Wendy's Supports Chick-Fil-A

[Gadawg73]

Pol chick, you never answered my question: why are you so obsessed with what people you don't know (gays) get up to?

Is your religion telling you to hate gays?

Can you provide any indication that I am "so obsessed with what people you don't know (gays) get up to?"

Any?

The statement is a fabrication on your part, similar to the fabrication that the Obama administration advanced that Romney is in any way responsible for the death of Ms. Soptic.
You're against gay marriage, right? So you must care what people you don't know get up to, otherwise you wouldn't care.

And, probably, based on the same dishonest frenzy.

You're against gay marriage, right? So you must care what people you don't know get up to, otherwise you wouldn't care.
You're also basing your opposition on religious grounds, and everyone should know that the bible is a load of fiction, written by people who had barely just invented the wheel and who thought the world was flat... So instead of leaning on an invisible being to guide your way of thinking, why not just live and let live, I think Jesus, if he actually really existed, would have married gays himself, as he was very likely gay as well.

Refer to my past post of "only mother hen busy bodies care about gay marriage."
No true conservative supports a ban on gay marriage.
Now I agree with her belief that this it is NOW a state issue because SCOTUS has not heard it.
But anyone that supports citizens of a particular state should vote to ban gay marriage is also not a true conservative.
Us Goldwater conservatives follow his lead that discriminating against gays in any way is constitutionally wrong. We need a case to go to SCOTUS to ban states from enacting laws to ban it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Some say"? Fox viewer I see...

The majority of citizens were overwhelmingly opposed to interracial marriage in 1965 when it was ruled on by the SCOTUS. Look at those numbers again...

Only 20% of Americans thought it should be legal. This is a simple yes or no question...since it was SOOOOOOO unpopular in the eyes of the American public, should it have been done?

Now, take a look at the same "popularity" poll regarding gay and lesbian marriage equality...(and just to be on an even keel, I'm providing Gallup again)

How popular do we need to be to achieve equality?




Well, let's start with the additional health care tax I pay...


Gay couples face bigger health insurance coverage bills - MSN Money

Then we can talk about the fact that I'm a military retiree and my spouse cannot collect my pension in the event of my untimely demise. I can't make her a dependent on my retiree Heath Care plan. She can't even do the shopping at the commissary despite being the stay-at-home parent of our FAMILY.

Married couples get tax breaks on their Federal taxes, don't they? I don't.

And then there is the over 1,000 rights, benefits and privileges associated with legal, civil marriage...

Marriage Rights and Benefits | Nolo.com

HowStuffWorks "Benefits of Marriage"

You'll notice I've responded to your questions (with links, I might add) while you have yet to provide a single overriding harm that would result from me being able to legally marry my partner of 17 years and providing the stability of those legal protections that come with civil marriage. Where is the societal harm?

You've listed three problems/damages.
If those were ameliorated, are you saying that 'civil unions' are acceptable?

Look at that...STILL not a single answer to the questions posed and yet here you are AGAIN asking yet another question yourself.

I will be happy to answer your Civil Union question when you answer my two simple question I posed.

Number one...Since interracial marriage was so unpopular, should it have been ruled on by the SCOTUS, yes or no.

Number two...What is the societal harm in allowing me the rights, benefits and protections of legal, civil marriage?

Well, Sandwich....I will state that I understand your upset, and personal angst in this matter.

Let me try to make my belief clear.

1."What is the societal harm in allowing me the rights, benefits and protections of legal, civil marriage?"
None, in that I wouldn't know whether the couple next door is 'married' or in a civil union.
But isn't the same true in reverse....i.e., if you were accorded the financial benefits that you see as being denied, why change the definition of marriage?

And I would vote for a bill that gave you said benefits.


2. Interracial marriage is in no way related to this question.
One reason is that folks are born into a race, and have no way to change same.
Homosexuality, for most, is a phase.

a. "In other words, for the minority who may have experimented with gay relationships at some juncture in their lives, well over 80% explicitly renounced homosexual (or even bisexual) self-identification by age of 35. For the clear majority of males (as well as women) who report gay encounters, homosexual activity appears to represent a passing phase, or even a fleeting episode, rather than an unshakable, genetically pre-determined orientation."
Column: Does it matter if only 1.4% of people are gay? - USATODAY.com

b. "Also interesting was the finding that by the time they get to middle age, the rate of self-identified homosexuality among women plummets well below 1%. Furthermore, between 92% of women self-identifying as homosexual and 70% of men self-identifying as homosexual have had sexual intercourse with members of the opposite sex, while only 6% of self-identified heterosexuals have had sex with a member of the same sex."
American Population: 1.4 Percent Homosexuals, TrySexuals, Who Knows? | DBKP - Death By 1000 Papercuts - DBKP

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf

c. "This study asks us to consider is whether impressionable young people could be persuaded by seductive others that they are “genetically” homosexual, when in fact they are not–..." Ibid.



3. That being said, I see the solution as a political question, not a religious nor racial one.
If the people of a state vote in favor of gay marriage...it should be a reality. If a constitutional amendment is passed, either for or against...then,I would support the result.



I understand that you would vote for, while I, with no wish to see you unhappy, would vote to keep the traditional definition.
I wish you the best.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Pol chick, you never answered my question: why are you so obsessed with what people you don't know (gays) get up to?

Is your religion telling you to hate gays?

Can you provide any indication that I am "so obsessed with what people you don't know (gays) get up to?"

Any?

The statement is a fabrication on your part, similar to the fabrication that the Obama administration advanced that Romney is in any way responsible for the death of Ms. Soptic.
You're against gay marriage, right? So you must care what people you don't know get up to, otherwise you wouldn't care.

And, probably, based on the same dishonest frenzy.

You're against gay marriage, right? So you must care what people you don't know get up to, otherwise you wouldn't care.
You're also basing your opposition on religious grounds, and everyone should know that the bible is a load of fiction, written by people who had barely just invented the wheel and who thought the world was flat... So instead of leaning on an invisible being to guide your way of thinking, why not just live and let live, I think Jesus, if he actually really existed, would have married gays himself, as he was very likely gay as well.

"You're against gay marriage, right? So you must care what people you don't know get up to, otherwise you wouldn't care."

Logic, it seems, escapes you.


It should be noted that you were unable to produce any indication, statements, or data that I am "so obsessed with what people you don't know (gays) get up to?"


As you enjoy debating with yourself, and pretending my sentiments rather than employing same, you really have no argument.

 

[Gadawg73]

You've listed three problems/damages.
If those were ameliorated, are you saying that 'civil unions' are acceptable?

Look at that...STILL not a single answer to the questions posed and yet here you are AGAIN asking yet another question yourself.

I will be happy to answer your Civil Union question when you answer my two simple question I posed.

Number one...Since interracial marriage was so unpopular, should it have been ruled on by the SCOTUS, yes or no.

Number two...What is the societal harm in allowing me the rights, benefits and protections of legal, civil marriage?

Well, Sandwich....I will state that I understand your upset, and personal angst in this matter.

Let me try to make my belief clear.

1."What is the societal harm in allowing me the rights, benefits and protections of legal, civil marriage?"
None, in that I wouldn't know whether the couple next door is 'married' or in a civil union.
But isn't the same true in reverse....i.e., if you were accorded the financial benefits that you see as being denied, why change the definition of marriage?

And I would vote for a bill that gave you said benefits.


2. Interracial marriage is in no way related to this question.
One reason is that folks are born into a race, and have no way to change same.
Homosexuality, for most, is a phase.

a. "In other words, for the minority who may have experimented with gay relationships at some juncture in their lives, well over 80% explicitly renounced homosexual (or even bisexual) self-identification by age of 35. For the clear majority of males (as well as women) who report gay encounters, homosexual activity appears to represent a passing phase, or even a fleeting episode, rather than an unshakable, genetically pre-determined orientation."
Column: Does it matter if only 1.4% of people are gay? - USATODAY.com

b. "Also interesting was the finding that by the time they get to middle age, the rate of self-identified homosexuality among women plummets well below 1%. Furthermore, between 92% of women self-identifying as homosexual and 70% of men self-identifying as homosexual have had sexual intercourse with members of the opposite sex, while only 6% of self-identified heterosexuals have had sex with a member of the same sex."
American Population: 1.4 Percent Homosexuals, TrySexuals, Who Knows? | DBKP - Death By 1000 Papercuts - DBKP

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf

c. "This study asks us to consider is whether impressionable young people could be persuaded by seductive others that they are “genetically” homosexual, when in fact they are not–..." Ibid.



3. That being said, I see the solution as a political question, not a religious nor racial one.
If the people of a state vote in favor of gay marriage...it should be a reality. If a constitutional amendment is passed, either for or against...then,I would support the result.



I understand that you would vote for, while I, with no wish to see you unhappy, would vote to keep the traditional definition.
I wish you the best.

Explain to us how human sexuality is a phase.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Look at that...STILL not a single answer to the questions posed and yet here you are AGAIN asking yet another question yourself.

I will be happy to answer your Civil Union question when you answer my two simple question I posed.

Number one...Since interracial marriage was so unpopular, should it have been ruled on by the SCOTUS, yes or no.

Number two...What is the societal harm in allowing me the rights, benefits and protections of legal, civil marriage?

Well, Sandwich....I will state that I understand your upset, and personal angst in this matter.

Let me try to make my belief clear.

1."What is the societal harm in allowing me the rights, benefits and protections of legal, civil marriage?"
None, in that I wouldn't know whether the couple next door is 'married' or in a civil union.
But isn't the same true in reverse....i.e., if you were accorded the financial benefits that you see as being denied, why change the definition of marriage?

And I would vote for a bill that gave you said benefits.


2. Interracial marriage is in no way related to this question.
One reason is that folks are born into a race, and have no way to change same.
Homosexuality, for most, is a phase.

a. "In other words, for the minority who may have experimented with gay relationships at some juncture in their lives, well over 80% explicitly renounced homosexual (or even bisexual) self-identification by age of 35. For the clear majority of males (as well as women) who report gay encounters, homosexual activity appears to represent a passing phase, or even a fleeting episode, rather than an unshakable, genetically pre-determined orientation."
Column: Does it matter if only 1.4% of people are gay? - USATODAY.com

b. "Also interesting was the finding that by the time they get to middle age, the rate of self-identified homosexuality among women plummets well below 1%. Furthermore, between 92% of women self-identifying as homosexual and 70% of men self-identifying as homosexual have had sexual intercourse with members of the opposite sex, while only 6% of self-identified heterosexuals have had sex with a member of the same sex."
American Population: 1.4 Percent Homosexuals, TrySexuals, Who Knows? | DBKP - Death By 1000 Papercuts - DBKP

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf

c. "This study asks us to consider is whether impressionable young people could be persuaded by seductive others that they are “genetically” homosexual, when in fact they are not–..." Ibid.



3. That being said, I see the solution as a political question, not a religious nor racial one.
If the people of a state vote in favor of gay marriage...it should be a reality. If a constitutional amendment is passed, either for or against...then,I would support the result.



I understand that you would vote for, while I, with no wish to see you unhappy, would vote to keep the traditional definition.
I wish you the best.

Explain to us how human sexuality is a phase.

"Us"???

You were elected to speak for what group?


Since the post never states that "human sexuality is a phase," you have descended to your usual level of veracity....

...true?

 

[G.T.]

"wendys supports chick-fil-a"

lie.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Well, Sandwich....I will state that I understand your upset, and personal angst in this matter.

Let me try to make my belief clear.

1."What is the societal harm in allowing me the rights, benefits and protections of legal, civil marriage?"
None, in that I wouldn't know whether the couple next door is 'married' or in a civil union.
But isn't the same true in reverse....i.e., if you were accorded the financial benefits that you see as being denied, why change the definition of marriage?

And I would vote for a bill that gave you said benefits.


2. Interracial marriage is in no way related to this question.
One reason is that folks are born into a race, and have no way to change same.
Homosexuality, for most, is a phase.

a. "In other words, for the minority who may have experimented with gay relationships at some juncture in their lives, well over 80% explicitly renounced homosexual (or even bisexual) self-identification by age of 35. For the clear majority of males (as well as women) who report gay encounters, homosexual activity appears to represent a passing phase, or even a fleeting episode, rather than an unshakable, genetically pre-determined orientation."
Column: Does it matter if only 1.4% of people are gay? - USATODAY.com

b. "Also interesting was the finding that by the time they get to middle age, the rate of self-identified homosexuality among women plummets well below 1%. Furthermore, between 92% of women self-identifying as homosexual and 70% of men self-identifying as homosexual have had sexual intercourse with members of the opposite sex, while only 6% of self-identified heterosexuals have had sex with a member of the same sex."
American Population: 1.4 Percent Homosexuals, TrySexuals, Who Knows? | DBKP - Death By 1000 Papercuts - DBKP

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf

c. "This study asks us to consider is whether impressionable young people could be persuaded by seductive others that they are “genetically” homosexual, when in fact they are not–..." Ibid.



3. That being said, I see the solution as a political question, not a religious nor racial one.
If the people of a state vote in favor of gay marriage...it should be a reality. If a constitutional amendment is passed, either for or against...then,I would support the result.



I understand that you would vote for, while I, with no wish to see you unhappy, would vote to keep the traditional definition.
I wish you the best.

Explain to us how human sexuality is a phase.

"Us"???

You were elected to speak for what group?


Since the post never states that "human sexuality is a phase," you have descended to your usual level of veracity....

...true?

He can speak for me, because I want you to answer the same question. Homosexuality isn't a phase, you fucking idiot. If you were actually exposed to any real, honest homosexuals you'd know this. But instead, you speak from the same place of religious intolerance that kept black people slaves and unable to marry white people because "that's how God made the races." (Seriously, that was a VERY common argument for slavery and the ban on interracial marriage)

As someone who has many, many gay friends, let me please speak for them: Fuck you. Fuck you, you ignorant bitch. There is no difference between interracial and homosexual marriage, because opposition to both is based on irrational, illogical and frankly ignorant prejudices born out of religion. And since this is a country that thankfully cherishes freedom over religious zealotry, or at least it USED to, we can tell your bigoted beliefs to fuck themselves.

The fact that you went down that road tells me a lot of things about you. It tells me you're clueless as to what homosexuality really is. It tells me that you're choosing to remain willfully ignorant because at this point the relevant scientific and cultural data points are there for you educate yourself, but you're choosing dogma over logic.

I can't wait for the day when homophobia is forced into the same fucking closet that racism has been. No, we can't ever make it go away permanently, but we sure as fuck can make it so that if you say dumb shit like this in public you'll be cast out and castigated as the ignorant fuck you are.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Explain to us how human sexuality is a phase.

"Us"???

You were elected to speak for what group?


Since the post never states that "human sexuality is a phase," you have descended to your usual level of veracity....

...true?

He can speak for me, because I want you to answer the same question. Homosexuality isn't a phase, you fucking idiot. If you were actually exposed to any real, honest homosexuals you'd know this. But instead, you speak from the same place of religious intolerance that kept black people slaves and unable to marry white people because "that's how God made the races." (Seriously, that was a VERY common argument for slavery and the ban on interracial marriage)

As someone who has many, many gay friends, let me please speak for them: Fuck you. Fuck you, you ignorant bitch. There is no difference between interracial and homosexual marriage, because opposition to both is based on irrational, illogical and frankly ignorant prejudices born out of religion. And since this is a country that thankfully cherishes freedom over religious zealotry, or at least it USED to, we can tell your bigoted beliefs to fuck themselves.

The fact that you went down that road tells me a lot of things about you. It tells me you're clueless as to what homosexuality really is. It tells me that you're choosing to remain willfully ignorant because at this point the relevant scientific and cultural data points are there for you educate yourself, but you're choosing dogma over logic.

I can't wait for the day when homophobia is forced into the same fucking closet that racism has been. No, we can't ever make it go away permanently, but we sure as fuck can make it so that if you say dumb shit like this in public you'll be cast out and castigated as the ignorant fuck you are.

OK, I’ve seen your preparatory spittle-spewing, now for your signature move, soiling your shorts.


1. Why is it that the most stupid posters have trouble being civil?
Is it because your arguments are so vapid?
Or simply upbringing?
Which one?

2. He can speak for you because you are no more than a ventriloquist's dummy...so someone must.



3. I have documented in several clickable links that homosexuality is, for most, a phase. Now, you, Einstein, shout 'is not, is not.'

Since you either did not read the provided links, or...as I believe...you are unable to understand them, you probably won't read this one:

"The mission of CDC expanded beyond its original focus on malaria to include sexually transmitted diseases when the Venereal Disease Division of the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) was transferred to the CDC in 1957. Shortly thereafter, Tuberculosis Control was transferred (in 1960) to the CDC from PHS, and then in 1963 the Immunization program was established.[8]

It became the National Communicable Disease Center (NCDC) effective July 1, 1967.[4] The organization was renamed the Center for Disease Control (CDC) on June 24, 1970, and Centers for Disease Control effective October 14, 1980.[4] An act of the United States Congress appended the words "and Prevention" to the name effective October 27, 1992. However, Congress directed that the initialism CDC be retained because of its name recognition.[9] CDC now operates under the Department of Health and Human Services umbrella."

Currently the CDC focus has broadened to include chronic diseases, disabilities, injury control, workplace hazards, environmental health threats, and terrorism preparedness. CDC combats emerging diseases and other health risks, including birth defects, West Nile virus, obesity, avian, swine, and pandemic flu, E. coli, and bioterrorism, to name a few. The organization would also prove to be an important factor in preventing the abuse of penicillin."
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


4. For clarification purposes....who should one believe, a dim-wit like you, or actual research by the CDC, a government agency?
That's a toughie, huh?

...hmmmmm....Unless you can provide a really good reason....I'll go with the CDC.


5. Just one more question....although I realize you'll be afraid to answer....did you spend all of your so-called 'education' in government schools?

That is what your post seems to indicate.


Don’t you just love the smell of knowledge in the morning?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"wendys supports chick-fil-a"

lie.

Dunce.

 

[ima]

Can you provide any indication that I am "so obsessed with what people you don't know (gays) get up to?"

Any?

The statement is a fabrication on your part, similar to the fabrication that the Obama administration advanced that Romney is in any way responsible for the death of Ms. Soptic.
You're against gay marriage, right? So you must care what people you don't know get up to, otherwise you wouldn't care.

And, probably, based on the same dishonest frenzy.

You're against gay marriage, right? So you must care what people you don't know get up to, otherwise you wouldn't care.
You're also basing your opposition on religious grounds, and everyone should know that the bible is a load of fiction, written by people who had barely just invented the wheel and who thought the world was flat... So instead of leaning on an invisible being to guide your way of thinking, why not just live and let live, I think Jesus, if he actually really existed, would have married gays himself, as he was very likely gay as well.

"You're against gay marriage, right? So you must care what people you don't know get up to, otherwise you wouldn't care."

Logic, it seems, escapes you.


It should be noted that you were unable to produce any indication, statements, or data that I am "so obsessed with what people you don't know (gays) get up to?"


As you enjoy debating with yourself, and pretending my sentiments rather than employing same, you really have no argument.

Simple question then: are you against gay marriage?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're against gay marriage, right? So you must care what people you don't know get up to, otherwise you wouldn't care.
You're also basing your opposition on religious grounds, and everyone should know that the bible is a load of fiction, written by people who had barely just invented the wheel and who thought the world was flat... So instead of leaning on an invisible being to guide your way of thinking, why not just live and let live, I think Jesus, if he actually really existed, would have married gays himself, as he was very likely gay as well.

"You're against gay marriage, right? So you must care what people you don't know get up to, otherwise you wouldn't care."

Logic, it seems, escapes you.


It should be noted that you were unable to produce any indication, statements, or data that I am "so obsessed with what people you don't know (gays) get up to?"


As you enjoy debating with yourself, and pretending my sentiments rather than employing same, you really have no argument.

Simple question then: are you against gay marriage?

It should be noted that you were unable to produce any indication, statements, or data that I am "so obsessed with what people you don't know (gays) get up to?"

 

[ConservaDerrps]

OK, I’ve seen your preparatory spittle-spewing, now for your signature move, soiling your shorts.

I assure you, you vapid cow, that nothing is soiled except your already shitty reputation by this terrible fucking thread, and your insanely antiquated feelings about homosexuality. But please, insult me. Insults from homophobes give me a massive hard-on.

1. Why is it that the most stupid posters have trouble being civil?
Is it because your arguments are so vapid?
Or simply upbringing?
Which one?

Nothing to do with the subject at hand. But cute. Not funny or clever. Just cute. Like when my five year old tries to join adult conversations cute. That kind of cute.

2. He can speak for you because you are no more than a ventriloquist's dummy...so someone must.

Ha ha ha. No, he can speak for me because he asked a very salient question, you flappity fuckstick.

3. I have documented in several clickable links that homosexuality is, for most, a phase. Now, you, Einstein, shout 'is not, is not.'

Your links, are the caca. And the CDC study only proves that people dabble in homosexuality sometimes in their youth. We all know that, Dummy. What that DOES NOT speak to are the millions who don't just dabble. Those that are now and will always be gay.

So the CDC did a study that confirmed what anyone going to a college dorm party could figure out: people try on the gay thing sometimes in college. Big fucking deal. Only an idiot would then take that to mean that EVERY SINGLE HOMOSEXUAL is the same. Holy fuck you're stupid.

And even if we go with your insanely stupid hypothesis that all gay people are going through a phase: who the fuck cares? That means we shouldn't let them get married if they want to? How about Larry King? Britney Spears? Liz Taylor. All of them had or have had multiple straight marriages, some of them lasting HOURS. Should we outlaw that kind of marriage, since it was clearly a fleeting phase for them.

4. For clarification purposes....who should one believe, a dim-wit like you, or actual research by the CDC, a government agency?
That's a toughie, huh?

Your "research" you're quoting doesn't actually prove what you think it does, stupid.

...hmmmmm....Unless you can provide a really good reason....I'll go with the CDC.

I just did, Stupid Tits.

5. Just one more question....although I realize you'll be afraid to answer....did you spend all of your so-called 'education' in government schools?/QUOTE]

I don't even know what the fuck that means. "Government" schools? You mean did I go to public school? Hell yes I did. And I got an amazing education; all of my schools from elementary on were California Distinguished Schools. You have to have amazing schools to get that kind of honor, and they all did, multiple years.

So take your snobbery and shove down your homophobic throat, Dummy.

Don’t you just love the smell of knowledge in the morning?

Oh, I smell something. But it's not knowledge, sweetheart. You should close your legs AND your mouth, because I'm not sure where the smell is coming from.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

"You're against gay marriage, right? So you must care what people you don't know get up to, otherwise you wouldn't care."

Logic, it seems, escapes you.


It should be noted that you were unable to produce any indication, statements, or data that I am "so obsessed with what people you don't know (gays) get up to?"


As you enjoy debating with yourself, and pretending my sentiments rather than employing same, you really have no argument.

Simple question then: are you against gay marriage?

It should be noted that you were unable to produce any indication, statements, or data that I am "so obsessed with what people you don't know (gays) get up to?"

It should be noted that a) you're not answering his direct question and b) you look nothing like your avatar and are probably very gross both inside and out.

 

[PoliticalChic]

OK, I’ve seen your preparatory spittle-spewing, now for your signature move, soiling your shorts.

I assure you, you vapid cow, that nothing is soiled except your already shitty reputation by this terrible fucking thread, and your insanely antiquated feelings about homosexuality. But please, insult me. Insults from homophobes give me a massive hard-on.

1. Why is it that the most stupid posters have trouble being civil?
Is it because your arguments are so vapid?
Or simply upbringing?
Which one?

Nothing to do with the subject at hand. But cute. Not funny or clever. Just cute. Like when my five year old tries to join adult conversations cute. That kind of cute.



Ha ha ha. No, he can speak for me because he asked a very salient question, you flappity fuckstick.



Your links, are the caca. And the CDC study only proves that people dabble in homosexuality sometimes in their youth. We all know that, Dummy. What that DOES NOT speak to are the millions who don't just dabble. Those that are now and will always be gay.

So the CDC did a study that confirmed what anyone going to a college dorm party could figure out: people try on the gay thing sometimes in college. Big fucking deal. Only an idiot would then take that to mean that EVERY SINGLE HOMOSEXUAL is the same. Holy fuck you're stupid.

And even if we go with your insanely stupid hypothesis that all gay people are going through a phase: who the fuck cares? That means we shouldn't let them get married if they want to? How about Larry King? Britney Spears? Liz Taylor. All of them had or have had multiple straight marriages, some of them lasting HOURS. Should we outlaw that kind of marriage, since it was clearly a fleeting phase for them.



Your "research" you're quoting doesn't actually prove what you think it does, stupid.



I just did, Stupid Tits.

5. Just one more question....although I realize you'll be afraid to answer....did you spend all of your so-called 'education' in government schools?/QUOTE]

I don't even know what the fuck that means. "Government" schools? You mean did I go to public school? Hell yes I did. And I got an amazing education; all of my schools from elementary on were California Distinguished Schools. You have to have amazing schools to get that kind of honor, and they all did, multiple years.

So take your snobbery and shove down your homophobic throat, Dummy.

Don’t you just love the smell of knowledge in the morning?

Oh, I smell something. But it's not knowledge, sweetheart. You should close your legs AND your mouth, because I'm not sure where the smell is coming from.

1. Were there any question as to exactly how inept you are, this would do it:
"And even if we go with your insanely stupid hypothesis that all gay people are going through a phase."

If you cannot show any quote from me that indicates this....take your usual last seat in the dumb row.


2."Your "research" you're quoting doesn't actually prove what you think it does,..."
a. It is not my research.
b. Of course it does.

3. "And I got an amazing education"
I look forward to the distant day when that will actually be on display.


4. "...all of my schools from elementary on were California Distinguished Schools."
And it certainly speaks to the inflation of the term 'distinguished.'
Let's be honest, you haven't shown the ability to understand the posts in question, or write a civil response....

....in short, you've identified the schools as of questionable quality, and yourself as having none.


5. Take note of how I've eviscerated your post without any of the vulgar language that you have 'learned.'

Try to learn from my posts....if you are able.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Simple question then: are you against gay marriage?

It should be noted that you were unable to produce any indication, statements, or data that I am "so obsessed with what people you don't know (gays) get up to?"

It should be noted that a) you're not answering his direct question and b) you look nothing like your avatar and are probably very gross both inside and out.

Do you understand the difference between critiquing a concept, versus attacking the person who employs the concept?

No?

How liberal of you.



When one is unable to refute a post, the less able often resort to ad hominem attack.

You have identified yourself as today's DH.....'designated half-wit.'

 

[ConservaDerrps]

OK, I’ve seen your preparatory spittle-spewing, now for your signature move, soiling your shorts.

I assure you, you vapid cow, that nothing is soiled except your already shitty reputation by this terrible fucking thread, and your insanely antiquated feelings about homosexuality. But please, insult me. Insults from homophobes give me a massive hard-on.



Nothing to do with the subject at hand. But cute. Not funny or clever. Just cute. Like when my five year old tries to join adult conversations cute. That kind of cute.



Ha ha ha. No, he can speak for me because he asked a very salient question, you flappity fuckstick.



Your links, are the caca. And the CDC study only proves that people dabble in homosexuality sometimes in their youth. We all know that, Dummy. What that DOES NOT speak to are the millions who don't just dabble. Those that are now and will always be gay.

So the CDC did a study that confirmed what anyone going to a college dorm party could figure out: people try on the gay thing sometimes in college. Big fucking deal. Only an idiot would then take that to mean that EVERY SINGLE HOMOSEXUAL is the same. Holy fuck you're stupid.

And even if we go with your insanely stupid hypothesis that all gay people are going through a phase: who the fuck cares? That means we shouldn't let them get married if they want to? How about Larry King? Britney Spears? Liz Taylor. All of them had or have had multiple straight marriages, some of them lasting HOURS. Should we outlaw that kind of marriage, since it was clearly a fleeting phase for them.



Your "research" you're quoting doesn't actually prove what you think it does, stupid.



I just did, Stupid Tits.

5. Just one more question....although I realize you'll be afraid to answer....did you spend all of your so-called 'education' in government schools?/QUOTE]

I don't even know what the fuck that means. "Government" schools? You mean did I go to public school? Hell yes I did. And I got an amazing education; all of my schools from elementary on were California Distinguished Schools. You have to have amazing schools to get that kind of honor, and they all did, multiple years.

So take your snobbery and shove down your homophobic throat, Dummy.



Oh, I smell something. But it's not knowledge, sweetheart. You should close your legs AND your mouth, because I'm not sure where the smell is coming from.

1. Were there any question as to exactly how inept you are, this would do it:
"And even if we go with your insanely stupid hypothesis that all gay people are going through a phase."

If you cannot show any quote from me that indicates this....take your usual last seat in the dumb row.


2."Your "research" you're quoting doesn't actually prove what you think it does,..."
a. It is not my research.
b. Of course it does.

3. "And I got an amazing education"
I look forward to the distant day when that will actually be on display.


4. "...all of my schools from elementary on were California Distinguished Schools."
And it certainly speaks to the inflation of the term 'distinguished.'
Let's be honest, you haven't shown the ability to understand the posts in question, or write a civil response....

....in short, you've identified the schools as of questionable quality, and yourself as having none.


5. Take note of how I've eviscerated your post without any of the vulgar language that you have 'learned.'

Try to learn from my posts....if you are able.

Zzzzzzzzzzzz.

You're not even smart enough to figure out the quote function and you're going to pass yourself off as being of a high-intellect? Lawl.

I also note you didn't actually address my valid points. You put your fingers in your ears. Good Jerb PoliticurseGall.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

It should be noted that you were unable to produce any indication, statements, or data that I am "so obsessed with what people you don't know (gays) get up to?"

It should be noted that a) you're not answering his direct question and b) you look nothing like your avatar and are probably very gross both inside and out.

Do you understand the difference between critiquing a concept, versus attacking the person who employs the concept?

No?

How liberal of you.



When one is unable to refute a post, the less able often resort to ad hominem attack.

You have identified yourself as today's DH.....'designated half-wit.'

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[koshergrl]

Wendy's burgers are awesome.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I assure you, you vapid cow, that nothing is soiled except your already shitty reputation by this terrible fucking thread, and your insanely antiquated feelings about homosexuality. But please, insult me. Insults from homophobes give me a massive hard-on.



Nothing to do with the subject at hand. But cute. Not funny or clever. Just cute. Like when my five year old tries to join adult conversations cute. That kind of cute.



Ha ha ha. No, he can speak for me because he asked a very salient question, you flappity fuckstick.



Your links, are the caca. And the CDC study only proves that people dabble in homosexuality sometimes in their youth. We all know that, Dummy. What that DOES NOT speak to are the millions who don't just dabble. Those that are now and will always be gay.

So the CDC did a study that confirmed what anyone going to a college dorm party could figure out: people try on the gay thing sometimes in college. Big fucking deal. Only an idiot would then take that to mean that EVERY SINGLE HOMOSEXUAL is the same. Holy fuck you're stupid.

And even if we go with your insanely stupid hypothesis that all gay people are going through a phase: who the fuck cares? That means we shouldn't let them get married if they want to? How about Larry King? Britney Spears? Liz Taylor. All of them had or have had multiple straight marriages, some of them lasting HOURS. Should we outlaw that kind of marriage, since it was clearly a fleeting phase for them.



Your "research" you're quoting doesn't actually prove what you think it does, stupid.



I just did, Stupid Tits.



1. Were there any question as to exactly how inept you are, this would do it:
"And even if we go with your insanely stupid hypothesis that all gay people are going through a phase."

If you cannot show any quote from me that indicates this....take your usual last seat in the dumb row.


2."Your "research" you're quoting doesn't actually prove what you think it does,..."
a. It is not my research.
b. Of course it does.

3. "And I got an amazing education"
I look forward to the distant day when that will actually be on display.


4. "...all of my schools from elementary on were California Distinguished Schools."
And it certainly speaks to the inflation of the term 'distinguished.'
Let's be honest, you haven't shown the ability to understand the posts in question, or write a civil response....

....in short, you've identified the schools as of questionable quality, and yourself as having none.


5. Take note of how I've eviscerated your post without any of the vulgar language that you have 'learned.'

Try to learn from my posts....if you are able.

Zzzzzzzzzzzz.

You're not even smart enough to figure out the quote function and you're going to pass yourself off as being of a high-intellect? Lawl.

I also note you didn't actually address my valid points. You put your fingers in your ears. Good Jerb PoliticurseGall.

"...you're going to pass yourself off as being of a high-intellect?"

I don't believe I've passed myself off as "....being of a high-intellect."

But I will cop to being somewhere between that, and you.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Zzzzzzzzzzzz.

You're not even smart enough to figure out the quote function and you're going to pass yourself off as being of a high-intellect? Lawl.

I also note you didn't actually address my valid points. You put your fingers in your ears. Good Jerb PoliticurseGall.

"...you're going to pass yourself off as being of a high-intellect?"

I don't believe I've passed myself off as "....being of a high-intellect."

But I will cop to being somewhere between that, and you.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz