narcimund

No, I'll tell you what the problem is. The problem is that there are real people out here in the world just trying to get by and there are other people who get a tickley little thrill voting their rights away, trashing their lives, and stomping on their hopes and dreams. That's the problem. The rest of this is just chitchat. First Class Citizen Twice Over

Wow. I never knew I was so important. I haven't seen you ask any questions. I've seen you ignore them. I've also seen you ignore answers which contradicted questions you SHOULD have asked. I've also seen you give ignorant, destructive opinions about things you know nothing about, then responded to information you were missing as if it were an attack. I hardly ever use the terms "homophobe" or "religious zealot". However, I'll freely call you (and your kind) the "enemy". Not because you disagree with me, but because you've declared yourself against me (and my kind). You (and your kind) seek out ways to disadvantage me, stop me from gaining what I want (even when it has nothing to do with you) and in extreme cases, your kind does much, much worse. I think "enemy" covers it quite well. Is that better? First Class Citizen Twice Over

Your ability to mindread the source of my sexual orientation is only matched by your ability to mindread my reasons for defending good argument against poor readings. First Class Citizen Twice Over

Ron, I assume you won't reply to this because you never do. But other people will read it and get the idea. There is a substantial difference between (A) being gay (i.e., being the kind of person who is inclined to homosexual relations of a variety of different kinds) versus (B) having gay sex. When people say being gay is not a choice, they mean (A). When you say having gay sex is a choice, you mean (B). But you conflate the two (intentionally, I do believe) to create a logically unsupportable result. Think about the difference. Think about it a lot because your failure to understand this very simple idea is the source of a lot of your difficulty. First Class Citizen Twice Over

Then maybe you should not attack me? Maybe you should read a little more closely. He was using (very well I might add) a little logic technique knows as hypotheticals to connect your very own disconnected argument. Go read it again without assuming you're being called (--gasp--!) gay and it will become clear. First Class Citizen Twice Over

In that case you're rare. Well, you would be if you were on the other side at least. First Class Citizen Twice Over

One consistent technique among the anti-gay-marriage people (and also the anti-gay people who are largely the same group) is that when their nonsense made-up attacks are dismissed without proof, they take that as evidence for their claim but but as soon as proof is offered, they silently ignore it -- and come back later with the same attack. In other words, the rule is: attack over and over until someone points out your facts are simply wrong. Then take a short break before starting over. The anti-gay-marriage posters in this thread have absolutely NO idea what gay people are about. Your imaginations are running wild with paranoia and rumor but you're totally out of your minds with nonsense. The last thing in the world you want to find out is the truth, so you've developed excellent filters for ignoring evidence. I swear it would be funny if you people didn't breed so quickly. First Class Citizen Twice Over

I never heard that position in the official Gay Lobby newsletter. Maybe you're on the top secret inner-circle mailing list. Some gay people fuck strangers and some form monogamous relationships. Hmm. Just like straight people. So we'd really get a lot further in this conversation if you guys would pick a position and stick with it. Are we homosexuals inferior to you because some of us don't want to be married or because some of us do?

The ONLY information revealed by the poll is what side somebody was on before it started. The debate might as well not have happened. In other words, someone's claim that A won or B won even in their own opinion is approximately 98% meaningless. First Class Citizen Twice Over

You're absolutely right. Why shouldn't you be allowed to suck on your dog's ass. You know, if he wanted to suck on his dog's ass, I'd have no objection, moral or otherwise. To each his own, I say. First Class Citizen Twice Over

Not nearly enough interpreters. Too bad they fire the gay ones. First Class Citizen Twice Over

I laugh. I just plain laugh. I don't laugh very often but that's funny. First Class Citizen Twice Over

I like oxygen. Does that mean everyone who disagrees with my political views will voluntarily stop breathing? First Class Citizen Twice Over

I'll answer for myself. Your personal opinions don't matter for a bucket of warm spit. But your type breeds prolifically and there are lots like you. The sheer volume of the noise that comes out your kind is deafening. We'd like you all to quiet down a bit so the rest of us can get on with the matter of living our otherwise enjoyable lives on this planet. You can have your quiet, disparaging opinions all day long but we'd appreciate it if you and those like you would stop directing the police and courts to oppress those of use who enjoy different pleasures than you do. It's really getting very old and tiresome. By the way, I still wonder about the questions I posed directly to you above. But I know that it's uncomfortable for you to address anything slightly out of your proscriptive habits of thought. But we're patient. Far more patient than your kind. First Class Citizen Twice Over

Sure. You can convince me of anything. As long as you're right. First Class Citizen Twice Over

No, you have the right to your moral objections all day long. However, I believe you're incredibly silly to base your beliefs on lies and factual errors. But if it makes you happy, have at it. First Class Citizen Twice Over

No, you did not address the question. *sigh* it's like wrestling eels. I'll put it to you again in nice easy words. Here we go: Why is it you think heterosexuals are so easy to recruit? Would you be easy to recruit? Edited to add: Oh wait! You sort of DID answer the question, although it was pretty well hidden in the midst of other stuff. You claimed we recruit children which are weak (while presumably you as an adult are strong.) So here's my next question: Read my discussion directly above about MY experience with gay peoples' childhood traumas then answer this slightly more complex question (and please don't hide your answer amongst other things): Question: Since I've known hundres of gay people (and talked with them as an equal) and found only a small, normal number of victims of sexual abuse, and since nearly ALL of them have told me they came to be gay before meeting any gay people or having any sexual experiences, how does your claim stand up? Possible Answers: A) My experience with gay people isn't as scientific and unbiased as yours. B) I am lying as part of a grand global conspiracy to hide our nefarious child-recruitment plans C) Your predetermined belief biased your small number of probably-adversarial discussions with gay people leading you to the conclusion you expected. First Class Citizen Twice Over

But we all know you and Badenhop know the deep dark secrets of all gay people. By the way, I'm gay. I was not sexually abused as a child. Ever. I knew I was gay long before I met an openly gay person. Nobody around me had any interest in me being gay. Quite the contrary. And of the literally hundreds of gay people I've met in my life, the very large percentage have said the same thing. You don't think gay people talk about their childhoods and when their earliest homosexual thoughts and feelings arose? Yet one more way you're completely wrong. It's as common among gay people as discussing whether you trained AFF or static line among skydivers. Go figure. You are simply WRONG about the facts. Imagine that. Vicious, violent opinions with a totally imaginary basis. How stereotypical. First Class Citizen Twice Over

That's possible. On the other hand, maybe Mr. Badenhop doesn't feel any temptation. He's one of the lucky ones born SUPER-heterosexual and thus beyond our spider-fingered grasp. Drat! That's why I asked him where he gets his intuition. If it's not his own weakness, where does he gather the impression other heterosexuals are weak? Notice he doesn't answer the question. They never do. First Class Citizen Twice Over

Ah. More of the same. Sorry folks, there's nothing to see here. The show's over. Everybody go back to your homes. We'll take it from here. First Class Citizen Twice Over

This tired old argument always tempts me to ask, do you feel like YOU could be recruited? Either you feel close to temptation or you don't. If you do, you might want to examine your motives closer. If not, where on earth are you getting your intuitions about other peoples' weakness for being recruited? I eagerly (and fruitlessly) await discussion. In the meantime I'll have to enjoy your charming sloganeering. By the way, if I asked nicely could I get you to chant, "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" too? That always brings back fond memories. First Class Citizen Twice Over

QuoteGee the far left supporting Kerry??? Who would have thought? Gee the far right attacking Kerry??? Who would have thought? First Class Citizen Twice Over

Gee the far right attacking Kerry??? Who would have thought? First Class Citizen Twice Over

Tell you what... you can live out of the dictionary all you like. I don't find reality lies there myself. First Class Citizen Twice Over

I don't consider a marriage license "permission" from the state. I consider it protection from the state. Most of the so-called benefits of legal marriage aren't benefits in the usual sense. Instead, they take the form of powers the government cedes to the spouse. Marriage is one of the very few (perhaps only) ways to get the government off your back in some small ways. Within marriage, inheritance is untaxed. Testimony in court cannot be compelled. When incapacitated, the spouse speaks for the other instead of the government doing so. I don't seek, need, or desire anyone's permission to live and love as I see fit. But I DO desire the small but significant liberty from oppression that comes in a marriage contract. I trust my husband far more than I trust the government in these matters. The romantic part of the marriage? The commitment, support, love, and family teamness of it? That has nothing whatsoever to do with the government. Nothing at all. We provide all we need either way. First Class Citizen Twice Over