Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 101 to 110 of 110
  1. #101  
    Senior Member KCornett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kal ee forn ya
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by lahdedah View Post
    Because they love each other, as heterosexual people love each other. A person who chooses to abstain from something they would be legally allowed to do is not the same as a person who is not legally allowed to make the same choice. A person is not a machine, or a donkey, or a dog, or a turtle, or a frying pan, or whatever other silly example people come up with. But, as long as you are prejudiced so strongly, there is really nothing to say about the matter. I cannot talk you out of it, and I won't try.
    Again, any number of consenting adults can LOVE each other and be equal partners in a relationship. Two pole smokers marry each other, why can't I marry Jane and Maria and we all three share a home, bed and the wedded bliss and legal protections.
    "If you're going through Hell... Keep on going"-Rodney Atkins
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Senior Member KCornett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kal ee forn ya
    Posts
    123
    Ancient Greek was one of the most gay loving societies of ever...

    In fact many men believed that men were for love, and women for babies... And yet, even in that homo centric society, marriage was between a man and a woman. Go Figure.
    "If you're going through Hell... Keep on going"-Rodney Atkins
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Quote Originally Posted by AmPat View Post
    First, I'm sorry for your friend and your pain. Second, I don't condone gay basing or any other basjing exceptLiberal bashing. And then I only support liberal bashing of the Barking, Lunatic, Moonbat sorts who cannot see, hear, tell, or accept the truth. Then it's game on.

    If you are telling the truth I suggest you change friends. I don't pal around with Bigots and neither should you. Who exactly are these alleged "hate the sinners more than the sins" type who are deliberately making "pain, anguish and suffering in children?"

    If they are other children, well, that's the horrific nature of children. If adults, there are ways to deal with that on an adult level. If my friends or children were being harassed because they were gay, I would step in to stop it.

    I guess in my 50 years I just haven't had the opportunity to meet these oppressed gays. Again, sorry for your loss.:(
    Thank you for your kind words.

    I don't hang out with these people, but they exist. And the hatred of gay people is still one of the most acceptable forms of open, public discrimination around. Now, a person may not go find a gay 15 year old and scream at him, but people accept that it's ok to hate gay people for whatever their reasons are. They may not say it to kids, or even directly face to face with a gay adult, but they are still carrying on the idea that it's ok. And it is a fairly socially acceptable form of abuse. Calling gay people names, saying that they're dirty, unnatural, disgusting, should just stop being who they are because they're sick sex perverts, etc, may not be said to kids, but they hear it. It's a part of their lives, and it affects them. Just as, a racist may not go out and scream at a black child, but the black child is still exposed to racism in society, and the more acceptable the racism is the harder it is on the child because they have to deal with more of it.

    There is that fairly recent horrific story of a bus driver who verbally harassed a 10 year old kid on his bus, and encouraged the other children to attack the boy he called gay, and apparently also grabbed the boy. But this, I think, is pretty rare. It's horrible and disgusting, but rare. To be done by adults to children, I mean. Being done by adults to other adults starts being less rare.

    I wish I could protect my friends, but I can't. I can't be there with them all the time. I can't stop others from hurting them, I wish to god I could. And, most people they know don't want to hurt them. But, many gay people still grow up in a society full of people who think it's ok to be hateful, to say terrible things about gay people, etc and they have to live with that. With people who hate them, not for anything they've done, not because they have met each other and had some sort of problem, but because of who they are. That's really sad. And, there are people out there who will hurt and even kill gay people, just as others would people of other races, or religions, etc.

    The idea of hate the sin love the sinner in this case is, generally, bullshit. Being gay isn't just about a sexual act, any more than being heterosexual is limited to what you do in your bedroom. And, if being gay is part of who you are, and people out there hate the so-called 'sin' of 'gay', how is that not telling you that they hate you? I don't consider myself as a heterosexual only when I am engaged in sex with a man. I am not only heterosexual when actually doing these things, and then not when I leave the bedroom. If I don't have sex for a year, I am not asexual for a year, I am still a heterosexual. My heterosexuality tells me that I am attracted to men, I fall in love with men romantically, sure I enjoy sex with men, but it's more about my feelings about who I want to spend my life with. And I can't take the rest of my self away from that, and I think it would be even harder to do if you were also struggling with your sexuality and peoples reactions to it.

    And, children aren't born with a hatred of gay people. They aren't. They learn it. Just as children aren't born racist. I don't care if you think sexuality is different from race, that isn't the issue. The issue is that children are adaptable and as pretty open as you can get. Yes, they can be cruel to each other, but they aren't being cruel about being gay because they're children. They've learned that and they use it to hurt other kids. And, it works. From elementary school to high school, it's scary. And while we have rules in many schools about how you cant harass kids for being another race, or for religion, many don't have anything saying they can't do the same to homosexuals or about sexuality. Hopefully in most schools these kids would still at least get in trouble for name calling, but what message does that send? That it's ok to to treat other kids like that because of homosexuality, just not openly, just not in school? Or, better, that the IDEA is ok, just name calling isn't? Maybe better, but not good enough.

    This is what I see. Obviously, I went to school. I have many gay friends. I worked in SD1 in my city, and am close with a school trustee and have worked with her on different projects in the school system. No, I'm not an "expert". But, I've read a lot about it, and seen it happen, and I care about it. Because, I think beyond what a person thinks about anothers sexuality, what is more important is the safety and well being of everyone. And this kind of broad hatred encourages violence and abuse.
    Last edited by lahdedah; 12-07-2008 at 12:19 AM. Reason: fixing unclear wording
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Quote Originally Posted by KCornett View Post
    Again, any number of consenting adults can LOVE each other and be equal partners in a relationship. Two pole smokers marry each other, why can't I marry Jane and Maria and we all three share a home, bed and the wedded bliss and legal protections.
    Why do you feel the need to do that all the time? Does calling people names really help you make your point? No. It's just gratuitous, and I can only assume intended to offend. Why? What's the god damn point?

    And, since I've already addressed this question at least once, I won't bother doing so again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Quote Originally Posted by KCornett View Post
    One Man marries one woman, that is the law, the tradition, the belief set. The only variation of this that has been recognized throughout history is multiple wives. If homos can marry another homo, I want to be married to multiple women. Fair is Fair, right, if we love each other and want to spend the rest of our lives together why can't I? Oh yeah, it is deviant behavior that society does not tolerate!

    I have no idea what you are mumbling about here, and why allowing one man to marry one woman has anything to do with man on man marriage.


    Um no, it isn't. If I am a pole smoker, and I choose to smoke poles it is the same thing as me choosing to have multiple wives and women partners. It is a CHOICE OF BEHAVIOUR.


    So other countries are providing special rights for homos, but to for multiple partnered heteros(by the way, that is going to be my new minority group name MPH)?.

    No... one simple sentence, anyne can marry any number of people...
    yes, you do, and yes they are... special rights are special rights, they are either universal or they are not. Point blank.
    No, the basic idea that you are alluding too is to allow people to marry the partner of their choice and enjoy all the legal protections that go along with it. Same thing should happen with polygamy
    Apparently it did... now we have to gay guys wanting to smoke each other's poles in wedded bliss. Or have you forgotten about that?

    You are right, they aren't asking. They are forcing me to condone and embrace wedded pole smokers. They asked, and it was rejected by the voters. Now they want to force it on us.


    Er, what are you mumbling about?
    again what?


    What progress has been made and what laws have been changed for the benefit? Gun Control... oh yeah, that is a PITA constitutional ammendment that has to be done away with..

    Abortion? I know baby murdering is the preferred form of birth control, because we are 'liberal' society and we can screw whomever we want. God forbid, that people be expected to keep the wang in their pants or their legs closed nowadays.

    Thank God.


    I presume that you mean welfare and affirmative action, abortion and ever encroaching gun laws.. Yeah, great progress there.
    Your desire to marry a woman is a desire. If your desire is sactioned by the government, why are not other desires sanctioned? And, polygamy would require an overhaul of the system, not just a sentence. If you were actually serious about this issue, you would know that marriage isn't just about the actual ceremony, and the law that allows the ceremony to happen. There are over a thousand laws or statutes or what have you that would have to be changed, or completely redone to allow multiple partners. It is not about one sentence. To say so is just inane.

    Don't tell me what I make a moral judgment on. You have no idea what I make moral judgments on. Or is this another example of thought police? Maybe I was wrong, may people do have a way of reading minds and policing thought. If so, you're still wrong. Because I don't think polyamory or polygamy is morally wrong. I think it's a separate issue.

    So, we shouldn't have allowed inter racial marriage then? Come on. It has been something like 35+ years. Are you arguing that because you could marry a person of a different race, you should be able to marry a motorcycle or a box turtle? Get real. The inter racial marriage ruling found that marriage is a basic right of people, and that it fell under the 14th amendment, and that it was unconstitutional to deny that right to those couples. So, sure, I guess it opened it up. Damn them for deciding that the constitution should be adhered to! Damn those blacks and whites and Asians and so on for wanting to marry each other and have the same protections and privileges of same race couples. If it wasn't for them, the homos wouldn't be so uppity! Get real. Please.

    You are not forced to condone or embrace anything or anyone. Racists TO THIS DAY do not accept that black people are equal to white people, they do not accept or embrace the wins of the civil rights movement, Loving Vs Virginia, etc. You CAN NOT FORCE SOMEONE TO CONDONE OR EMBRACE ANYTHING. Go check out a KKK or other white power message board and tell me that allowing this sort of thing forces anyone to accept or embrace anything.

    And you know exactly what I'm talking about, and I've already made it clear. Not far above this very post I made a very short list of controversial changes that were met with hatred, derision, opposition, etc. If you really want to know, go back and read it.

    I love how you do that. You pick a law you don't like to make your point. Ok, so, we shouldn't have changed the laws about... slavery, black people being able to marry each other, womens right to vote, inter racial marriage, to name a few (AGAIN). We are ALWAYS full of people who want everything to remain the way it is. And it doesn't always stay that way. And when we look back on many of these things as a group we are glad they changed. Of course, racists never will be, people who are against abortion very strongly never will be, people who continue to hate gays never will be, etc. And, hey, funny thing, shouldn't they have been forced to, because of the fact that its the law now? Hmmm? Well?
    Point is, change is resisted. And not all change is good, but most change is not viewed as good. Should we halt all change in our society in case we make a bad change? To comfort the racists, or the people who hate other religions, or to uphold blasphemy laws, or to prevent the repealing of laws that might turn out to be bad, so that everyone who is vocally uncomfortable with change can be comfortable?

    You presume that's what I mean because you're for some reason trying to make me sound like I'm talking about things I'm not, I guess so that you look better? Or, so that it's easier to disagree with me because it's about other stuff you hate? But, pay attention. I've been very very clear about where I stand, and I've used countless examples, those have not been any of them. And for all of your trying to turn my words in to something else, sorry, but at least for me your failing. Because the beauty of the internet is that you can actually go back, read what I read, and see that I've never so much as mentioned any of those things, and you're out to lunch on this one.

    Why not try to actual deal with what I'm saying in a reasonable way instead of trying to turn it in to something else?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Quote Originally Posted by Zathras View Post
    Animals can't control their sexual urges. Humans can. So what you are saying is that Gays are no more advanced than animals...got it.



    Bullshit....Proposition 8 here in California, the outrage over it's defeat, the failed attempts to get such laws passed in other states and gay pride day proves your above statement is wrong. If Prop 8 had passed I would have been forced to accept gay marrage as legal.
    If that is what you think I'm saying, I guess you're saying that heterosexuals are no more advanced than animals, because of rape, or adultery/cheating on a partner or spouse, or visiting prostitutes because they want so badly to have sex? Or, hell, just most heterosexuals don't abstain from sex.

    Look at the rates of infidelity. So there you go. You got it, no human is more advanced than an animal because we can't control our sexual urges. Good job!

    Ok, right, you would have been forced to accept that this law exists. Get over it. People have to accept shit like that all the fucking time. That has nothing to do with accepting gay people, embracing homosexuality, etc. It has to do with facing fucking reality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Quote Originally Posted by lahdedah View Post
    Ok, right, you would have been forced to accept that this law exists. Get over it. People have to accept shit like that all the fucking time. That has nothing to do with accepting gay people, embracing homosexuality, etc. It has to do with facing fucking reality.
    Not gettin over it, not accepting it, not surrendering children to it anymore, and your reality is not our reality so YOU get over it. Gay marriage has been soundly defeated all over the country and the people have spoken. It sounds like you need to accept it and move on.
    At least once every human should have to run for his life, to teach him that milk does not come from supermarkets, that safety does not come from policemen, that news is not something that happens to other people. ~ Robert Heinlein

    You Say The Battle Is Over
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Senior Member KCornett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kal ee forn ya
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by lahdedah View Post
    Why do you feel the need to do that all the time? Does calling people names really help you make your point? No. It's just gratuitous, and I can only assume intended to offend. Why? What's the god damn point?

    And, since I've already addressed this question at least once, I won't bother doing so again.
    You say it is different.. that was how you addressed. You didn't answer it, did you.

    I am sorry, is describing what they do offensive?

    Do you not call someone who rapes people a rapist... someone who commits a felony a felon, someone who lays brick a bricklayer. It is the most common of human traits to label folks based upon their behaviour, if it were not abnormal, it would not be considered derisive would it? Should I call gay men, fellaters? and lesbian women cunnilingusers...cunnilingousers...(I am sorry to say that I can not conjugate that one effectively could you help me with that...) Or should I be even less euphemistic?
    Last edited by KCornett; 12-07-2008 at 06:17 AM.
    "If you're going through Hell... Keep on going"-Rodney Atkins
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Senior Member KCornett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kal ee forn ya
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by lahdedah View Post
    Your desire to marry a woman is a desire.....
    It is no more insane than having to change the laws to accept two homos getting married. According to you, a spouse is a spouse right? Man or woman? Why not multiple of each? Each of those same laws or statutes will have to be changed as well with homos getting married, why not go all the way. In for a penny in for a pound?

    Don't tell me what I make a moral judgment on. You have no idea what I make moral judgments on.
    Actually, I have a good idea of what you make moral judgement based upon your arguments here. Apparently the drive and desire to have sex with one person reglardless of gender is acceptable to you, along with the marriage of the same. However, the drive to have sex with multiple partners is not acceptable to you, along with marriage of the same. Your intellectual dishonesty with yourself is telling. It amuses me that you advocate so strongly for the rights of gay marriage, but are unwilling to advocate for MPH (remember; multi-partnered heterosexuals) individuals. It shows me that the repeated and apparently effective propaganda of the homo agenda is working on at least a segment of the population. All we now have to do is shift gears to get general society to accept MPH.
    Or is this another example of thought police? Maybe I was wrong, may people do have a way of reading minds and policing thought.
    any way, you are forcing your judgements on others. Just as in with the homos, what happens in the bedroom should stay in the bedroom... Oh wait, they want to move it from the bedroom into the public eye, and force society to accept it. I think that it is high time for MPH individuals to do the same thing.
    If so, you're still wrong. Because I don't think polyamory or polygamy is morally wrong. I think it's a separate issue.
    No, you want them to be seperate issues, but they are the same thing. Abnormal partnering and marriage, be it two pole smokers or one man and two women, is abnormal.

    So, we shouldn't have allowed inter racial marriage then? ...
    you are the one that stated that interracial Now, instead of any man marrying any woman, we have two men that want to marry each other, and two women that want to marry each other. You are OK, with that, but you do not support the MPH marriage rights?

    Get real. The inter racial marriage ruling found that marriage is a basic right of people, and that it fell under the 14th amendment, and that it was unconstitutional to deny that right to those couples.
    Yay, the 14th Ammendment rides again! Whoo Hoo! I know, If I do not get the supreme court to decide in my favor I will make it 11 people and appoint judges who agree with me... (oh wait, that has already happened hasn't it? Oh, damn it was the liberals who did it too, hmmph, who would have thought.)

    So, sure, I guess it opened it up. Damn them for deciding that the constitution should be adhered to!
    You are absolutely right, the constitution should be adhered too! So we should do away immediately with:
    Abortion Protection
    Gun Control Laws
    The Federal Income Tax
    Welfare Programs and Support
    Spending Overbudget
    The list goes on and on...
    I guess what I am getting at... you support adhering to the constitution when it supports your personal argument of the day. I support it regardless, and I believe that the Constitution is clear that this is an issue that should be covered by states. The State of California has spoken, and the people do not want pole smokers getting married. Sorry, that is just the Constitution. If one were to interpret the Constitution to say that gays get can be married to each other, because of their fundamental right to marry whomever they love, the same argument must be made for MPH Individuals. I am sure, that when you look at the argument this way, in a true critical manner, you have to agree. Regardless, of your 'personal beliefs'.
    ... If it wasn't for them, the homos wouldn't be so uppity! Get real. Please.
    Remember, you said it, not me.

    [quote]...You CAN NOT FORCE SOMEONE TO CONDONE OR EMBRACE ANYTHING....quote] You are in fact forcing me and society to accept a deviant behavior. It just irks me that you accept gay deviance as OK, and MPH as 'bad.'



    I love how you do that. You pick a law you don't like to make your point.
    you mean like you are doing with forcing pole smokers as normal on us?
    Ok, so, we shouldn't have changed the laws about... slavery, black people being able to marry each other, womens right to vote, inter racial marriage, to name a few (AGAIN).
    Tsk... I do not recall that you have enlightened us specifically on how these legislations FORCED the changes that would have happened anyways (slavery would have died out because of the cost compared to automation, political parties always whore to as many votes as possible, hense universal suffarage was inevitible, interracial marriage... again a product of drives and desires.

    We are ALWAYS full of people who want everything to remain the way it is. And it doesn't always stay that way.
    You are right, I wish that folks still actually died from the death penalty rather than from old age. I wish that life in prison, meant life in prison. I wish that I was allowed to protect myself from those that would harm me without having to retreat first. Yeah, change... it is always for the better. Now, I will grant the pole smokers marriage licenses if I am granted a license to marry as many women as I want. Seems fair. They are all partners that I love and want to spend my life with.

    And when we look back on many of these things as a group we are glad they changed.
    We are?
    Of course, racists never will be, people who are against abortion very strongly never will be, people who continue to hate gays never will be, etc.
    Yeah, cause everyone on the conservative side is a racist.
    And the fact that folks feel that abortion is murdering innocents and should not be viewed as birth control for the morally bankrupt that as you say 'cannot control their urges."
    I do not hate gays. They want to smoke poles, let them, girls want to eat at they 'Y' let them do that too.
    I just think that it is a choice, and that marriage between two pole smokers is a special right, not one that is inferred or explicitly granted under the Constitution. If in fact you feel that it is inferred or explicitly granted under the constitution, then you must also feel that marriage for MPH is also inferred or explicitly granted, or you my dear, are a hypocrite.
    And, hey, funny thing, shouldn't they have been forced to, because of the fact that its the law now? Hmmm? Well?
    What? They are being forced to accept it. Abortion has been 'normalized' and is offered as a "choice" for birth control. Folks are forced to accept a great many things that they wouldn't otherwise do so, because of laws. An example, I am FORCED to accept that my tax dollars are going to go and help some lazy assed housing project resident. I am forced to accept that the Death Penalty will not be enforced in any effective measure. I am forced to accept the Constitution has been raped, and it is not for the better. I am forced to accept that the ideas of States and Individual rights are being removed as we speak for the "collective good". Which, is bullshit btw. We are forced to accept all that shit. Homos should be forced to accept smoking each other's poles is not normal, and we should not be forced to call it such.
    "If you're going through Hell... Keep on going"-Rodney Atkins
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Senior Member KCornett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kal ee forn ya
    Posts
    123
    Part II

    Point is, change is resisted.
    Change is easy, with media and propaganda. Have you not noticed? 25 years ago homos actually kept their pole smoking in their bedroom; they didnt discuss it, and life was alot simpler. Thanks to propaganda pole smoking as moved from deviant to chic.
    And not all change is good, but most change is not viewed as good.
    I assume that you meant that most change is viewed as good. I would disagree, change for the sake of change is not the same thing as progress. I think that you mull that one over for a bit.
    Should we halt all change in our society in case we make a bad change?
    I think that we should seriously consider what impact the changes are going to have before we make them. You know, think critically, and not emotionally.
    to comfort the racists, or the people who hate other religions, or to uphold blasphemy laws, or to prevent the repealing of laws that might turn out to be bad, so that everyone who is vocally uncomfortable with change can be comfortable?
    No, we simply do not change for the sake of change. Affirmative Action has turned out horribly, The New Deal, welfare and so many other ''changes" have created a sense of entitlement in the United States, they are bad laws, and they need to be changed, but they won't. They never will be, because anyone who opposes these laws, for whatever reason is called a racist. Just like your veiled insinuations that we who oppose gay marriage are homophobic bigots. I have called you out on your MPH bigotry, yet you state "it is a different issue", when it is the same, you just refuse to look at the same because of your personal value set.

    You presume that's what I mean because you're for some reason trying to make me sound like I'm talking about things I'm not, I guess so that you look better? Or, so that it's easier to disagree with me because it's about other stuff you hate? But, pay attention. I've been very very clear about where I stand, and I've used countless examples, those have not been any of them. And for all of your trying to turn my words in to something else, sorry, but at least for me your failing. Because the beauty of the internet is that you can actually go back, read what I read, and see that I've never so much as mentioned any of those things, and you're out to lunch on this one.

    Why not try to actual deal with what I'm saying in a reasonable way instead of trying to turn it in to something else?
    You kept citing the interracial marriage thing... and were rambling on about all that great change... So I pointed out some other change, changes that other liberals so wildly support. The only thing that you have been VERY CLEAR about is your stance that GAY MARRIAGE is good. You have been at best ambiguous as to what your positions on other issues are.

    I assume that you are anti-racism. As an Anti-Racist, I should also presume that you are anti- Affirmative Action; because special preference based one's race is racism, correct.

    I woud also assume that based upon your arguments, that you are pro-life, or anti-abortion, however you would term it, because you state that everyone has a right to life and happiness. Everyone includes the unborn...

    The point is.. the only thing that you have been clear about is that gay marriage should be forced on society. You are also unwilling to force MPH marriage on society.

    MPH (I like it, now that there has been established a nifty name, the real propaganda efforts can ensure)
    "If you're going through Hell... Keep on going"-Rodney Atkins
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •