that tries to tapdance around the fact that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 10, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> Great, the homosexual, bastardised translation of the Bible that tries to tapdance around the fact that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin.



Actually, no.  It's a scholarly site that compiles all the information.

If you actually had any intelligence, you might know that.  But......just like everything else you do, you choose not to investigate.


----------



## Southpaw (Dec 10, 2008)

David and Jonathan did not have a homosexual relationship.

Let's review.  The Bible was extremely clear on the fact that:

1.  David lusted after a woman on the rooftop
2.  David brought her in, ignored the pleas of his servants, and raped her
3.  David tried to cover it up and hide the situation
4.  David had her husband killed when he wouldn't sleep with his wife

You *really* think that the writers of the book would have a problem stating that he slept with Jonathan if he did?  This man raped, lied, murdered, and was such a poor father that his son raped his daughter.  The Bible isn't concerned with keeping private things private.  It is ridiculous to mistranslate one word concerning brotherhood and assume it was all just a big secret.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 10, 2008)

While I am not condoning what your friends do in private, I am sure many homosexuals are good people, and lead otherwise good lives. As a mormon, we don't condemn them to hell. We believe that many of them commit the sin ignorantly and were either forced into this lifestyle via abuse, exposed via pornography and taught to indulge in it from friends or molesting family members or just outright choose to do so. In any case, we believe they will not be afflicted with this hormonal imbalance in the next life and it will not be an issue. The attractions they feel to each other will be stripped away in the next life and so it is important to resist them here. 
As for the Bible, it was not written only for Jewish priests but to everyone that by the example of the Old testament sacrifices would symbolize the sacrifce Jesus would eventually make. That is the reason we all have the Bible. That is the reason the ancient Jews were given the law of Moses, which was to prepare them to accept Christ when he came.


----------



## Southpaw (Dec 10, 2008)

Being a homosexual doesn't get you sent to Hell.

Not accepting Christ as your savior gets you sent to Hell.  Too many Christians forget that, in my opinion.

Christ said He came to seek and save the lost.  He stated that it was not the healthy who needed a doctor, but the sick.  It's sad to me that many 'Christians' in America are more concerned over whether or not Bob can marry John versus if Bob or John knows that God loves them and cares about them.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 10, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> While I am not condoning what your friends do in private, I am sure many homosexuals are good people, and lead otherwise good lives. As a mormon, we don't condemn them to hell. We believe that many of them commit the sin ignorantly and were either forced into this lifestyle via abuse, exposed via pornography and taught to indulge in it from friends or molesting family members or just outright choose to do so. In any case, we believe they will not be afflicted with this hormonal imbalance in the next life and it will not be an issue. The attractions they feel to each other will be stripped away in the next life and so it is important to resist them here.
> As for the Bible, it was not written only for Jewish priests but to everyone that by the example of the Old testament sacrifices would symbolize the sacrifce Jesus would eventually make. That is the reason we all have the Bible. That is the reason the ancient Jews were given the law of Moses, which was to prepare them to accept Christ when he came.



Now, interestingly enough, there is a big misconception about that.....because, after all.....do YOU do the same thing that your pastors or bishops or whatever you have as leaders in your faith, or do you do things that they can't because of their position, as well as THEY do things that you can't because of position?  Look at it like the Presidency......the President can do all sorts of things that the average citizen can't, but, he's also restricted by his position of office, as well as the fact that EVERYONE looks to them to see what direction the country is going.

Same thing for the book of Leviticus.  Unless you're a Jewish High Priest, don't use it.

Matter of fact, in the 613 Mitzvoht, all the rules are for everyone, but, there are certain ones that apply to women that don't apply to males.  Same thing with every position in the community.  Butchers do different than bankers and artists, which is why there are 613 rules.  Not all apply to everyone, but they all apply equally to everyone.


----------



## Southpaw (Dec 10, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Same thing for the book of Leviticus.  Unless you're a Jewish High Priest, don't use it.



Christ did say that He can not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it.

However, that begs the question of what parts do we fulfill?  For example, are we currently bound by the dietary practices of the OT?  Well, Peter and Paul seemed to think that Christians should not be.  Should we stone gays and adulterers?  Well, Christ seemed to hesitate on that one.

Personally, I tend to agree with the civil, ceremonial, and moral breakdown.  That basically means that the OT law was divided into those three sections and we, as NT Christians, are only supposed to follow the moral aspect of the laws.

On a law like don't be gay or you will get stoned (Southpaw's translation, very sophisticated), that means we should follow the moral part (homosexuality is wrong) but not worry about implementing the civil punishment (stoning).

Does that make sense?

Google 'civil moral ceremonial law' and I'm sure you will find sites giving more detail.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 10, 2008)

Southpaw said:


> Christ did say that He can not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it.
> 
> However, that begs the question of what parts do we fulfill?  For example, are we currently bound by the dietary practices of the OT?  Well, Peter and Paul seemed to think that Christians should not be.  Should we stone gays and adulterers?  Well, Christ seemed to hesitate on that one.
> 
> ...



Which parts are we supposed to follow?  The ones that make sense at the time we notice them.  I mean.......do you use a cell phone all the time?  How about drive your car everywhere?  We should follow them when we see how they make sense.

And......as far as the dietary laws of the OT?  Well.......think about this......in the Bible, it said that you shouldn't eat pork.  Why?  Well, there was trichinosis, which in turn, could lead to disease and death.  Now, since we didn't have the means to sterilize pork to make it safe to eat, God said "Don't", but now we do, so I'm pretty sure that the rules for that one would be suspended.

Same thing with sodomy incidentally.  We didn't have condoms back then either.

But.......there are several places where Rabbis have shown me where there are always allowances made for technological advancement, even in the Temple.

Watch the Universal Torah Network on the web sometime.  Especially the ones about the Temple Institute and the re-building of the Temple.


----------



## Southpaw (Dec 10, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Same thing with sodomy incidentally.  We didn't have condoms back then either.



Hmm, interesting point.

If you will remember, Peter was asked to eat unclean things in a dream and Paul was pretty clear that pork was on the menu, so to speak.

I think the whole 'no gay sex' thing had less to do with diseases (though sin always has consequences) than it did with breaking God's design for human interaction and family structure.  EDIT:  That's why it would be considered a moral law and thus still applicable, even though they certainly should not be stoned.


----------



## WhiteLion (Dec 10, 2008)

Southpaw said:


> Being a homosexual doesn't get you sent to Hell.
> 
> Not accepting Christ as your savior gets you sent to Hell.  Too many Christians forget that, in my opinion.
> 
> Christ said He came to seek and save the lost.  He stated that it was not the healthy who needed a doctor, but the sick.  It's sad to me that many 'Christians' in America are more concerned over whether or not Bob can marry John versus if Bob or John knows that God loves them and cares about them.


True there, GOD loves the person committing the act of homosexuality, but hates the act. See in order to really love, you have to really hate sin, there just ant no way around it.


----------



## glockmail (Dec 10, 2008)

Southpaw said:


> Being a homosexual doesn't get you sent to Hell.
> 
> Not accepting Christ as your savior gets you sent to Hell.  Too many Christians forget that, in my opinion.
> 
> Christ said He came to seek and save the lost.  He stated that it was not the healthy who needed a doctor, but the sick.  It's sad to me that many 'Christians' in America are more concerned over whether or not Bob can marry John versus if Bob or John knows that God loves them and cares about them.


Jesus also said repent for your sins.


----------



## glockmail (Dec 10, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> I want to know sailor, why do you have a horse in this race? Are you gay or do you sympathize with gays?


  He's got to be one or the other.


----------



## Agnapostate (Dec 10, 2008)

Southpaw said:


> Hmm, interesting point.
> 
> If you will remember, Peter was asked to eat unclean things in a dream and Paul was pretty clear that pork was on the menu, so to speak.
> 
> I think the whole 'no gay sex' thing had less to do with diseases (though sin always has consequences) than it did with breaking God's design for human interaction and family structure.  EDIT:  That's why it would be considered a moral law and thus still applicable, even though they certainly should not be stoned.



Apparently, short passages in the book of Acts are acceptable to you when they work to your advantage, but not when they advocate a political philosophy that you oppose.


----------



## Agnapostate (Dec 10, 2008)

Southpaw said:


> David and Jonathan did not have a homosexual relationship.
> 
> Let's review.  The Bible was extremely clear on the fact that:
> 
> ...



Was the fate of David and Bathsheba's first child evidence of God's high regard for innocent life?


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 10, 2008)

It is irrelevant what happened to the child. David sinned by taking another man's woman and was punished for it. God's position is clear on immorality and speaks very plainly about how he feels. It is not really open for interpretation.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 10, 2008)

WhiteLion said:


> True there, GOD loves the person committing the act of homosexuality, but hates the act. See in order to really love, you have to really hate sin, *there just aint no way around it*.



Sure there is.  Non-theists don't have this problem.  No God; no sin, no act to hate or God to love the person.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 10, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Sure there is.  Non-theists don't have this problem.  No God; no sin, no act to hate or God to love the person.



You are absolutely right. It is time for people to be unashamed of what side they stand on. The Lord's side, or the side of people who believe there is no Lord and no sin.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 10, 2008)

by the way, sky, can you please start a buddhism thread, I would like to join and ask some genuine questions about that faith.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 10, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> You are absolutely right. It is time for people to be unashamed of what side they stand on. The Lord's side, or the side of people who believe there is no Lord and no sin.



Buddhism has codes of conduct--including sexual misconduct.  Homosexuality is not considered sexual misconduct in my lineage and school of Buddhism.

I stand in the truth fo the teachings of my path of spiritual practice.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 10, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> by the way, sky, can you please start a buddhism thread, I would like to join and ask some genuine questions about that faith.



I have already started one.


----------



## WhiteLion (Dec 10, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Sure there is.  Non-theists don't have this problem.  No God; no sin, no act to hate or God to love the person.



True, no thought for Abortion, no thought for traditional marriage, no accountibility, life is cheapened, in fact no conscious of real life substance whatsoever, its this kind of thought logic that gives countries like Russia, North Korea, China and others like'm the so-called right to KILL for any and all reasons???. But do remember this, weather or not you believe in Jesus the Christ GOD come in the flesh, you will stand accountible before him one day. GODs WORD says be not decieved for GODs not mocked for what a man soweth there he shall reap...


----------



## Father Time (Dec 11, 2008)

WhiteLion said:


> its this kind of thought logic that gives countries like Russia, North Korea, China and others like'm the so-called right to KILL for any and all reasons???.



No it was power at all costs that was the logic for them (that and trying to get the populace to tow the government line)


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 11, 2008)

You know.....it would behoove more Christians to remember that you reap what you sow.

Maybe then, they wouldn't be so intolerant of others.


----------



## Southpaw (Dec 11, 2008)

Agnapostate said:


> Apparently, short passages in the book of Acts are acceptable to you when they work to your advantage, but not when they advocate a political philosophy that you oppose.



If you are referring to communal giving/living, I tend to disagree with those who interpret the 1/2 passages in Acts as setting a pattern for all Christians.  After all, the dietary thing and the moral enforcement of the law were repeatedly established as patterns of behavior.

Second, note that these people gave freely of their own volition.  Government was not involved.  I give a fairly substantial portion of my income to others, including some to the church I go to.  That's my choice.  I don't want the government taking a sizable portion of my money to use as it will because it is incredibly inefficient and generally uses it for things which are outside of the government's responsibilities.  



Agnapostate said:


> Was the fate of David and Bathsheba's first child evidence of God's high regard for innocent life?



He got a quick trip to Heaven.

Before you respond with abortion, note that Jewish/Christian doctrine is quite clear that God can do what He wants to do.  In a spiritual context, God can kill whom He wills.


----------



## catzmeow (Dec 11, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> You are absolutely right. It is time for people to be unashamed of what side they stand on. The Lord's side, or the side of people who believe there is no Lord and no sin.



I'm pretty clearly on the side that says there is no Lord and the concept of sin is WHACK.


----------



## Southpaw (Dec 11, 2008)

catzmeow said:


> I'm pretty clearly on the side that says there is no Lord and the concept of sin is WHACK.



Are you talking about sin in the Judeo-Christian sense or right v. wrong in general?


----------



## Agnapostate (Dec 11, 2008)

Southpaw said:


> If you are referring to communal giving/living, I tend to disagree with those who interpret the 1/2 passages in Acts as setting a pattern for all Christians.  After all, the dietary thing and the moral enforcement of the law were repeatedly established as patterns of behavior.



Increasingly less so, particularly in the book of Acts, given the repeal of the Old Testament law regarding circumcision. 



Southpaw said:


> Second, note that these people gave freely of their own volition.  Government was not involved.  I give a fairly substantial portion of my income to others, including some to the church I go to.  That's my choice.  I don't want the government taking a sizable portion of my money to use as it will because it is incredibly inefficient and generally uses it for things which are outside of the government's responsibilities.



No hierarchical "government" is involved in a libertarian communist setting either, so this is more of a proscription against authoritarian socialism and communism than libertarian socialism and communism. It can be interpreted as support of the latter. 



Southpaw said:


> He got a quick trip to Heaven.
> 
> Before you respond with abortion, note that Jewish/Christian doctrine is quite clear that God can do what He wants to do.  In a spiritual context, God can kill whom He wills.



That's quite arbitrary. God could have very easily said "Thou shalt kill" rather than "Thou shalt not kill," or better yet, "Thou shalt kill infants."


----------



## Southpaw (Dec 11, 2008)

Agnapostate said:


> Increasingly less so, particularly in the book of Acts, given the repeal of the Old Testament law regarding circumcision.



Not sure where you are going with this.  Please expound.  



Agnapostate said:


> No hierarchical "government" is involved in a libertarian communist setting either, so this is more of a proscription against authoritarian socialism and communism than libertarian socialism and communism. It can be interpreted as support of the latter.



Show me a libertarian communist setting that actually works and I might be interested.  My problems with communism are less with the ideologies (though I do disagree with some of the inherent principles) and more with their historical implementation.



Agnapostate said:


> That's quite arbitrary. God could have very easily said "Thou shalt kill" rather than "Thou shalt not kill," or better yet, "Thou shalt kill infants."



He's God.  He gets to make the rules.  It's part of that whole 'I created stuff' thing.


----------



## Agnapostate (Dec 11, 2008)

Southpaw said:


> Not sure where you are going with this.  Please expound.



New Testament proscriptions ought to be a more preferable guide for Christian morality than Old Testament ones, especially since the book of Acts recounts the history of the early church immediately after the Great Commission. Hence, Christian practices in the book of Acts cannot be as quickly rejected as Old Testament dietary laws.



Southpaw said:


> Show me a libertarian communist setting that actually works and I might be interested.  My problems with communism are less with the ideologies (though I do disagree with some of the inherent principles) and more with their historical implementation.



The primary form of libertarian communism that has been implemented is that of the anarchist variety. Even so, anarcho-communism has not been as widely implemented as other forms of anarcho-socialism, yet clearly functioned in some instances. I would cite the Spanish Revolution, the Free Territory of Ukraine, the Paris Commune, and the current establishment of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation as pertinent examples of the implementation of libertarian socialism. 

Also, I'd honestly venture to say that you're unfamiliar with some of the "inherent principles" of socialism and communism, given some of your statements in the past. 



Southpaw said:


> He's God.  He gets to make the rules.  It's part of that whole 'I created stuff' thing.



I'm simply trying to gauge whether or not you have ethical standards outside of God's commands. If God had declared that the Holocaust must be committed, I wonder if you would accept that as ethical.


----------



## Southpaw (Dec 11, 2008)

Agnapostate said:


> New Testament proscriptions ought to be a more preferable guide for Christian morality than Old Testament ones, especially since the book of Acts recounts the history of the early church immediately after the Great Commission. Hence, Christian practices in the book of Acts cannot be as quickly rejected as Old Testament dietary laws.



I agree.  By the way, I do practice what the early Christians did in Acts.  I just don't agree with the idea that the government should do that for me and decide how to spend what I 'give.'



Agnapostate said:


> The primary form of libertarian communism that has been implemented is that of the anarchist variety. Even so, anarcho-communism has not been as widely implemented as other forms of anarcho-socialism, yet clearly functioned in some instances. I would cite the Spanish Revolution, the Free Territory of Ukraine, the Paris Commune, and the current establishment of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation as pertinent examples of the implementation of libertarian socialism.
> 
> Also, I'd honestly venture to say that you're unfamiliar with some of the "inherent principles" of socialism and communism, given some of your statements in the past.



I'm certainly not claiming to be an expert in socialism or communism.  I will study them at some point but I'm into some other things right now.  Why?  Because they don't work in real life.  They are not of practical interest to me.



Agnapostate said:


> I'm simply trying to gauge whether or not you have ethical standards outside of God's commands. If God had declared that the Holocaust must be committed, I wonder if you would accept that as ethical.



Very interesting question which is more complex and in-depth than one might assume.

You are asking if right is right because it is right or because God said so.  I tend to believe that because God is right, He said what was right, and therefore it is right.  However, when I discuss issues with someone who does not believe in God, I am not forced to retreat to 'because God said so' arguments because I believe it is morally self-evident as to what is right and what is not.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Dec 11, 2008)

catzmeow said:


> I'm pretty clearly on the side that says there is no Lord and the concept of sin is WHACK.




If you believe that nonsense, you shouldn't have any problem living in an place where there are no laws and crime is free to run amok.


----------



## catzmeow (Dec 11, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> If you believe that nonsense, you shouldn't have any problem living in an place where there are no laws and crime is free to run amok.



I fully believe in the concept of laws.  A god is not necessary to support laws.


----------



## catzmeow (Dec 11, 2008)

Southpaw said:


> Are you talking about sin in the Judeo-Christian sense or right v. wrong in general?



I'm talking about sin in the Judeo-Christian sense.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 12, 2008)

People who believe in God will always be at debate stalemate with irreligious people because the reasons for political stances are either religious or "logical". However, I believe that my religious reasons are also logical. Sometimes the simplest answer is the best answer. Being tolerant of peoples lifestyles is different than being accepting of peoples lifestyles. I would say I am tolerant because I tolerate it. I don't gay bash, I don't preach violence or hellfire upon them, in fact I say that gays are loved by god as much as any of his children. I do think they are in error and I will not accept that that is the way God made them and will eventually have this temptation removed in the next life and have the ability to overcome it in this life. That is how I do not accept their lifestyle.
Do you all see the difference between tolerance and acceptance?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 12, 2008)

Father Time said:


> My point exactly. It's like what Bob Dylan sang about. Oh the times they are a changing.
> 
> 20 Years ago I bet everyone would've been shocked that 2 states would let you marry gays. It would be foolish on my part to say that that means that all 50 will eventually go but still I think society is becoming more permissive.



Twenty years ago, people still expected the courts to respect the law, rather than trying to write it to suit themselves.  We have yet to be shocked by any states LEGALLY allowing homosexuals to "marry".

And I'll bet if that ever DOES get passed by a vote, THEN you'll be screeching and hollering about the "will of the people", and how important it is to respect ballot initiatives.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 12, 2008)

Charlie Bass said:


> If you believe that nonsense, you shouldn't have any problem living in an place where there are no laws and crime is free to run amok.



Did you see the Daily Show last night?  They'll play it again at 8pm tonight.  Dude, you were on!  Jon was talking to his Senior Black Correspondent about how blacks cost gays the right to marry in California, and the black guy was saying the same things you say.  He was so funny!!!!

First he said that there were no gay black men, and then Jon said, "you're saying that never have two black men had sex with each other, and the guy said, "yea, their called cellmates".

Dude, please watch it tonight.  LOL.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 12, 2008)

Is the show on the internet?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 12, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> Is the show on the internet?



Yeah....thedailyshow.com is where you can find it.  You can't get all the show, but you can get most of it.

You ought to watch it.  Comes on Monday-Thursday (he's Jewish).


----------



## jillian (Dec 12, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> Is the show on the internet?



The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Official Website | Current Events & Pop Culture News, Comedy & Fake News | Comedy Central

Just click on "full episodes"


----------



## jillian (Dec 12, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Yeah....thedailyshow.com is where you can find it.  You can't get all the show, but you can get most of it.
> 
> You ought to watch it.  Comes on Monday-Thursday (he's Jewish).



I don't think that's why he's not on Friday. Neither he nor Colbert is on Fridays. But he did a Rosh Hashanna show, I think. 

He's still awesome.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 12, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> Is the show on the internet?



Yes, go to daily show dot com.

I can't watch at work unless the forcefield is down.  Sometimes it is down.

But yes, you can definately see last nights episode right on the front page.  

Just the entire segment was funny.  Jon Stewart was asking the black guy why/how black people can turn their backs on gays.  Jon said, "is it because the black community is homophobic", and without hesitation the black guy said, "yes".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 12, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> How long have YOU been spreading insults?



Ever since I discovered that the world was populated with so many ignoramuses.  Somewhere around the fifth grade, if I recall correctly.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 12, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> Cecilie, I think somewhere you got confused, I was agreeing with you all along. I wasn't saying you weren't capable of debate. i was talking to skydancer. carefull nellie.



I know you weren't talking to me.  I was supporting you with a bit of humorous sarcasm.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 12, 2008)

Southpaw said:


> Being a homosexual doesn't get you sent to Hell.
> 
> Not accepting Christ as your savior gets you sent to Hell.  Too many Christians forget that, in my opinion.
> 
> Christ said He came to seek and save the lost.  He stated that it was not the healthy who needed a doctor, but the sick.  It's sad to me that many 'Christians' in America are more concerned over whether or not Bob can marry John versus if Bob or John knows that God loves them and cares about them.



Dying in a state of sin and disobedience to God gets you sent to Hell.  And I would like some evidence, please, of your claim that "many Christians in America are more concerned over" homosexual "marriage" than they are over telling people that God loves them.  Please don't assume that a focus on one excludes a focus on the other.  Many of us are capable of multitasking.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 12, 2008)

jillian said:


> I don't think that's why he's not on Friday. Neither he nor Colbert is on Fridays. But he did a Rosh Hashanna show, I think.
> 
> He's still awesome.



Colbert says, "so I'll be at home basking in the love of my family over the holidays and you'll be....."

And Stewart says, "eating at a chinese restaurant and going to see a movie."

They are funny together.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 12, 2008)

Agnapostate said:


> Was the fate of David and Bathsheba's first child evidence of God's high regard for innocent life?



Everyone dies eventually.  Is your point supposed to be that because God takes innocent children to Heaven, that means it's okay for humans to kill innocent children?  Are we equal to God now?  Exactly what are you getting at?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 12, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Sure there is.  Non-theists don't have this problem.  No God; no sin, no act to hate or God to love the person.



No, they just have the problem of trying to come up with a coherent reason for why they hate certain actions without having an objective moral standard to fall back on.

On the bright side, it's unfailingly entertaining for the rest of us to watch them thrashing around.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 12, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I know you weren't talking to me.  I was supporting you with a bit of humorous sarcasm.



very well then..  good show


----------



## Dante (Dec 13, 2008)

catzmeow said:


> I'm pretty clearly on the side that says there is no Lord and the concept of sin is WHACK.



meow!!! I'm with ya baby.


----------



## Agnapostate (Dec 13, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> No, they just have the problem of trying to come up with a coherent reason for why they hate certain actions without having an objective moral standard to fall back on.
> 
> On the bright side, it's unfailingly entertaining for the rest of us to watch them thrashing around.



That's remarkably absurd, and as a result, is something I'd expect to hear from you. 

I won't identify myself as a theist or non-theist because of the ease in which both sides stereotype the other, but secular non-theists derive moral and ethical standards primarily from observations of sociobiological practices, and the nature of human cooperation and formation of ethical standards over the period of evolution. 

From this, they can derive fundamental meta-ethical truths about the maximization of happiness and the minimization of suffering, (which is a basic meta-ethical truth that few will contest), simply on the grounds that happiness is "good" and suffering is "bad." Happiness and suffering thus function as broader forms of the two sovereign masters of pain and pleasure that Bentham identified as ruling over us. 

From this, they can acquire certain truths about applied ethics, including the nature of applied ethical theories such as consequentialism and utilitarianism, which is why so many secularists flock to those ethical schools.


----------



## Macintosh (Dec 17, 2008)

Agna and Southpaw, back at it again. Two folks I know well from Political Forum...

However radical Agna may be, this is an issue he and I agree on.


----------



## Agnapostate (Dec 17, 2008)

Ugh.

You'd better not be who I think you are.

EDIT: Damn it. You are. There are few people with degrees in comparative literature, and far fewer who would regard it as something to brag about.


----------



## Macintosh (Dec 17, 2008)

I don't brag about it at all. It wanted a bio and that's part of mine.

How've you been, good buddy?


----------



## Agnapostate (Dec 17, 2008)

I wonder if elephant tusks can gore a fetus.


----------



## Macintosh (Dec 17, 2008)

Agnapostate said:


> I wonder if elephant tusks can gore a fetus.



Sense of humor yet, I see.


----------



## Agnapostate (Dec 17, 2008)

On this thread like a hawk, I see.


----------



## Macintosh (Dec 18, 2008)

I haven't been to this forum in over a week, so I decided to check it out. This thread was one I visited often, so when I found you and Southpath together again, it brought a tear to my eye. The love you have for each other, you realize. I just had to say something.


----------



## Agnapostate (Dec 18, 2008)

Southpaw has somewhat redeemed himself in my eyes, and no longer occupies the low status of Irish.Perversery and Slackhustler.


----------



## Macintosh (Dec 18, 2008)

I always liked Southpaw. I liked you, too. The two of you together - well, hell, that's like a utilitarian orgasm. 

I'm not really sure what that means, but it sounded good for this thread.

Anyway, I wish you well with Cecile. She doesn't give up easily; trust me. Have fun!

I'm going to go drink some more. 

P.S. Don't worry. If Cecile beats you up too badly tomorrow, I'll be back to save you.


----------



## Agnapostate (Dec 18, 2008)

Cesspoolie is a Christfag banshee. 

She gives up easily in that she refuses to respond to my posts.

So she gives up.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 18, 2008)

Agnapostate said:


> Cesspoolie is a Christfag banshee.
> 
> She gives up easily in that she refuses to respond to my posts.
> 
> So she gives up.



And she can't go two posts without resorting to insults.

One of the many reasons I tried to end our debate

($5 says that if she responds at all she'll respond with smugness blatant assertions that she won and more insults).


----------



## Agnapostate (Dec 18, 2008)

Father Time said:


> And she can't go two posts without resorting to insults.
> 
> One of the many reasons I tried to end our debate
> 
> ($5 says that if she responds at all she'll respond with smugness blatant assertions that she won and more insults).



Too true.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 18, 2008)

Father Time said:


> And she can't go two posts without resorting to insults.
> 
> One of the many reasons I tried to end our debate
> 
> ($5 says that if she responds at all she'll respond with smugness blatant assertions that she won and more insults).



LOL  "End a debate".  THAT'S what you call running away like a whipped cur, and then skulking back to bitch and whine in the corner with the other whipped curs?  Oh, and I like that lame-ass attempt to keep me from commenting on how pathetically impotent you look doing it.  It's nearly as lame-ass as the arguments you had to run away from earlier.

Better give him that $5, because you were right to bet I'm going to laugh my ass off at how bitter you are.  Keep sniveling.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 18, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> LOL  "End a debate".  THAT'S what you call running away like a whipped cur, and then skulking back to bitch and whine in the corner with the other whipped curs?  Oh, and I like that lame-ass attempt to keep me from commenting on how pathetically impotent you look doing it.  It's nearly as lame-ass as the arguments you had to run away from earlier.
> 
> Better give him that $5, because you were right to bet I'm going to laugh my ass off at how bitter you are.  Keep sniveling.



Insults check (and barely a single sentence without one)
Smugness check
Assertions that you're better than all of us check

You really are as predictable as the tide.


----------



## 007 (Dec 18, 2008)

A topic I see no one has won.... where's "the Bass?"


----------



## Agnapostate (Dec 18, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> LOL  "End a debate".  THAT'S what you call running away like a whipped cur, and then skulking back to bitch and whine in the corner with the other whipped curs?  Oh, and I like that lame-ass attempt to keep me from commenting on how pathetically impotent you look doing it.  It's nearly as lame-ass as the arguments you had to run away from earlier.
> 
> Better give him that $5, because you were right to bet I'm going to laugh my ass off at how bitter you are.  Keep sniveling.



This coming from you, moron?

You, the one who scampered away from my posts in the Planned Parenthood thread like the spineless little coward that you are?


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 18, 2008)

Pale Rider said:


> A topic I see no one has won.... where's "the Bass?"



I love the avatar, it slayed me.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 18, 2008)

I have made my arguments. But no one can prevail in this argument because it's not really debate, it's two sides that have their minds made up. I know mine is.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 18, 2008)

Agnapostate said:


> Southpaw has somewhat redeemed himself in my eyes, and no longer occupies the low status of Irish.Perversery and Slackhustler.




Who is slackhustler?  I've been away for a bit and don't catch the refererence.

Is Spanky the Whale now Fisty the Badger?


----------



## Agnapostate (Dec 18, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Who is slackhustler?  I've been away for a bit and don't catch the refererence.



I believe he calls himself "Lackluster." Irish.Peversery calls himself "Irish.Cursory."



sky dancer said:


> Is Spanky the Whale now Fisty the Badger?



I wouldn't doubt it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 19, 2008)

Father Time said:


> Insults check (and barely a single sentence without one)
> Smugness check
> Assertions that you're better than all of us check
> 
> You really are as predictable as the tide.



One of us is still in here, actually debating the issues, and one of us ran away like a castrated weasel, then came skulking back to hurl impotent insults at the people he was too chickenshit to fight.  So if I have to choose between my insults and yours, I'll take mine.  Not only are they more creative, they're also earned by being paired with something real to say, rather than bile and liver-eating envy that you got your ass waxed.

And don't blame ME because you have absolutely no reason whatsoever to feel smug or superior.  As much as I'd like to take credit for your utter lack of balls, I'd say you were a eunuch long before I wiped the floor with you.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 20, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> One of us is still in here, actually debating the issues, and one of us ran away like a castrated weasel, then came skulking back to hurl impotent insults at the people he was too chickenshit to fight.  So if I have to choose between my insults and yours, I'll take mine.  Not only are they more creative, they're also earned by being paired with something real to say, rather than bile and liver-eating envy that you got your ass waxed.
> 
> And don't blame ME because you have absolutely no reason whatsoever to feel smug or superior.  As much as I'd like to take credit for your utter lack of balls, I'd say you were a eunuch long before I wiped the floor with you.



Hey look I can copy and paste my response from before and it will still be accurate

Insults check (and barely a single sentence without one)
Smugness check
Assertions that you're better than all of us check

You really are as predictable as the tide.

I've said again that all you ever do is respond with insults and instead of acting mature you respond with more insults and an inflamed sense of pride thus proving my point again.


----------



## chrismac (Dec 20, 2008)

Gays are blaming blacks? Ugh. 

First of all, the misconception that blacks voted for Prop 8 by 70% needs to go away. The same CNN exit poll that said 70% of blacks voted for Prop 8 is the same one that predicted it would lose, not win, by 52%. No one cares, though, because this is all about making gay people feel vindicated for acting whiny and annoying over rights they don't deserve and, in large part, already have.

Secondly, for years blacks have been telling gay people that it's offensive as fuck to compare their race to sexual orientation, and compare the civil rights movement to the gay rights movement. I'm white and I can see how that's offensive. The gay community seems to have largely told them to talk to the hand, so I don't know why people are so upset that the black community voted for the Proposition.

I think this is racist, but not for the reason most people might think. Because it's funny that the largest voting constituency in CA, or any other state, white people, got off the hook. Apparently they voted 51-49% against Prop 8. Yeah, right. The media just wants this to produce more BS culture war news. Country elects first Black president in the midst of the all the minorities, all at once, oppressing the GLBT community. Watch what happens!!!

The MSM can kiss my ass, and those of you who buy into this shit need to get real.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 20, 2008)

Well the hell have you been? We've gotten off topic and abandoned the original premise a long time ago.

Anyway why do you feel they don't deserve the right to marry that who they love?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 20, 2008)

Father Time said:


> Hey look I can copy and paste my response from before and it will still be accurate
> 
> Insults check (and barely a single sentence without one)
> Smugness check
> ...



I've said again that you lost your right to expect any OTHER response when you ran away like a scalded bitch, and then came back to snipe and whine.  Try to understand:  you're not a valid chatter any more.  You're a thoroughly, utterly defeated man-bitch who's stalking me.  And the more you keep yarking around my heels like a hyper poodle, the more you prove it.

So keep talking, Sparky.  I'll just keep flicking that fleshy patch where your balls used to be, and laughing at your impotence.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 20, 2008)

chrismac said:


> Gays are blaming blacks? Ugh.
> 
> First of all, the misconception that blacks voted for Prop 8 by 70% needs to go away. The same CNN exit poll that said 70% of blacks voted for Prop 8 is the same one that predicted it would lose, not win, by 52%. No one cares, though, because this is all about making gay people feel vindicated for acting whiny and annoying over rights they don't deserve and, in large part, already have.
> 
> ...



You know.......instead of calling you "chrismac", I'm gonna start calling you Shit Sack.

You DO realize that the CA Supreme court has figured out that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, right?


----------



## chrismac (Dec 20, 2008)

...and instead of calling you, "ABikerSailor", I'll start calling you "A Bitch-ass Sissy".

I know they found it unconstitutional. I also know the three dissenting Justices said that was pretty much bullshit based on political belief and not Constitutional merit. I also know the CA Supreme Court allowed Prop 8 to pass the smell test that had the same exact wording as the original proposition, which begs the obvious question: why in the fuck would you allow a ballot initiative to go to a public vote that has the same wording of a law you just deemed unconstitutional. If it was unconstitutional as a statute, how the fuck was it permissible as a constitutional amendment? I'll you how: the son of a bitch wasn't unconstitutional in the first place, and the Justices overturned it because of their personal beliefs.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 20, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I've said again that you lost your right to expect any OTHER response when you ran away like a scalded bitch, and then came back to snipe and whine.  Try to understand:  you're not a valid chatter any more.  You're a thoroughly, utterly defeated man-bitch who's stalking me.  And the more you keep yarking around my heels like a hyper poodle, the more you prove it.



Yeah great theory except you responded with countless unprovoked insults while we were debating and because I've given you a phony reason to fill yourself up with arrogance you feel entitled to spread more insults.

 But I guess you're right I shouldn't expect you to act mature or post anything more than smears and predictable insults. I guess that would be too much for you. Try to understand that I don't give a damn what pathetic insults you're coming up with but seeing as how you take the time to make them it must be a pride issue. 

I said before that you can't go a couple posts without insults and instead of trying to prove me wrong you desperately try to make this about me instead.

It's pretty telling.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 20, 2008)

chrismac said:


> ...and instead of calling you, "ABikerSailor", I'll start calling you "A Bitch-ass Sissy".
> 
> I know they found it unconstitutional. I also know the three dissenting Justices said that was pretty much bullshit based on political belief and not Constitutional merit. I also know the CA Supreme Court allowed Prop 8 to pass the smell test that had the same exact wording as the original proposition, which begs the obvious question: why in the fuck would you allow a ballot initiative to go to a public vote that has the same wording of a law you just deemed unconstitutional. If it was unconstitutional as a statute, how the fuck was it permissible as a constitutional amendment? I'll you how: the son of a bitch wasn't unconstitutional in the first place, and the Justices overturned it because of their personal beliefs.



You would be right if there wasn't any difference between a statute and a constitutional amendment but alas there is.


----------



## chrismac (Dec 20, 2008)

But if a statute violates their equal protection clause, why allow an amendment that allegedly does the same thing?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 20, 2008)

By the way Shit Sac, what does a cocksucker like you do for cash?

Stand on the strip down by the waterfront, blowing johns for candy bars and spare change?

You've got more in common with Muslims and Mormons than you do with anyone else.

Racist and prejudice much?


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Dec 20, 2008)

Ravi said:


> I understand the NAACP has a new motto. "The NAACP: Protecting Americans from teh Gay since 2008."
> 
> A dark chapter in black American history.


   Ravi, ravi, ravi. Wow, I'm having a an epiphany or an middle age crisis, not sure which.  A "dark note". Blacks don't equate their struggle with such a trivial  issue , a sexual one.  Albeit "preference". I  don't know if that is valid, either way, sweetheart. Ich bin ein Berliner!   We all have to struggle with what others impose on us. Yes? How we deal with it, that is another matter...


----------



## Father Time (Dec 20, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> By the way Shit Sac, what does a cocksucker like you do for cash?
> 
> Stand on the strip down by the waterfront, blowing johns for candy bars and spare change?
> 
> ...



At ease sailor, no need for flaming right now. Save it for someone like Sunni Man.


----------



## chrismac (Dec 21, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> By the way Shit Sac, what does a cocksucker like you do for cash?
> 
> Stand on the strip down by the waterfront, blowing johns for candy bars and spare change?
> 
> ...



No, that would be your mother. She gives me all the money she makes, and I give her 10%, or ten cent. She's not in demand these days, what with the economy being in dire straits and all.

Nothing I said was even remotely racist or prejudice, but I see you can only accuse me of being such. I'm not surprised.


----------



## Agnapostate (Dec 21, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I've said again that you lost your right to expect any OTHER response when you ran away like a scalded bitch, and then came back to snipe and whine.  Try to understand:  you're not a valid chatter any more.  You're a thoroughly, utterly defeated man-bitch who's stalking me.  And the more you keep yarking around my heels like a hyper poodle, the more you prove it.



It's amusing to see you carrying on like this when this is precisely what you did in the Planned Parenthood thread.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 21, 2008)

Agnapostate said:


> It's amusing to see you carrying on like this when this is precisely what you did in the Planned Parenthood thread.



Is that a statue of Socrates in your avatar?


----------



## Gunny (Dec 21, 2008)

Lighten up on the flaming please.  This is not the Flame Zone.  Try discussing the issues.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 21, 2008)

chrismac said:


> Gays are blaming blacks? Ugh.
> 
> First of all, the misconception that blacks voted for Prop 8 by 70% needs to go away. The same CNN exit poll that said 70% of blacks voted for Prop 8 is the same one that predicted it would lose, not win, by 52%. No one cares, though, because this is all about making gay people feel vindicated for acting whiny and annoying over rights they don't deserve and, in large part, already have.
> 
> ...



As I've mentioned before, it actually seems as though those who were pushing for homosexual "marriage" in California are going out of their way NOT to blame blacks for it, and to blame any and every other group they can find.  Lord, look at all the vitriol being heaped on Mormons over the subject, even just right here on the boards.  And, of course, generic "religious people" are always a handy target.  But it's WHITE churches that are getting the protests and disruptions, not black ones.


----------



## Agnapostate (Dec 21, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> Is that a statue of Socrates in your avatar?



That is Julian the Apostate, the pagan emperor who cleansed Rome of Christianity after converting from it. He's possibly the most famous Christian apostate in history.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 21, 2008)

Agnapostate said:


> That is Julian the Apostate, the pagan emperor who cleansed Rome of Christianity after converting from it. He's possibly the most famous Christian apostate in history.




Is he your hero


----------



## Father Time (Dec 21, 2008)

Cecilie1200 said:


> As I've mentioned before, it actually seems as though those who were pushing for homosexual "marriage" in California are going out of their way NOT to blame blacks for it, and to blame any and every other group they can find.  Lord, look at all the vitriol being heaped on Mormons over the subject, even just right here on the boards.  And, of course, generic "religious people" are always a handy target.  But it's WHITE churches that are getting the protests and disruptions, not black ones.



The Mormon Church did themselves no favors by putting so much money into the prop 8 campaign.

The criticism they get is their own doing.


----------



## Agnapostate (Dec 21, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> Is he your hero



Why, he just might be my patron saint.


----------



## chrismac (Dec 22, 2008)

Father Time said:


> The Mormon Church did themselves no favors by putting so much money into the prop 8 campaign.
> 
> The criticism they get is their own doing.



I think that's crap, to be honest. The Mormon Church gave around 5K or so, and half, if not most of that, were in-kind donations. Mormons gave to the cause, though I don't think they deserve vitriol either.

The No on 8 campaign had a) more money, b) more institutional support (from AG Jerry Brown, Schwarzenegger, Feinstein, Pelosi, and their personal cheerleader, Mayor Gavin Newsom), c) more external support (meaning they received money and support from not only the state of CA, but all fifty states, and several other countries, too), and d) they had most of the media in their back pocket. The Yes on 8 only had their donations and public support, so they had to put in more legwork than the No on 8 campaign.

Besides, I don't think too many people would've changed their views on the issue anyway. They voted for Prop 22 by 61% in 2000. No on 8 should've at least expected the vote to be theirs to win.


----------



## Agnapostate (Dec 22, 2008)

I'll say that Gavin Newsom served far more effectively for the Yes on Prop. 8 crowd than the "No" crowd. This ad grew so atrociously irritating by November 4th that I voted "No" on 8 just out of spite.

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4kKn5LNhNto&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4kKn5LNhNto&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]


----------



## Father Time (Dec 22, 2008)

chrismac said:


> I think that's crap, to be honest. The Mormon Church gave around 5K or so, and half, if not most of that, were in-kind donations. Mormons gave to the cause, though I don't think they deserve vitriol either.



Where are you getting 5k from? I've heard the number was much greater.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Dec 22, 2008)

Man, 91 pages and still flaming! (pun intended ) 

Is this the longest thread in USMB history?


----------



## KittenKoder (Dec 22, 2008)

At least they slowed down on making a hundred of these same threads like they normally do.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 23, 2008)

Father Time said:


> The Mormon Church did themselves no favors by putting so much money into the prop 8 campaign.
> 
> The criticism they get is their own doing.



We are proud of it and not ashamed. Finally somebody willing to say that not everthing goes. Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. There is no god, no punishment and no responsibility for our actions, so just leave us alone you religious wacko's, in fact, let's eliminate the wackos because they are wacko.
You will see it soon.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 23, 2008)

Agnapostate said:


> I'll say that Gavin Newsom served far more effectively for the Yes on Prop. 8 crowd than the "No" crowd. This ad grew so atrociously irritating by November 4th that I voted "No" on 8 just out of spite.
> 
> [youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4kKn5LNhNto&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4kKn5LNhNto&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]



So effective that you voted for Gavin Newsom's stance huh?


----------



## Shogun (Dec 23, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> We are proud of it and not ashamed. Finally somebody willing to say that not everthing goes. Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. There is no god, no punishment and no responsibility for our actions, so just leave us alone you religious wacko's, in fact, let's eliminate the wackos because they are wacko.
> You will see it soon.



indeed, your input on the restricting of rights of non-mormon Americans pretty much validates the treatment you will get.  I guess it's too bad that your dogma junkie end of days myth won't save you from the reactions of your actions, eh?


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 23, 2008)

Shogun said:


> indeed, your input on the restricting of rights of non-mormon Americans pretty much validates the treatment you will get.  I guess it's too bad that your dogma junkie end of days myth won't save you from the reactions of your actions, eh?



Save me from reactions? What are those reactions going to do to me?!


----------



## Truthspeaker (Dec 23, 2008)

This isn't about rights at all is it? This about acceptance. Gay couples have the same rights as married people. they want the word "Marriage" because they think it will make their acts accepted. Well it doesn't and it wouldn't. this is about seeing it their way and if you don't see it their way, you are a bigot and should have your vote taken away and your marriage too.
Am I wrong on this... I don't think so. All they want to do is have their ideals shoved down our throat. All we say is do what you want in private and stop obsessing over making us like it. Stop trying to dictate how we live our lives and teach our children. 
You say it doesn't affect us? Baloney, it DIRECTLY  affects all of us because you want us to validate it, you want us to vote for it and you want to teach it to MY kids that it is normal and ok when I don't think it is. Yes it does directly affect me and the rest of society. why do you think it has been such a bruising battle. Because it is important.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 23, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> Save me from reactions? What are those reactions going to do to me?!



They are the reactions that you mormons are complaining about these days when *gasp* gays react to the fact that your church worked so hard to promote the second American segregation.


How do you think your early church founders thought of my Missouri ancestors before deciding to get the fuck out of dodge and move farther west?


----------



## Shogun (Dec 23, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> This isn't about rights at all is it? This about acceptance. Gay couples have the same rights as married people. they want the word "Marriage" because they think it will make their acts accepted. Well it doesn't and it wouldn't. this is about seeing it their way and if you don't see it their way, you are a bigot and should have your vote taken away and your marriage too.
> Am I wrong on this... I don't think so. All they want to do is have their ideals shoved down our throat. All we say is do what you want in private and stop obsessing over making us like it. Stop trying to dictate how we live our lives and teach our children.
> You say it doesn't affect us? Baloney, it DIRECTLY  affects all of us because you want us to validate it, you want us to vote for it and you want to teach it to MY kids that it is normal and ok when I don't think it is. Yes it does directly affect me and the rest of society. why do you think it has been such a bruising battle. Because it is important.





No, it's about rights.  No one gives a damn if you, personally, do not accept homosexuality as a societal fact.  Interracial couples didn't give a fuck about Archie Bunkers of the 70s and 80s when choosing to look beyond the jungle fever bullshit.  No one is asking you to go suck some dick in order to show your acceptance of homosexuality.  If you feel that homosexuality is WRING then, by all means, dont go suck any dicks.  But, your opinion applied to create a second class citizenship status regarding a government-vested right to get hitched shouldn't shock you when it results in people labeling you as the new wave of American hatred.  The ONLY difference between your church and the westborough baptist church is that mormons have more money, collectively, and a state that they think is all their own.


Fact, if your god is petty enough that he'd have you crusade against the word MARRIAGE applying to gays then you should put another quarter in the diety gumball machine.  Absolutely nothing is being shoved "down your throat"  besides the concept behind the first amendment and national equality.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 23, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> We are proud of it and not ashamed. Finally somebody willing to say that not everthing goes. Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. There is no god, no punishment and no responsibility for our actions, so just leave us alone you religious wacko's, in fact, let's eliminate the wackos because they are wacko.
> You will see it soon.



How the hell did you manage to go from gay marriage to no rules, and no God?


----------



## Father Time (Dec 23, 2008)

Truthspeaker said:


> This isn't about rights at all is it? This about acceptance. Gay couples have the same rights as married people.



Except the right to get married.



Truthspeaker said:


> they want the word "Marriage" because they think it will make their acts accepted.



Straight couples get it so why not gays?



Truthspeaker said:


> Well it doesn't and it wouldn't.



Then why are you making such a big deal over it?




Truthspeaker said:


> this is about seeing it their way and if you don't see it their way, you are a bigot and should have your vote taken away and your marriage too.



Nobody but the most rabid lefties actually think that.



Truthspeaker said:


> Am I wrong on this... I don't think so. All they want to do is have their ideals shoved down our throat. All we say is do what you want in private and stop obsessing over making us like it. Stop trying to dictate how we live our lives and teach our children.



How YOU live YOUR lives? You're not gay so how the bloody hell is this affecting your life?




Truthspeaker said:


> You say it doesn't affect us? Baloney, it DIRECTLY  affects all of us because you want us to validate it, you want us to vote for it and you want to teach it to MY kids that it is normal and ok when I don't think it is.



It wasn't going to be taught to kids, that was just some of the lies of the prop 8 campaign.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIL7PUl24hE]YouTube - Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools[/ame]

And again it's asking the government to validate it. Not you personally.



Truthspeaker said:


> Yes it does directly affect me and the rest of society. why do you think it has been such a bruising battle. Because it is important.



Because people THOUGHT it was really important that gays not be allowed to marry. People can make big deals out of anything.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 23, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> he can not see the apples for his wall of oranges....
> 
> arent most necros...hetro anyways?



Given that 95-97% of the population are heterosexual, it's not only safe but utterly meaningless to say, "Aren't most [fill in the blank] heterosexual?"  Most left-handed people are heterosexual, too, but I don't think that means there's any causal connection there.  It's just mathematics.


----------



## chrismac (Dec 24, 2008)

One thing re: the "lie" that it would be taught in school.

First of all, if this was such a lie, perhaps it would've been a good idea to cut a commercial saying it's a lie and showing how it's a lie. Second, IT WASN'T A LIE.

California Code 51933 says that marriage has to be taught in any school which receives funding for sex ed, which around 96% of all CA schools do. The Yes on 8 campaign explained that it was a possibility BASED ON this statute in the Constitution, and on the fact that the same thing happens in Massachusetts. Parents sued the school for teaching their kids about same-sex marriage, and the school said not only is it the law that they teach both types of marriage, but parents had no say in the matter. 

It does say in the CA Constitution that ultimately the parents have control over what their children learn, but that's too ambiguous to definitively say it's completely false that gay marriage will be taught in schools. 

Not only that, but at the same time they said the No on 8 campaign was talking about how big of a lie this is, the SF Gate published a story about a group of 2nd graders going to their lesbian teachers wedding. Great campaigning, No on 8ers.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 24, 2008)

chrismac said:


> One thing re: the "lie" that it would be taught in school.
> 
> First of all, if this was such a lie, perhaps it would've been a good idea to cut a commercial saying it's a lie and showing how it's a lie. Second, IT WASN'T A LIE.
> 
> ...



Last I heard on the matter they oked it with the parents, I'm not sure. Oh and I checked and it only says to teach respect for marriage and I think that's supposed to be for middle schoolers, and it also says in no uncertain terms that parents can opt out. Sorry but MA law has no bearing on CA law.

But yeah let's ignore the superintendent of schools saying it wouldn't be taught.


----------



## chrismac (Dec 24, 2008)

Where did they say it was "oked" by the parents? Which parents? Where? Teaching respect for marriage could be in elementary schools, since yes, sex ed is taught in elementary school some of the time. And where does it say "in no uncertain terms" that parents could opt out?

And where's the official statement that the "superintendent of schools" assured parents that gay marriage wouldn't be taught in schools? 

I guess you can see you left some things out.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 24, 2008)

chrismac said:


> Where did they say it was "oked" by the parents? Which parents? Where? Teaching respect for marriage could be in elementary schools, since yes, sex ed is taught in elementary school some of the time. And where does it say "in no uncertain terms" that parents could opt out?
> 
> And where's the official statement that the "superintendent of schools" assured parents that gay marriage wouldn't be taught in schools?
> 
> I guess you can see you left some things out.



Question, Shit Sac, can you please explain again to all of us EXACTLY how much respect there is for marriage in the hetero community?  Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, Jerry Falwell and all his people, Fred Phelps, et al?

If you can't teach respect for marriage in your own home, how in the fuck are you going to expect it to be taught in schools?  What?  Are you too much of a lazy assed person to teach your own children correctly?  Chances are, you're none too good in the relationship department, what with your narrow assed views of marriage and all.

How about leaving marriage out of schools altogether?  I mean, the kids are there to learn, not start families in 6th grade.


----------



## chrismac (Dec 24, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> Question, Shit Sac, can you please explain again to all of us EXACTLY how much respect there is for marriage in the hetero community?  Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, Jerry Falwell and all his people, Fred Phelps, et al?
> 
> If you can't teach respect for marriage in your own home, how in the fuck are you going to expect it to be taught in schools?  What?  Are you too much of a lazy assed person to teach your own children correctly?  Chances are, you're none too good in the relationship department, what with your narrow assed views of marriage and all.
> 
> How about leaving marriage out of schools altogether?  I mean, the kids are there to learn, not start families in 6th grade.



Answer, bitch-ass, not enough. Adulterers (especially those of questionable orientation) aren't doing marriage any favors.

However, the fact that a lot of people don't respect the institution of marriage, doesn't mean all heterosexuals don't, so I'm not sure what your examples are supposed to mean.

And apparently _you're_ the lazy-assed person to do some reading. Teaching respect for marriage in the education of the California constitution, and has been there a lot longer than Prop 8 has been on the table. People who supported Prop 8 just used that fact to illustrate what could happen if gay marriage is allowed. Whether or not marriage should be taught in schools is a different issue.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 24, 2008)

chrismac said:


> Where did they say it was "oked" by the parents? Which parents? Where? Teaching respect for marriage could be in elementary schools, since yes, sex ed is taught in elementary school some of the time. And where does it say "in no uncertain terms" that parents could opt out?
> 
> And where's the official statement that the "superintendent of schools" assured parents that gay marriage wouldn't be taught in schools?
> 
> I guess you can see you left some things out.



I linked to the superintendent of schools earlier but here it is again

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIL7PUl24hE]YouTube - Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools[/ame]

Here's where it says in no uncertain terms that parents can opt out (sorry for leaving that out).

15."Do parents and/or guardians need to be informed if their child is to receive sex education or HIV/STD instruction?

Yes. The law recognizes that while parents and guardians support the teaching of medically accurate, comprehensive sex education in schools, they have the ultimate responsibility for teaching their children about human sexuality; they may choose to withdraw their children from this instruction.

EC sections 51937 and 51938 explain that parents or guardians must be notified (passive consent) by the school at the beginning of the school year about planned comprehensive sexual health education and HIV/AIDS prevention education, be given an opportunity to review materials, and be given the opportunity to request in writing that their child not participate in the instruction."

...

Parents must be notified of any planned assessments, be given the opportunity to review the assessments and, in grades seven through twelve, and be given the opportunity to request in writing that their children not participate. Prior to seventh grade, parents must give their active consent in order for their child to participate.


Frequently Asked Questions - Comprehensive Sexual Health & HIV/AIDS Instruction (CA Dept of Education)

I misread the part about it being only for middle schoolers, but it does say age appropriate and it only mentions respect for marriage will be taught.

Although I guess the burden of proof is on your side that it will be taught to elementary schoolers or kindergarteners. I haven't read anything official that would suggest this.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 25, 2008)

chrismac said:


> Answer, bitch-ass, not enough. Adulterers (especially those of questionable orientation) aren't doing marriage any favors.
> 
> However, the fact that a lot of people don't respect the institution of marriage, doesn't mean all heterosexuals don't, so I'm not sure what your examples are supposed to mean.
> 
> And apparently _you're_ the lazy-assed person to do some reading. Teaching respect for marriage in the education of the California constitution, and has been there a lot longer than Prop 8 has been on the table. People who supported Prop 8 just used that fact to illustrate what could happen if gay marriage is allowed. Whether or not marriage should be taught in schools is a different issue.



Well, shit sac, there are more adulterers (that are hetero) than there are people who actually respect marriage.  I gave you those examples to show that there are quite a few of your hetero heros that even though they say they respect it, they really don't.

Nope......not lazy assed at all......my FAMILY (not the school), taught me what marriage was supposed to be about by watching my grandparents, as my mother died when I was 8.  

You apparently want the government to do all your thinking for you.

Good luck with the career as a sheep.


----------



## chrismac (Jan 13, 2009)

Father Time said:


> I linked to the superintendent of schools earlier but here it is again
> 
> YouTube - Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools



Of course Prop 8 didn't have anything to do with schools. I think the contention was that gay marriage would be taught in schools if gay marriage is allowed to remain legal.



> Here's where it says in no uncertain terms that parents can opt out (sorry for leaving that out).
> 
> 15."Do parents and/or guardians need to be informed if their child is to receive sex education or HIV/STD instruction?
> 
> ...




Fair enough. There is still a problem. Those parents' tax dollars still go towards funding the school, and probably the sex-ed program, also. They still have the right to say what they want their tax dollars funding, even if they can opt their children out. 




> Frequently Asked Questions - Comprehensive Sexual Health & HIV/AIDS Instruction (CA Dept of Education)
> 
> I misread the part about it being only for middle schoolers, but it does say age appropriate and it only mentions respect for marriage will be taught.
> 
> Although I guess the burden of proof is on your side that it will be taught to elementary schoolers or kindergarteners. I haven't read anything official that would suggest this.



Depending on the school district and when they decide to teach it, sex ed can start in 5-6 grade. At least, where I'm from. Then again, it might be different in CA. since I don't know if their elementary schools still go to 6th grade, or even 7th grade.


----------



## chrismac (Jan 13, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Well, shit sac, there are more adulterers (that are hetero) than there are people who actually respect marriage.  I gave you those examples to show that there are quite a few of your hetero heros that even though they say they respect it, they really don't.
> 
> Nope......not lazy assed at all......my FAMILY (not the school), taught me what marriage was supposed to be about by watching my grandparents, as my mother died when I was 8.
> 
> ...



Uh, no fucking shit straight people cheat on their spouses. You want a cookie, bitch ass?

Oh please. I'm all for less government. I don't think schools should be teaching sex ed at all, and it's the liberals who want more of it, not conservatives.


----------



## sitarro (Jan 13, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ya, as I recall black men claim if they are the GIVER they are not Gay, same as Arab men.



Especially in Africa where they enjoy little boys so much.


----------



## sitarro (Jan 13, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> I believe racists said the same thing about blacks marrying whites.  I also believe that back during the civil rights movement, racists were able to use the bible to show why and where god does not approve of interacial marriage.
> 
> All that doesn't matter in America.  As long as they aren't hurting anyone, they should be able to do it.  As long as straight couples get the benefits, gay couples should too.  And of course as long as it's not against the law.  Is it?  Is it illegal to be gay?
> 
> What you said is your opinion.  So start arguing with facts.  Or prove your claim.  Because I think hetero couples are doing fine on their own ruining the sactity of marriage.



When the NAMBLAs of the world start demanding special rights, you'll pull these same bullshit quote out, dust them off and repost them in support of those sick fucks.


----------



## sitarro (Jan 13, 2009)

Mr. President said:


> See Im not for gay marriage im against it.  However, Gay Partnership or whatever else you want to name it thats not marriage is ok with me.  The way I see it is if an EQUAL alternative is created we can protect the sanctity of marriage and allow the economic advantages to homosexual couples that are granted to heterosexual couples.  You know kind of like NBA WNBA.



It's always about basketball with "you" people, isn't it?


----------



## Truthspeaker (Jan 13, 2009)

There sure are a lot of avatars with cats on them. Jeez well, it is nice to see some people who still want marriage to stay traditional. They may flame a little more than me but I think their hearts are in the right place.


----------



## WhiteLion (Jan 13, 2009)

Truthspeaker said:


> There sure are a lot of avatars with cats on them. Jeez well, it is nice to see some people who still want marriage to stay traditional. They may flame a little more than me but I think their hearts are in the right place.


If ive told these dumb idiots once, ive toldem a 100 times, homosexuality is nothing more than Societal Identity Theft (SIT) in any sense of the word period............


----------



## Father Time (Jan 14, 2009)

Truthspeaker said:


> They may flame a little more than me but I think their hearts are in the right place.



If they weren't they'd probably die.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Jan 14, 2009)

You guys crack me up


----------



## Dante (Jan 14, 2009)

chrismac said:


> Of course Prop 8 didn't have anything to do with schools. I think the contention was that gay marriage would be taught in schools if gay marriage is allowed to remain legal.


the contention? you mean the big lie? 




> Fair enough. There is still a problem. Those parents' tax dollars still go towards funding the school, and probably the sex-ed program, also. They still have the right to say what they want their tax dollars funding, even if they can opt their children out.


People do have a right to say what they want about how tax dollars are spent, but using your logic the people who are anti war should do what? Some do not want their tax dollars being spent on war. Should we have a referendum on never going to war? 

sounds crazy shadow but it isn't. public policy by referendum and ballot initiative is bad government.

people's tax dollars become government money when it enters the government fund. Every day people's tax dollars/government funds are used to pay for things individual tax payers disagree with. 

when it comes to the gay marriage debate...
we'd have anarchy if we used a system/method of government that many people suggest.



> Depending on the school district and when they decide to teach it, sex ed can start in 5-6 grade. At least, where I'm from. Then again, it might be different in CA. since I don't know if their elementary schools still go to 6th grade, or even 7th grade.



I don't have kids in schools...do I have a say?


----------



## Truthspeaker (Jan 14, 2009)

Here in California, kids have been taught how to put condoms on cucumbers as early as 1st grade. That's truly important for our kids to know at that age don't you think?


----------



## Father Time (Jan 15, 2009)

Truthspeaker said:


> Here in California, kids have been taught how to put condoms on cucumbers as early as 1st grade. That's truly important for our kids to know at that age don't you think?



Source?


----------



## Truthspeaker (Jan 15, 2009)

Father Time said:


> Source?



I'll tell you what, I was taught in 5th grade. Way too soon. I have only heard stories of schools which have done it as early as first grade but now your boy Obama wants to the good times to roll even earlier.
Political Radar: Sex Ed for Kindergarteners 'Right Thing to Do,' Says Obama


----------



## jillian (Jan 15, 2009)

Truthspeaker said:


> I'll tell you what, I was taught in 5th grade. Way too soon. I have only heard stories of schools which have done it as early as first grade but now your boy Obama wants to the good times to roll even earlier.
> Political Radar: Sex Ed for Kindergarteners 'Right Thing to Do,' Says Obama



AGE APPROPRIATE sex ed, if you read the article. That means good touch/bad touch when they're little, so they can avoid being victimized. Surely you couldn't object to that.


----------



## elvis (Jan 15, 2009)

jillian said:


> AGE APPROPRIATE sex ed, if you read the article. That means good touch/bad touch when they're little, so they can avoid being victimized. Surely you couldn't object to that.



oh no.  I am worried about how he's going to respond to this.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Jan 15, 2009)

jillian said:


> AGE APPROPRIATE sex ed, if you read the article. That means good touch/bad touch when they're little, so they can avoid being victimized. Surely you couldn't object to that.



Sex ed should be taught at home. I think kids are smart enough to already know what "good touch and bad touch" is by the time they are 5. "Age appropriate" is just a snaky way of expressing the desire to expose our kids to sex earlier and earlier. Just let them be kids for crying out loud.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Jan 15, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> oh no.  I am worried about how he's going to respond to this.



Yes be afraid, be very afraid. What's the thread topic again?


----------



## Father Time (Jan 15, 2009)

Truthspeaker said:


> Sex ed should be taught at home. I think kids are smart enough to already know what "good touch and bad touch" is by the time they are 5. "Age appropriate" is just a snaky way of expressing the desire to expose our kids to sex earlier and earlier. Just let them be kids for crying out loud.



Yes lawmakers and our future president have a desire to expose our kids to sex.

Come on I doubt even you seriously believe this.

Tis nothing but a laughably bad attempt at demonisation.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jan 15, 2009)

Truthspeaker said:


> Sex ed should be taught at home. I think kids are smart enough to already know what "good touch and bad touch" is by the time they are 5. "Age appropriate" is just a snaky way of expressing the desire to expose our kids to sex earlier and earlier. Just let them be kids for crying out loud.



Really?  Sex ed should be taught at home?  What if you're living with the FLDS and Warren Jeffs' followers?  Do you think that "bad touch" is taught like it should be?  That particular little cult of Mormonism wouldn't be able to differentiate, and therefore, would not be qualified to teach sex ed at home.

Nor would most religions today, as they've been taken over by the fanatics.  If you teach abstinence only, one of two things will happen.....either (a) the kids ignore it and get pregnant anyway, leading to overpopulation and crime, or (b) nobody has sex and the human race dies out.

When should sex education be taught?  Probably at kindergarten/1st grade, as that is when most kids start playing "doctor".  Incidentally, this is also a prime time to teach kids about "bad touch", as most children are molested between the ages of 8 and 13.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Jan 15, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Really?  Sex ed should be taught at home?  What if you're living with the FLDS and Warren Jeffs' followers?  Do you think that "bad touch" is taught like it should be?  That particular little cult of Mormonism wouldn't be able to differentiate, and therefore, would not be qualified to teach sex ed at home.
> 
> Nor would most religions today, as they've been taken over by the fanatics.  If you teach abstinence only, one of two things will happen.....either (a) the kids ignore it and get pregnant anyway, leading to overpopulation and crime, or (b) nobody has sex and the human race dies out.
> 
> When should sex education be taught?  Probably at kindergarten/1st grade, as that is when most kids start playing "doctor".  Incidentally, this is also a prime time to teach kids about "bad touch", as most children are molested between the ages of 8 and 13.



Just because sex ed SHOULD be taught properly at home, doesn't mean it always does. People will find out about sex anyway on their own when they want to. I just don't think we should force it on them when they don't even bring it up.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jan 15, 2009)

Truthspeaker said:


> Just because sex ed SHOULD be taught properly at home, doesn't mean it always does. People will find out about sex anyway on their own when they want to. I just don't think we should force it on them when they don't even bring it up.



Really?  Then you're an idiot.  If you don't teach your children about what could happen, then, they will not know, and possibly get taken advantage of.

Same with those child molesters in Warren Jeffs' cult.

Yes....people will learn about sex anyway.  However, a little knowledge about the subject, as well as what could happen, as well as a talk on abstinence is always appropriate.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Jan 15, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Really?  Then you're an idiot.  If you don't teach your children about what could happen, then, they will not know, and possibly get taken advantage of.
> 
> Same with those child molesters in Warren Jeffs' cult.
> 
> Yes....people will learn about sex anyway.  However, a little knowledge about the subject, as well as what could happen, as well as a talk on abstinence is always appropriate.



Your words don't make sense


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 15, 2009)

Truthspeaker said:


> Here in California, kids have been taught how to put condoms on cucumbers as early as 1st grade. That's truly important for our kids to know at that age don't you think?



I never got that whole cucumber thing. I mean, geez, talk about setting girls up for a BIG disappointment later in life.  Cucumber?  Really?  You guys _wish_.


----------



## glockmail (Jan 15, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I never got that whole cucumber thing. I mean, geez, talk about setting girls up for a BIG disappointment later in life.  Cucumber?  Really?  You guys _wish_.



Gherkins?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jan 16, 2009)

Truthspeaker said:


> Your words don't make sense



They don't make sense only because you're such a close minded idiot that you can't see the logic in them.

Abstinence only education NEVER works, people only think it does.

And.....if you're unwilling to prepare your child for the real world, good luck with that......if you have a daughter, she'd end up pregnant prior to marriage by only being taught abstinence only.

I GUARANTEE IT!


----------



## Truthspeaker (Jan 16, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I never got that whole cucumber thing. I mean, geez, talk about setting girls up for a BIG disappointment later in life.  Cucumber?  Really?  You guys _wish_.



Only in the porn world where they take dick steroids


----------



## Truthspeaker (Jan 16, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> They don't make sense only because you're such a close minded idiot that you can't see the logic in them.
> 
> Abstinence only education NEVER works, people only think it does.
> 
> ...



Well there's definitely no arguing with you


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jan 16, 2009)

Considering that you're such an idiot (non)TruthSpeaker, it's no wonder that you can't debate this.

You ain't got either the brains, OR the balls.

You're a fucking eunich.  Just out of curiosity, do they cut off your testicles before or after you convert to Moronism?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jan 16, 2009)

Considering that you're such an idiot (non)TruthSpeaker, it's no wonder that you can't debate this.

You ain't got either the brains, OR the balls.

You're a fucking eunich.  Just out of curiosity, do they cut off your testicles before or after you convert to Moronism?


----------



## sitarro (Jan 16, 2009)

That's amazing, I didn't think you could repeat the same post on this site but skooter has proven that if you are inept enough, it's possible.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 16, 2009)

My children were taught good touch/bad touch in preschool without a sex ed curriculum.

The whole smokescreen is just a way to sexualize our children legally though the schools, and the "anti-predator" chant is simply a way to make it palatable.

And it isn't the job of the schools to decide to "re-educate" our children if they don't like the way parents are teaching things at home. The function of a public school is to teach our children to read, to write, to expose them to classical education and mathematics, and to prepare them for college.

The purpose of school is NOT to teach them to rebel against the religious and secular teachings of their parents, or to create a "new order" in step with what the left thinks is appropriate.

Anything outside of teaching the basics is bullshit and has no place in the school. This includes those idiotic "streetwise" programs which first label at-risk youth, then pull them out of regular classes to further isolate and stigmatize them, and give them pizza while taking them around to all the free health clinics for their pelvics, and showing them where all the abortion clinics, and holding their hands and telling them that despite the fact they're experimenting with drugs and risky sex, they'll always be okay in the eyes of the school counselors.


----------



## sitarro (Jan 16, 2009)

Hey skooter, 

Please stop with the neg reps, it hurts me so much, I can barely stand it.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jan 16, 2009)

sitarro said:


> Hey skooter,
> 
> Please stop with the neg reps, it hurts me so much, I can barely stand it.



Go back to your sand box pussy.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Jan 16, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> My children were taught good touch/bad touch in preschool without a sex ed curriculum.
> 
> The whole smokescreen is just a way to sexualize our children legally though the schools, and the "anti-predator" chant is simply a way to make it palatable.
> 
> ...



Wow!!!!!
AllieBaba For Superintendant!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Truthspeaker (Jan 16, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Go back to your sand box pussy.



Hey Jack Sparrow, why don't you go back to the black pearl?


----------



## Father Time (Jan 16, 2009)

Truthspeaker said:


> Wow!!!!!
> AllieBaba For Superintendant!!!!!!!!!



I've never actually seen a public school that teaches kids to rebel against religious anything. 

Putting that aside what possible benefit would they have to sexualize children? Can't think of anything really. Teaching them to avoid predators mean they can pull a 'I'm thinking about the children' card (rightfully or not is up for debate).

If they really were trying to sexualize them and then some of the parents found out, got proof and it was put out on the media (and trust me the media would be all over it, probably even if were still at 'baseless rumor' stage) then that politician's career would go down at record speed.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jan 16, 2009)

So.....lemmie get this right......

Most of you think that providing sex education in school is wrong?  Well......considering that most parents today don't take the time to educate their children, or, if they do, generally the parents aren't as well informed as their kids.  Most families have both parents working, with the children in after school programs or latch key kids (of which I was one).

Don't you think that providing good solid information about pregnancy prevention, as well as birth control belongs WITH abstinence education instead of nothing but telling them "just say no"?


----------



## glockmail (Jan 16, 2009)

sitarro said:


> That's amazing, I didn't think you could repeat the same post on this site but skooter has proven that if you are inept enough, it's possible.


He's been making a habit of it.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Jan 16, 2009)

I am not against sex education, but in my opinion kids shouldn't be talking about sex until 9th grade. We don't teach them calculus until high school because they aren't ready for it. Just like a lot of other subjects. They just aren't ready for it. If you want to talk age appropriate then let's talk about what is going to benefit kids. 
Certainly if they get the permission to teach that straight sex is ok, then they will get the permission to teach that gay sex is ok because it's "just another variation or expression of sex."
The education system is full of liberal lobbyists who can find no better arena to push their agenda than on accepting young minds.
That is the big secret.
And the media already is all over it, but because they are in bed with the schools, they paint young sex ed as "progressive" when it is really devious.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jan 16, 2009)

Truthspeaker said:


> I am not against sex education, but in my opinion kids shouldn't be talking about sex until 9th grade. We don't teach them calculus until high school because they aren't ready for it. Just like a lot of other subjects. They just aren't ready for it. If you want to talk age appropriate then let's talk about what is going to benefit kids.
> Certainly if they get the permission to teach that straight sex is ok, then they will get the permission to teach that gay sex is ok because it's "just another variation or expression of sex."
> The education system is full of liberal lobbyists who can find no better arena to push their agenda than on accepting young minds.
> That is the big secret.
> And the media already is all over it, but because they are in bed with the schools, they paint young sex ed as "progressive" when it is really devious.



You're right.  I don't want 3rd graders learning about the G spot, nor do I really think it's important to show pre-pubescent kids about how a penis and a vagina fit together.  But......I do want them told it is inappropriate until after they gain some maturity.....say, 'round high school level.

And......instead of teaching about "gay" or "straight" sex, how about leaving all that out of it, and just calling it "reproduction"?  Let the parents sort that out, because hey.......they're supposed to teach their children, right?  And, it's not so much the "libs" are pushing a gay agenda, they're just asking for equal rights, and here is one place where I would say no.

Condoms will provide protection against HIV, which is all the kids really need to know about that subject.

And, as far as I've been able to determine, it's impossible for gay sex to lead to reproduction (at least, right now).  So, instead of "gay" or "straight" sex, just tell the kids this is the series of events that lead to pregnancy, and then, tell them what to do to prevent it if they decide to try it before they are adults.

Dunno if it's devious or not, depends on your perspective and how strong your conspiracy theory muscles are.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 16, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> So.....lemmie get this right......
> 
> Most of you think that providing sex education in school is wrong?  Well......considering that most parents today don't take the time to educate their children, or, if they do, generally the parents aren't as well informed as their kids.  Most families have both parents working, with the children in after school programs or latch key kids (of which I was one).
> 
> Don't you think that providing good solid information about pregnancy prevention, as well as birth control belongs WITH abstinence education instead of nothing but telling them "just say no"?



It's one thing to teach kids about reproduction and the mechanics of birth control (provided they're of a reasonable age). It's a completely different matter to user in "sex ed" to 4-5 year olds under the guise of teaching them to avoid predators. Assisting young girls to obtain abortions without the knowledge of their parents is also far, far outside the realm of the school's authority. But that's what school counselors do.

Likewise I think it is a travesty of the education for school counselors to lead confused teens to groups such as the Gay and Lesbian groups. I can't remember what that group is called, but for it to exist and be funded by public education dollars, and for school counselors to take it upon themselves to guide impressionable children into such groups is disgusting and outside the realm of public education. Which is the main reason it's so hush-hush.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jan 16, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> It's one thing to teach kids about reproduction and the mechanics of birth control (provided they're of a reasonable age). It's a completely different matter to user in "sex ed" to 4-5 year olds under the guise of teaching them to avoid predators. Assisting young girls to obtain abortions without the knowledge of their parents is also far, far outside the realm of the school's authority. But that's what school counselors do.
> 
> Likewise I think it is a travesty of the education for school counselors to lead confused teens to groups such as the Gay and Lesbian groups. I can't remember what that group is called, but for it to exist and be funded by public education dollars, and for school counselors to take it upon themselves to guide impressionable children into such groups is disgusting and outside the realm of public education. Which is the main reason it's so hush-hush.





Oh shit.......I think that was the opening trumpet for Armageddon.........

Allie and I agree about something!


----------



## Father Time (Jan 16, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> It's one thing to teach kids about reproduction and the mechanics of birth control (provided they're of a reasonable age). It's a completely different matter to user in "sex ed" to 4-5 year olds under the guise of teaching them to avoid predators.



But that's just the thing what benefits do they have of teaching real sex ed to four or five year olds that probably aren't interested in the opposite sex at that age anyway? And still if it goes public the political career of whoever suggested it goes down in flames. There has to be conservative preschool teachers in even the bluest of blue states (Ma) so once they figure what they're supposed to be doing you think they'd still keep it a secret?



AllieBaba said:


> Assisting young girls to obtain abortions without the knowledge of their parents is also far, far outside the realm of the school's authority. But that's what school counselors do.


If that's true go after those individual school counselors. That's truly unacceptable behavior.



AllieBaba said:


> Likewise I think it is a travesty of the education for school counselors to lead confused teens to groups such as the Gay and Lesbian groups. I can't remember what that group is called, but for it to exist and be funded by public education dollars, and for school counselors to take it upon themselves to guide impressionable children into such groups is disgusting and outside the realm of public education. Which is the main reason it's so hush-hush.



I agree. They shouldn't teach them gay is bad, but they shouldn't encourage them to be gay especially if they aren't sure where they swing.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 16, 2009)

It is a sign the end is near.


----------



## kalidan (Oct 4, 2009)

Well I don't believe in racism. I believe people just don't have much in common and hate change, not each other. Like dogs hate cats, lions and hyenas we instinctively react to color, or size. If you see a tiger on your front lawn you call the police or become violent. If you see a cat you react totally different and shoo it away. America is not the only intolerant place in the world neither is it the most religious. Tribes all over the world have little tolerance for MANY of what we modern society would deem "normal", like homosexuality. And MANY of these tribes have never met a modern man in their lives let alone considered many of the "freedoms" and laws we have. 

No one should force anyone to take them into their life, or lifestyle. And there are ALOT more people in the world who have more pressing issues than who they have sex with and are discriminated against. Besides if most homosexuals (who are White) didn't mention they were gay they wouldn't have any problems. I imagine Black gays are the triple minority.But homosexuality seems to be the LAST thing the Black community is concerned with because they have so much more to work on. White homosexuals don't have the same inhibitions of instant judgment on skin color and can get by if they keep it to themselves. So I don't think it's not that the Black community doesn't care it's just they realize there are more pressing issues. I don't remember colonists enslaving gays 500 years ago for their abilities to build a nation.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 4, 2009)

kalidan said:


> well i don't believe in racism. I believe people just don't have much in common and hate change, not each other. Like dogs hate cats, lions and hyenas we instinctively react to color, or size. If you see a tiger on your front lawn you call the police or become violent. If you see a cat you react totally different and shoo it away. America is not the only intolerant place in the world neither is it the most religious. Tribes all over the world have little tolerance for many of what we modern society would deem "normal", like homosexuality. And many of these tribes have never met a modern man in their lives let alone considered many of the "freedoms" and laws we have.
> 
> No one should force anyone to take them into their life, or lifestyle. And there are alot more people in the world who have more pressing issues than who they have sex with and are discriminated against. Besides if most homosexuals (who are white) didn't mention they were gay they wouldn't have any problems. I imagine black gays are the triple minority.but homosexuality seems to be the last thing the black community is concerned with because they have so much more to work on. White homosexuals don't have the same inhibitions of instant judgment on skin color and can get by if they keep it to themselves. So i don't think it's not that the black community doesn't care it's just they realize there are more pressing issues. I don't remember colonists enslaving gays 500 years ago for their abilities to build a nation.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 5, 2009)

funny, I found this from The American Psycological Association as recently as May 14th, 2009. 

It sounds like somewhat of a contradiction

my own personal Un-Biased research

Here is the link I started at

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=is+there+a+gay+gene&aq=f&aqi=g1&oq=&fp=1&cad=b

the most up to date link I could find was May 14th 2009

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=528376

APA revises 'gay gene' theory

Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 5/14/2009 6:30:00 AM

The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there's no homosexual "gene" -- meaning it's not likely that homosexuals are born that way.

For decades, the APA has not considered homosexuality a psychological disorder, while other professionals in the field consider it to be a "gender-identity" problem. But the new statement, which appears in a brochure called "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality," states the following:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles...."





Macintosh said:


> While engaging in homosexual acts is a choice, as are all sexual acts, the orientation itself is not a choice.
> when is this
> 
> From The American Psychological Association:
> ...


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 6, 2009)

Still after all of these years.

The APA refuses to reclassify homosexuality as a mental illness.

Now they call it a "gender-identity" problem.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 6, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > And they would be right.  If the Bass hadn't forgot what it is like to be discriminated against, the Bass would see clearly and give these people equal rights.
> ...




Equal civil rights are equal civil rights are equal civil rights.


----------



## paperview (Oct 6, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Still after all of these years.
> 
> The APA refuses to reclassify homosexuality as a mental illness.
> 
> Now they call it a "gender-identity" problem.


No. They don't classify it as that.  By and large (with a few exceptions) Being gay or lesbian relates to sexual orientation, not gender identity. 
Gender Identity is regarded as a disorder or condition in which a person feels discomfort with his or her biological sex, and the APA classifies that separately.  
Most gays & lesbians are completely comfortable with his or her biological sex.  


Answers to Your Questions For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality

Wrong.

Again.

Sunni-man


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 6, 2009)

Just because some homos accept their abnormal mental condition.

Doesn't mean that they don't have a mental disfunction.

They just choose to live with it.


----------



## HUGGY (Oct 6, 2009)

This thread is gay.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 6, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> This thread is gay.



Well,  duh!


----------



## indianaboy (Oct 6, 2009)

YWN666 said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > The sealybobo is wrong. Being "discriminated" against because of gay sex acts[which are voluntary, willful sex acts] vs being discriminated against because of skin colour/race/ethnicity is *NOT* the same.
> ...



Keep on telling yourself that, champ!


----------



## bodecea (Oct 6, 2009)

indianaboy said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie Bass said:
> ...



So prison is full of homosexuals, or full of men (women) who are going for any port in a storm?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 6, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Just because some homos accept their abnormal mental condition.
> 
> Doesn't mean that they don't have a mental disfunction.
> 
> They just choose to live with it.



Speaking of which Sunnidiot.......how are you coping with your mental dysfunction (and yes, I spelled it right).  

You know.........for someone who supposedly is married to a doctor, as well as claims to be a shrink, why the fuck don't you know how to spell medical terms?


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Oct 6, 2009)

bodecea said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



gay sex acts are not Civil Rights, sexual acts are not covered under Civil Rights.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Oct 6, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Just because some homos accept their abnormal mental condition.
> ...



If you think a man taking another man's penis up his anus is not wrong you are the mentally sick one Bikerfailure.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 6, 2009)

I knew I could count on Ass Chucker!


----------



## paperview (Oct 6, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie Bass said:
> ...


A sexual orientation is not a_ sex act_.  Idiot.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Oct 6, 2009)

paperview said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Gay pertains to sex acts, not some fake orientation, if one takes it up the anus and the're a man thats gay.


----------



## paperview (Oct 6, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie Bass said:
> ...


1) No.  Gay refers to sexual orientation.  If a woman, for example, was virginal - or celibate -- and straight-- her sexual orientation would still be heterosexual.  Same for a man. 
Same if they engage in sex.  It is the orientation - not the sex that defines a persons sexuality. 

2) Not all male homosexuals engage in anal sex, in fact many do not.

3) Lesbians are oriented to be attracted to other women, and therefore, when engaging in private consensual  sex, generally speaking 
do not 'take it up the anus.'


----------



## KittenKoder (Oct 6, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie Bass said:
> ...



You really are just an idiot looking for things to hate.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 6, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie Bass said:
> ...



So, by that logic, it's okay to smoke a choad, but not get slammed anally?

Smile like a donut motherfucker.


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 6, 2009)

paperview said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Sure, you can slice and dice them into several categories,

But the bottom is; they are all sick, nasty, perverts.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Oct 8, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...




gay is all about sex acts, the same with being heterosexual, why are you so determined to make the Bass accept homosexuality? those of us who are of God will never accept it.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Oct 8, 2009)

Boosterman said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



The Bass doesn't care about what gays do, its the gays that are so eager to want people to accept their homosexuality, why can't they keep it to themselves?


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 8, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> Boosterman said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie Bass said:
> ...


This is just the first step in the homo agenda.

Next they will want the public to accept pedophilia as OK


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 8, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> Boosterman said:
> 
> 
> > Charlie Bass said:
> ...



If you don't care about what gays do, then why is it you have to start one of these fucked up "gays are bad and evil" threads once a week?

I think you DO care.  I also think you are jealous of being able to have homosexual relations because you're a closet case.


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 8, 2009)

Boosterman said:


> I knew you ******* were going to get all uppity once we gave you your freedom.



Looks like your new friend ABikerSailor is a member of the KKK or Aryan Nation


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 8, 2009)

Sunni Man said:


> Boosterman said:
> 
> 
> > I knew you ******* were going to get all uppity once we gave you your freedom.
> ...



Hey......asshole known as the racist anti Jew motherfucking idiot known as Sunnidiot...

I'm not the one that's a racist prick, you are.  

Go ahead cock smoker..........show a post where I've been a supporter of the KKK or Aryan Nation.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Oct 8, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > Boosterman said:
> ...



If two men want to slam each others buttholes thats their biz, the Bass doesn't care what they do, as long as they don't start stupid movements to spread acceptance of it. You seem to care so much that the Bass hates homosexual sex acts, why is that?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 8, 2009)

Bass.......accept your gayness, come out of the closet and start planting flowers.

You'll feel better, and we'll feel better, because you won't be taking out your self-loathing gay bashing on here, and we won't have to listen to your blithering bullshit.

By the way..........did you know that most of the heterosexual porn has lots of anal sex?  Seems that the new thing is to watch some chick get butt slammed, or double porked.

Does that make her gay as well Bass?  After all, she is having sex via a slamming butthole.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Oct 9, 2009)

Boosterman said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Boosterman said:
> ...



Blacks and fags were never in the same spot, fags have never been in the same position as blacks.


----------



## Oscar Wao (Oct 9, 2009)

Boosterman said:


> (b)ass, you mean coons and fags.


Yeah, if you're gonna use slurs, slur both groups.

And BTW, gays may not be the same as blacks on some respects, but in others, you can make historical comparisons.


----------



## betchamad (Oct 11, 2009)

Good news.


----------



## Father Time (Oct 11, 2009)

betchamad said:


> Good news.



This isn't news. This is an ancient topic from around a year ago, and they didn't blame blacks, they went after the Mormons.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Oct 11, 2009)

Father Time said:


> This isn't news. This is an ancient topic from around a year ago, and they didn't blame blacks, they went after the Mormons.



Yep. They couldnt accept that perhaps the majority of people dont want it.


----------



## Father Time (Oct 11, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > This isn't news. This is an ancient topic from around a year ago, and they didn't blame blacks, they went after the Mormons.
> ...



Were they disputing the results of the election? If not then your claims are completely ludicrous.

Hey Mormons were a big funder of prop 8 so why not protest them?


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 11, 2009)

exactly, the little dick basterds didnt have the balls to go after black churches, they only went after the same target, mormons



Father Time said:


> betchamad said:
> 
> 
> > Good news.
> ...


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 11, 2009)

its the inconsistently, 70% of blacks voted against gay marriage, but no protesting at black churchs, hmm



Father Time said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Father Time said:
> ...


----------



## Father Time (Oct 12, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> its the inconsistently, 70% of blacks voted against gay marriage, but no protesting at black churchs, hmm
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well if you hit the Mormon churchs you can be sure the people you're protesting are at the very least connected with a group that supported Prop 8.

Hit up a black church there's a chance that that individual church wasn't connected to the prop 8 campaign or encouraging people to vote for it, which would be a waste of time and could backfire.

Although I can't help but feel fear of accusations of racism had something to do with it.

It's not like there was a 'black supporters of prop 8' group.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 12, 2009)

but father time, you telling me they couldnt find out how a black church's pastor felt about homosexuality/gay marriage?

in san diego, their were three prominent pastors against gay marriage, I can remember of the top of my head, but miles mcpherson, is the only one of them i remember the name.



Father Time said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > its the inconsistently, 70% of blacks voted against gay marriage, but no protesting at black churchs, hmm
> ...


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Oct 12, 2009)

I believe the vote shows, that the black community right or wrong has a history of being less accepting to gays then the white community.


----------



## Father Time (Oct 12, 2009)

actsnoblemartin said:


> but father time, you telling me they couldnt find out how a black church's pastor felt about homosexuality/gay marriage?
> 
> in san diego, their were three prominent pastors against gay marriage, I can remember of the top of my head, but miles mcpherson, is the only one of them i remember the name.
> 
> ...



Well then... I don't know. I honestly don't know the logic that went behind who they protested and why (I wasn't involved), everything I had was just guessing.


----------



## Nemesis7293 (Oct 12, 2009)

As a white, liberal, homosexual I'm wondering why so....SO many black men enjoy getting their dicks sucked by other men. Always on the "DL", of course. I also wonder why the black community at large insists that rap is art, why the same community insists that 'hip-hop" culture represents the entirety of black culture, why if a black person speaks English correctly and shows that they are intelligent they are accused of "acting white" by other black people.....is being stupid and ignorant "acting black"?, why the "N" word is "the worst word in the world".....unless black people consider themselves superior to everyone else in the world, and why black people do seem to consider themselves superior to everyone else in the world when they are as fallible, miserable, ugly, and hate filled as everyone else on the face of the Earth. I'd like to write more, but I have to go have some sweaty, grunting, spit-lubed, gay butt-sex.....with a hot black guy.


----------



## Nemesis7293 (Oct 12, 2009)

Quite to the point. The Black community has a history of being less accepting of everyone else besides other blacks. They're as hate filled as any Klan member.


actsnoblemartin said:


> I believe the vote shows, that the black community right or wrong has a history of being less accepting to gays then the white community.


----------



## Father Time (Oct 12, 2009)

Nemesis not all blacks act like that or believe all that crap. Yes the ones that do do themselves a disservice.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 12, 2009)

Nemesis7293 said:


> As a white, liberal, homosexual I'm wondering why so....SO many black men enjoy getting their dicks sucked by other men. Always on the "DL", of course. I also wonder why the black community at large insists that rap is art, why the same community insists that 'hip-hop" culture represents the entirety of black culture, why if a black person speaks English correctly and shows that they are intelligent they are accused of "acting white" by other black people.....is being stupid and ignorant "acting black"?, why the "N" word is "the worst word in the world".....unless black people consider themselves superior to everyone else in the world, and why black people do seem to consider themselves superior to everyone else in the world when they are as fallible, miserable, ugly, and hate filled as everyone else on the face of the Earth. I'd like to write more, but I have to go have some sweaty, grunting, spit-lubed, gay butt-sex.....with a hot black guy.



Hey, Nemesis........wanna make Charles Bass' head explode?  Tell him about your DL experiences with black men.  Charles Bass has the mistaken idea that gays can be every color EXCEPT black.

Incidentally......he's black.


----------



## Father Time (Oct 12, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Nemesis7293 said:
> 
> 
> > As a white, liberal, homosexual I'm wondering why so....SO many black men enjoy getting their dicks sucked by other men. Always on the "DL", of course. I also wonder why the black community at large insists that rap is art, why the same community insists that 'hip-hop" culture represents the entirety of black culture, why if a black person speaks English correctly and shows that they are intelligent they are accused of "acting white" by other black people.....is being stupid and ignorant "acting black"?, why the "N" word is "the worst word in the world".....unless black people consider themselves superior to everyone else in the world, and why black people do seem to consider themselves superior to everyone else in the world when they are as fallible, miserable, ugly, and hate filled as everyone else on the face of the Earth. I'd like to write more, but I have to go have some sweaty, grunting, spit-lubed, gay butt-sex.....with a hot black guy.
> ...



I would pay to see that.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Oct 17, 2009)

Nemesis7293 said:


> As a white, liberal, homosexual I'm wondering why so....SO many black men enjoy getting their dicks sucked by other men. Always on the "DL", of course. I also wonder why the black community at large insists that rap is art, why the same community insists that 'hip-hop" culture represents the entirety of black culture, why if a black person speaks English correctly and shows that they are intelligent they are accused of "acting white" by other black people.....is being stupid and ignorant "acting black"?, why the "N" word is "the worst word in the world".....unless black people consider themselves superior to everyone else in the world, and why black people do seem to consider themselves superior to everyone else in the world when they are as fallible, miserable, ugly, and hate filled as everyone else on the face of the Earth. I'd like to write more, but I have to go have some sweaty, grunting, spit-lubed, gay butt-sex.....with a hot black guy.



Stupid faggot, keep your butt shagging, penis sucking fantasies to yourself and the black man out of your sick mind. Your post is so full of contradictions and lies like a backed up toilet.


----------



## elvis (Oct 17, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> Nemesis7293 said:
> 
> 
> > As a white, liberal, homosexual I'm wondering why so....SO many black men enjoy getting their dicks sucked by other men. Always on the "DL", of course. I also wonder why the black community at large insists that rap is art, why the same community insists that 'hip-hop" culture represents the entirety of black culture, why if a black person speaks English correctly and shows that they are intelligent they are accused of "acting white" by other black people.....is being stupid and ignorant "acting black"?, why the "N" word is "the worst word in the world".....unless black people consider themselves superior to everyone else in the world, and why black people do seem to consider themselves superior to everyone else in the world when they are as fallible, miserable, ugly, and hate filled as everyone else on the face of the Earth. I'd like to write more, but I have to go have some sweaty, grunting, spit-lubed, gay butt-sex.....with a hot black guy.
> ...



So it's ok for him to have gay fantasies as long as it's not about black men?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 17, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> Nemesis7293 said:
> 
> 
> > As a white, liberal, homosexual I'm wondering why so....SO many black men enjoy getting their dicks sucked by other men. Always on the "DL", of course. I also wonder why the black community at large insists that rap is art, why the same community insists that 'hip-hop" culture represents the entirety of black culture, why if a black person speaks English correctly and shows that they are intelligent they are accused of "acting white" by other black people.....is being stupid and ignorant "acting black"?, why the "N" word is "the worst word in the world".....unless black people consider themselves superior to everyone else in the world, and why black people do seem to consider themselves superior to everyone else in the world when they are as fallible, miserable, ugly, and hate filled as everyone else on the face of the Earth. I'd like to write more, but I have to go have some sweaty, grunting, spit-lubed, gay butt-sex.....with a hot black guy.
> ...



Uh.....Ass Chucker.........might wanna listen to them.  I think they've stated that they know what they're talking about.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Oct 17, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > Nemesis7293 said:
> ...




having gay fantasies is *NOT* ok and extremely insulting to black people.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Oct 17, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > Nemesis7293 said:
> ...



Perhaps you listen because you take it up the butthole, the Bass does not.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 18, 2009)

You know......Ass Chucker would do a lot better if (s)he would just come out of the closet.

Yo......Basshole.........if you want a sex change, just go to Trinidad Co.  Otherwise, keep your gay fantasies to yourself.

Besides..........I think the dude that told you he knows about sex with black men actually KNOWS ABOUT SEX WITH BLACK MEN. 

Why?  Probably because they've participated.


----------



## Father Time (Oct 18, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> You know......Ass Chucker would do a lot better if (s)he would just come out of the closet.
> 
> Yo......Basshole.........if you want a sex change, just go to Trinidad Co.  Otherwise, keep your gay fantasies to yourself.
> 
> ...



I don't believe the man, he complains about black people for like 4 sentences but then 'oh by the way my gay fuck buddy is black'.

If your partner was black would you really have such an axe to grind against blacks?

And yes I do find it strange I'm on the same side as the Bass.


----------

