Gays blaming blacks for gay marriage ban in California

[Bass v 2.0]

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]

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]

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.

And I'm a conservative, BTW.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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".

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]

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.

Hardly. It's quite obvious.

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

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.

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?

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]

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]

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]

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."



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.



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.



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



See above.



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.



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



Oh, the irony.



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



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



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



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



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



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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.