Rick Perry compares homosexuality to alcoholism

[Seawytch]

Come on Bag, it is a simple question. Should gay couples have access to the same civil marriage license as straight couples, yes or no?

When you go hunting, you buy a hunting license.



If I buy a tag for rabbits, should I have access to shoot a deer? If no, am I discriminated against?

Do you guys have a book of bad analogies? It would be like denying a hunting license because someone is gay, or black or Christian.

 

[Seawytch]

Still dodging. Married couples get benefits. The question is not whether they should or should not get those benefits, the question is should gay couples have access to the same civil marriage license as straight couples, yes or no?

Come on Bag, it is a simple question. Should gay couples have access to the same civil marriage license as straight couples, yes or no?

If you insist on begging the government for permission to love someone, feel free, just don't expect me to support your idiotic attitude.

Dodge dodge dodge...

 

[Pop23]

Come on Bag, it is a simple question. Should gay couples have access to the same civil marriage license as straight couples, yes or no?

If you insist on begging the government for permission to love someone, feel free, just don't expect me to support your idiotic attitude.

Dodge dodge dodge...

Irony irony irony

 

[Seawytch]

thats all just "speculation".....ask QW about how all the great thinkers of the past never "speculated" about the theory that they had before it was proven or not....

I assume you're being sardonic since the science in these articles isn't speculation at all. When I say I was born gay, that's "speculation" since I, personally, have no scientific evidence to support my claim (but there's plenty out there), just an eye witness account. Apparently that's not good enough either.

...just an eye witness account. Apparently that's not good enough either.

Wow , you can remember being born ? Sorry , I for one am having a hard time swallowing that [No sarcastic comments SeaWytch -I can read your filthy little excuse for a mind]

Nope, but I can remember always being attracted to girls and never boys. You? Did you "like" both but chose only one gender? I didn't.

 

[Seawytch]

I can't because it would make me a lying hypocrite, which is something I leave for the idiots on the other side of the debate.

The law requires that I serve the Christian. Either that changes or STFU about the fact that some PA laws also cover gays as well as Christians.

The law requires no such thing. The law requires that you not discriminate against them on the basis of their religion, but you are perfectly free to let them know you don't want them in your business. You are also perfectly free to serve everyone else first to make the point that you are unwilling to give them the time of day. The only people that want people that hate them to serve them are idiots, which is why it is insane that gay people are demanding that people they believe hate their guts bake their wedding cake.

The law:

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION

OOOSEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

So, you're wrong. I do have to bake a cake for a Christian if I bake in the US...anywhere. The Christian only has to bake for me in about half the states.

 

[Seawytch]

thats all just "speculation".....ask QW about how all the great thinkers of the past never "speculated" about the theory that they had before it was proven or not....

I assume you're being sardonic since the science in these articles isn't speculation at all. When I say I was born gay, that's "speculation" since I, personally, have no scientific evidence to support my claim (but there's plenty out there), just an eye witness account. Apparently that's not good enough either.

That was funny. If it is not speculation why does one article actually include the word "may" as part of its title?

I actually reject a lot of eyewitness testimony because I know it is the worst type of evidence. Unless, that is, you want me to believe that Bigfoot is real and that Obama was born in Nigeria just because someone says it.

Not as smart as you think you are, are you?

The article speculated, the science is clear...and clearly points to it not being a choice. All current science supports that conclusion while zero scientific evidence supports the "choice" contention,

 

[Uncensored2008]

If the cake is in their catalogue to bake, they must bake it regardless of the religion of the customer.

Really?

Do they wear shackles?

Again, Christians are not the favored group. so refusal to bake for them will garner a giant yawn.

We are compelled by our masters to serve the queers, who our masters say are better than us.

If they don't bake cross cakes, they don't have to unless they advertise that they do special orders. (And I imagine the law gets wiggly there)

Would you care to cite the law that creates involuntary servitude for anyone who "advertise that they do special orders?"

Here is a real law, one you have never been exposed to, and one your shameful party took up arms to stop;

{Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.}

There is nothing "wiggly" about this law - no one is your slave - sticking your dick in another mans ass, or your tongue in another woman's pussy does NOT make you so superior that all others are compelled to serve your desires, even though the Khmer Rouge democrats CLAIM that it does.

THIS is why my initial post on this subject is "fuck the queers."

I don't give a fuck what you do, but I am not your slave - your sexual choices are not so wonderful that I must fall in awe and worship of them, regardless of what Hollywood preaches.

Have you ever read the civil rights act regarding public accommodation? Christians are covered, gays are not.

Christians are no more or less covered. Discrimination based on religion in housing and board is - a wedding cake is not.

Did you? You didn't have to unless it was a private club. This happened when?

Of course we left. I'm not a pig, I wasn't going to stay and make a scene.

I used to be mildly supportive of homosexuals - now I am not - I dislike totalitarian thugs.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The law requires that I serve the Christian. Either that changes or STFU about the fact that some PA laws also cover gays as well as Christians.

The law requires no such thing. The law requires that you not discriminate against them on the basis of their religion, but you are perfectly free to let them know you don't want them in your business. You are also perfectly free to serve everyone else first to make the point that you are unwilling to give them the time of day. The only people that want people that hate them to serve them are idiots, which is why it is insane that gay people are demanding that people they believe hate their guts bake their wedding cake.

The law:

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION

OOOSEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

So, you're wrong. I do have to bake a cake for a Christian if I bake in the US...anywhere. The Christian only has to bake for me in about half the states.

I am never wrong, learn form it. The problem is that you assholes want to define everything as a public accommodation, even if it has nothing to do with public accommodation. If you weren't such an authoritarian asshole you wouldn't be in that position.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I assume you're being sardonic since the science in these articles isn't speculation at all. When I say I was born gay, that's "speculation" since I, personally, have no scientific evidence to support my claim (but there's plenty out there), just an eye witness account. Apparently that's not good enough either.

That was funny. If it is not speculation why does one article actually include the word "may" as part of its title?

I actually reject a lot of eyewitness testimony because I know it is the worst type of evidence. Unless, that is, you want me to believe that Bigfoot is real and that Obama was born in Nigeria just because someone says it.

Not as smart as you think you are, are you?

The article speculated, the science is clear...and clearly points to it not being a choice. All current science supports that conclusion while zero scientific evidence supports the "choice" contention,

I actually posted a long, and detailed, response to your claims that the science proves something it doesn't. I wonder why you neglected to deal with anything I said in that post, is it because you can't handle actual science?

 

[Seawytch]

If the cake is in their catalogue to bake, they must bake it regardless of the religion of the customer.

Really?



Do they wear shackles?



Again, Christians are not the favored group. so refusal to bake for them will garner a giant yawn.



We are compelled by our masters to serve the queers, who our masters say are better than us.

If they don't bake cross cakes, they don't have to unless they advertise that they do special orders. (And I imagine the law gets wiggly there)

Would you care to cite the law that creates involuntary servitude for anyone who "advertise that they do special orders?"



Here is a real law, one you have never been exposed to, and one your shameful party took up arms to stop;



{Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.}



There is nothing "wiggly" about this law - no one is your slave - sticking your dick in another mans ass, or your tongue in another woman's pussy does NOT make you so superior that all others are compelled to serve your desires, even though the Khmer Rouge democrats CLAIM that it does.



THIS is why my initial post on this subject is "fuck the queers."



I don't give a fuck what you do, but I am not your slave - your sexual choices are not so wonderful that I must fall in awe and worship of them, regardless of what Hollywood preaches.

Have you ever read the civil rights act regarding public accommodation? Christians are covered, gays are not.

Christians are no more or less covered. Discrimination based on religion in housing and board is - a wedding cake is not.

Did you? You didn't have to unless it was a private club. This happened when?

Of course we left. I'm not a pig, I wasn't going to stay and make a scene.



I used to be mildly supportive of homosexuals - now I am not - I dislike totalitarian thugs.

Yes, Christians are a "favored" group. I posted the law. Need it again? Okay.

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION

OOOSEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
OOO(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
OOO)(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
OOO)(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
OO)O(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
OOO)(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
OOO(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.
OOO(d) Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.
OOO(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).

OOOSEC. 202. All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof.

OOOSEC. 203. No person shall (a) withhold, deny, or attempt to withhold or deny, or deprive or attempt to deprive, any person of any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (b) intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person with the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (c) punish or attempt to punish any person for exercising or attempting to exercise any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202.

OOOSEC. 204. (a) Whenever any person has engaged or there are reasonable grounds to believe that any person is about to engage in any act or practice prohibited by section 203, a civil action for preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order, may be instituted by the person aggrieved and, upon timely application, the court may, in its discretion, permit the Attorney General to intervene in such civil action if he certifies that the case is of general public importance. Upon application by the complainant and in such circumstances as the court may deem just, the court may appoint an attorney for such complainant and may authorize the commencement of the civil action without the payment of fees, costs, or security.
OOO(b) In any action commenced pursuant to this title, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs, and the United States shall be liable for costs the same as a private person.
OOO(c) In the case of an alleged act or practice prohibited by this title which occurs in a State, or political subdivision of a State, which has a State or local law prohibiting such act or practice and establishing or authorizing a State or local authority to grant or seek relief from such practice or to institute criminal proceedings with respect thereto upon receiving notice thereof, no civil action may be brought under subsection (a) before the expiration of thirty days after written notice of such alleged act or practice has been given to the appropriate State or local authority by registered mail or in person, provided that the court may stay proceedings in such civil action pending the termination of State or local enforcement proceedings.
OOO(d) In the case of an alleged act or practice prohibited by this title which occurs in a State, or political subdivision of a State, which has no State or local law prohibiting such act or practice, a civil action may be brought under subsection (a): Provided, That the court may refer the matter to the Community Relations Service established by title X of this Act for as long as the court believes there is a reasonable possibility of obtaining voluntary compliance, but for not more than sixty days: Provided further, That upon expiration of such sixty-day period, the court may extend such period for an additional period, not to exceed a cumulative total of one hundred and twenty days, if it believes there then exists a reasonable possibility of securing voluntary compliance.

OOOSEC. 205. The Service is authorized to make a full investigation of any complaint referred to it by the court under section 204(d) and may hold such hearings with respect thereto as may be necessary. The Service shall conduct any hearings with respect to any such complaint in executive session, and shall not release any testimony given therein except by agreement of all parties involved in the complaint with the permission of the court, and the Service shall endeavor to bring about a voluntary settlement between the parties.

OOOSEC. 206. (a) Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights secured by this title, and that the pattern or practice is of such a nature and is intended to deny the full exercise of the rights herein described, the Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate district court of the United States by filing with it a complaint (1) signed by him (or in his absence the Acting Attorney General), (2) setting forth facts pertaining to such pattern or practice, and (3) requesting such preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order or other order against the person or persons responsible for such pattern or practice, as he deems necessary to insure the full enjoyment of the rights herein described.
OOO(b) In any such proceeding the Attorney General may file with the clerk of such court a request that a court of three judges be convened to hear and determine the case. Such request by the Attorney General shall be accompanied by a certificate that, in his opinion, the case is of general public importance. A copy of the certificate and request for a three-judge court shall be immediately furnished by such clerk to the chief judge of the circuit (or in his absence, the presiding circuit judge of the circuit) in which the case is pending. Upon receipt of the copy of such request it shall be the duty of the chief judge of the circuit or the presiding circuit judge, as the case may be, to designate immediately three judges in such circuit, of whom at least one shall be a circuit judge and another of whom shall be a district judge of the court in which the proceeding was instituted, to hear and determine such case, and it shall be the duty of the judges so designated to assign the case for hearing at the earliest practicable date, to participate in the hearing and determination thereof, and to cause the case to be in every way expedited. An appeal from the final judgment of such court will lie to the Supreme Court.
OOOIn the event the Attorney General fails to file such a request in any such proceeding, it shall be the duty of the chief judge of the district (or in his absence, the acting chief judge) in which the case is pending immediately to designate a judge in such district to hear and determine the case. In the event that no judge in the district is available to hear and determine the case, the chief judge of the district, or the acting chief judge, as the case may be, shall certify this fact to the chief judge of the circuit (or in his absence, the acting chief judge) who shall then designate a district or circuit judge of the circuit to hear and determine the case.
OOOIt shall be the duty of the judge designated pursuant to this section to assign the case for hearing at the earliest practicable date and to cause the case to be in every way expedited.

OOOSEC. 207. (a) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this title and shall exercise the same without regard to whether the aggrieved party shall have exhausted any administrative or other remedies that may be provided by law.

 

[Seawytch]

That was funny. If it is not speculation why does one article actually include the word "may" as part of its title?

I actually reject a lot of eyewitness testimony because I know it is the worst type of evidence. Unless, that is, you want me to believe that Bigfoot is real and that Obama was born in Nigeria just because someone says it.

Not as smart as you think you are, are you?

The article speculated, the science is clear...and clearly points to it not being a choice. All current science supports that conclusion while zero scientific evidence supports the "choice" contention,

I actually posted a long, and detailed, response to your claims that the science proves something it doesn't. I wonder why you neglected to deal with anything I said in that post, is it because you can't handle actual science?

There is no actual science that says orientation is a choice because it isn't. The scientific community at large has stated such.

 

[Seawytch]

The law requires no such thing. The law requires that you not discriminate against them on the basis of their religion, but you are perfectly free to let them know you don't want them in your business. You are also perfectly free to serve everyone else first to make the point that you are unwilling to give them the time of day. The only people that want people that hate them to serve them are idiots, which is why it is insane that gay people are demanding that people they believe hate their guts bake their wedding cake.

The law:

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION

OOOSEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

So, you're wrong. I do have to bake a cake for a Christian if I bake in the US...anywhere. The Christian only has to bake for me in about half the states.

I am never wrong, learn form it. The problem is that you assholes want to define everything as a public accommodation, even if it has nothing to do with public accommodation. If you weren't such an authoritarian asshole you wouldn't be in that position.

The law is very clear on public accommodation. Unless I own a private club, I cannot discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. That's from the Civil Rights Act. Federal protections have expanded to include gender, age and disability.

You can discriminate against me in some places, but I can't discriminate against a Christian anywhere. (Again, unless I own a private club). You ARE wrong.

 

[rightwinger]

How does Rick Perry know about either homosexuality or alcoholism unless he has experience with both?

 

[bendog]

How does Rick Perry know about either homosexuality or alcoholism unless he has experience with both?

Well, he seems to have no concept of either, so perhaps he's just a stupid as texas cowshite third rate pol from texas.

 

[g5000]

It's just Perry pandering to the ignorant like all gutless demagogues do.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes, Christians are a "favored" group. I posted the law. Need it again? Okay.

Your inability to grasp what you read does not alter reality.

First off, public accommodation laws do NOT say a fucking thing about Christians, it states "religion," as I pointed out in my prior post. Secondly, public accommodation deals with inns, boarding houses, and restaurants. Essential services. They do not cover lawn mower repair, baby shoe brassing - or baking.

If you think REAL hard, you can probably figure out why...

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's just Perry pandering to the ignorant like all gutless demagogues do.

Da comrade, he should be taken to gulag and worked until he comes to love Obama and the anti-culture.

 

[Harry Dresden]

The might speculate, but they always used facts as evidence. You prefer to speculate on the basis "wouldn't it be nice if..."

and until they found those facts it was all speculation and theories wasnt it?....

You prefer to speculate on the basis "wouldn't it be nice if...

no thats what you are seeing because you dont want to admit there could be the slightest possibility of someone being born gay...

No, they speculated based on facts, and extrapolated theories to explain the facts. They then went searching for other facts to to support, or disprove, their theories. The way it works with the born gay crowd is they search for anything to support their theory, and ignore all the contrary evidence.

That makes their field something other than science.

No, they speculated based on facts, and extrapolated theories to explain the facts. They then went searching for other facts to to support, or disprove, their theories


kind of like what i said only said a different way.....debating you on this topic is like debating Katz on pot,it wont change anything...since i dont have any problems with you QW i am going to just let this go the way it is right here....otherwise you are like me....you will keep going and so will i......plus you are one of my fellow Dean bashers and it is more fun debating and laughing at him than me and you getting pissed at each other....so unless you have something to say i am basically through here....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The article speculated, the science is clear...and clearly points to it not being a choice. All current science supports that conclusion while zero scientific evidence supports the "choice" contention,

I actually posted a long, and detailed, response to your claims that the science proves something it doesn't. I wonder why you neglected to deal with anything I said in that post, is it because you can't handle actual science?

There is no actual science that says orientation is a choice because it isn't. The scientific community at large has stated such.

The scientific community has stated no such thing. The pseudo scientific astrologers and people who pretend that psychology is real science have stated it, and been shot down by actual scientists repeatedly. That is because, despite the claims of idiots, a biological predisposition toward something does not automatically control your life. It it actually worked that way addicts would never stop taking drugs, and every sociopath in the world would be a serial killer. People make choices, you should accept the fact that you have the ability to chose instead of treating your life like you have no control over it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The law:

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION

OOOSEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

So, you're wrong. I do have to bake a cake for a Christian if I bake in the US...anywhere. The Christian only has to bake for me in about half the states.

I am never wrong, learn form it. The problem is that you assholes want to define everything as a public accommodation, even if it has nothing to do with public accommodation. If you weren't such an authoritarian asshole you wouldn't be in that position.

The law is very clear on public accommodation. Unless I own a private club, I cannot discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. That's from the Civil Rights Act. Federal protections have expanded to include gender, age and disability.

You can discriminate against me in some places, but I can't discriminate against a Christian anywhere. (Again, unless I own a private club). You ARE wrong.

That depends on the state, but thanks for proving how little you know about the law.