Are you for a state amendment or Constitutional Amendment?

[shuamort]

Hooray for your anecdotal couple. When the time comes, ask him how he feels when his Amerasian daughter comes home from kindergarten crying that the rest of the kids taunt her.

Yeah, maybe I'll suggest keeping the kids away from the people that wear their white hoods on too.

Why do you use the euphemism, "gay"? Do you find the correct word distasteful?

Gay isn't a euphemism. It's actually an accepted and common term in today's vernacular. But, for what it's worth and whatever lame point you're getting at, I'll have it known that I've used gay and homosexual interchangeably on this board alone.

I'll stick with the traditional one man/one woman. It's worked well for thousands of years. I see no point in introducing an artificiality just to please a few folks who won't be satisfied until every tradition is reduced to nothingness.

It's worked so well that approximately half of all marriages end in divorce. :roll:

 

[26 X World Champs]

Hooray for your anecdotal couple. When the time comes, ask him how he feels when his Amerasian daughter comes home from kindergarten crying that the rest of the kids taunt her.

Can't teach an old dog new tricks I guess? This is yet another in a serious of your penchant to simply make non-factual generalizations. Put your words where your generalizations are and prove to us that Amerasian children are normally discriminated against in school? If you're unable to to produce facts to back up your bluster, how about putting a lid on it? I would also like to know exactly what those taunts would be, please enlighten us?

Why do you use the euphemism, "gay"? Do you find the correct word distasteful?

What word is that? Gay people prefer to be called Gay. Who the hel* are you to tell them what to call themselves? You're lack of respect for anything that is not identical to you, what was the word you used, homogenous, is repulsive to me. There's a euphemism for you too, IMHO, it's ARCHIE BUNKER.

I'll stick with the traditional one man/one woman. It's worked well for thousands of years. I see no point in introducing an artificiality just to please a few folks who won't be satisfied until every tradition is reduced to nothingness.

Hmmm? There weren't Gay people back in the day? Since you're such a traditionalist what say you that we go back to the good old days of no interracial marriages? That too was untraditional until 50 years ago. Or how about we just go back to the good old days of the Spanish Inquisition? Think of all the heretics you could eliminate to recreate the homogeneous society that seems to be your preference?

:2no4:

 

[argexpat]

Much of the difficulty modern day folks have with the art of personal communication is traceable to two factors. First, people do not adhere to the dictionary definitions of words and so confusion occurs over what is meant by what is said. Second, there is a propensity to stray from the old adage, "Say what you mean and mean what you say."

First, you've got it exactly backwards. People don't adhere to the dictionary definition of words. That's why we have dictionaries, to track the ever-changing meaning of words as used by people. (When you feel joy, do you tell people you're gay?)

Second, I'm charging you with not "saying what you mean," specifically that what you mean by calling homosexuals deviants is that they are perverts, on a par with pedophiles, and not mere "deviations from a norm."

Taken together, I find it tiresome and boring to attempt to converse with persons whose respect for these time tested principles of polite conversation is nil.

I find it tiresome and boring, not to mention ridiculous, to be lectured about polite conversation from someone who employs sophistry to denounce people as degenerates because they're in the minority.

Intelligent persons understand and respect the true meanings of words and so are able to conduct intelligent conversations with intelligent persons.

So, let me take you at your word. You're claiming that by calling homosexuals "deviants" you're simply pointing out that they are not like most people. Congratulations, Fantasea, you've just won The Most Pointlessly Obvious Observation in the Universe Award! Take a bow! (Then take a hike...)

That seems like another way to express another old adage, "The truth hurts." Or, "Calling a spade, a spade."

But wait, this would seem to contradict your claim that you're simply noting the statistical prevalence of homosexuals. "The truth" is that you don't have the guts to "call a spade a spade." You hide your disdain and bigotry towards homosexuals in silly pedantry.

I prefer to discuss things in a clinically civil manner using standard English.

Yes, a clinic is precisely where you should be making this argument.

You prefer to discuss things in an highly emotional manner bending, twisting, distorting words to fit whatever meaning you believe will dignify your argument.

What a coincidence, this is precisely what I'm contending you are doing: cherry-picking dictionary definitions simply to disparage an entire class of people.

The term African-American puzzles me.

I suppose we could just go back to calling them niggers. Would that make you happy?

However, If one were discussing the composition of the population in the US, could one correctly deny that in skin color, first, the norm, or major component, is white; and second, that other skin colors, including black, brown, red, and yellow, each far fewer in number, and not being the same as white, deviate from white?

Congratulations, Fantasea, you just won the Second Most Pointlessly Obvious Observation in the Universe Award! You're really on a roll!

Gay people enjoy sex, want to fall in love and get married, just like everybody else. That's the only "norm" that matters.

 

[Fantasea]

Yeah, maybe I'll suggest keeping the kids away from the people that wear their white hoods on too.

I see you favor shooting the messenger who brings you news that you don't like. If you read back you'll find that everything I've presented on the subject has been laid out as observations without criticism.

I've noticed that a few regulars in this forum share that proclivity.

Gay isn't a euphemism. It's actually an accepted and common term in today's vernacular. But, for what it's worth and whatever lame point you're getting at, I'll have it known that I've used gay and

Folks who knew that the correct term could never be bandied about in polite conversation because of the negative connotation it had worn forever. In order to further their attempts to shed an unsavory image, they co-opted the word "Gay" which heretofore was defined as:

Main Entry: [1]gay
Pronunciation: 'gA
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French gai
Date: 14th century
1 a : happily excited : MERRY b : keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits <abandoned a sober traditional style for one more timely and gay>
2 a : BRIGHT, LIVELY <gay sunny meadows> b : brilliant in color
3 : given to social pleasures;

It's worked so well that approximately half of all marriages end in divorce. :roll:

Refer back to that list of differences that can be the cause marital strife.

 

[shuamort]

I see you favor shooting the messenger who brings you news that you don't like. If you read back you'll find that everything I've presented on the subject has been laid out as observations without criticism.

Where am I "shooting the messenger". You're not the messenger. You are the sender of the message.

I've noticed that a few regulars in this forum share that proclivity.

Or is it just the people that aren't buying what you're selling?

Folks who knew that the correct term could never be bandied about in polite conversation because of the negative connotation it had worn forever. In order to further their attempts to shed an unsavory image, they co-opted the word "Gay" which heretofore was defined as:

Main Entry: [1]gay
Pronunciation: 'gA
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French gai
Date: 14th century
1 a : happily excited : MERRY b : keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits <abandoned a sober traditional style for one more timely and gay>
2 a : BRIGHT, LIVELY <gay sunny meadows> b : brilliant in color
3 : given to social pleasures;

You say the word "gay" and what comes to your mind right away? Happy or homosexual? Which usage is more common in today's society?

4 a : HOMOSEXUAL b : of, relating to, or used by homosexuals <the gay rights movement> <a gay bar>

Oddly enough, M-W.com omits the other common usage of the word "gay" and I'm frankly not sure why. "Gay" is used derrogatorily in slams like "that is so gay".

Of course, if you've got such a problem with language evolution, why are you speaking English? Of course, you could also say that pro-life is just a pleasant saying instead of the unsavory "anti-abortion". Why mince words?

Refer back to that list of differences that can be the cause marital strife.

Yes, but weren't those differences still there 100 years ago when the divorce rate wasn't even close to that high? I'll answer my own rhetorical question and just say "yup".

 

[Fantasea]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Much of the difficulty modern day folks have with the art of personal communication is traceable to two factors. First, people do not adhere to the dictionary definitions of words and so confusion occurs over what is meant by what is said. Second, there is a propensity to stray from the old adage, "Say what you mean and mean what you say."

First, you've got it exactly backwards. People don't adhere to the dictionary definition of words. That's why we have dictionaries, to track the ever-changing meaning of words as used by people.

Perhaps that is why there is so much communication confusion.

(When you feel joy, do you tell people you're gay?)

Nowadays, if a person replies to the question, “Did you enjoy yourself?”, “I had a gay old time!”, the next question is likely to be, “Were you the sodomizer or the sodomizee?”

Second, I'm charging you with not "saying what you mean," specifically that what you mean by calling homosexuals deviants is that they are perverts, on a par with pedophiles, and not mere "deviations from a norm."

First, you can take your charge and stick it “where the sun don’t shine”.
Second, you persist in taking a perfectly good word, “deviant” and twisting, bending, and otherwise distorting its long accepted definition to give it a meaning never intended. Deviant and its derivatives mean different. Ever hear of statistical standard deviations? That is exactly what is being discussed. The major population segment is the norm; all minor segments are deviant. That is the precise context in which the word deviant was used. Deviant is not a synonym for the word pervert, except, perhaps, in the minds of perverts.

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Taken together, I find it tiresome and boring to attempt to converse with persons whose respect for these time tested principles of polite conversation is nil.

I find it tiresome and boring, not to mention ridiculous, to be lectured about polite conversation from someone who employs sophistry to denounce people as degenerates because they're in the minority.

Now it’s my turn to make a charge. Scroll back up the thread and copy a few of my remarks that “denounce people as degenerates”. If you can’t find any, then I’ll expect to see an apology. If you can’t find any and you don’t apologize, then you will have identified yourself as a dishonorable person to all the readers in this forum.

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Intelligent persons understand and respect the true meanings of words and so are able to conduct intelligent conversations with intelligent persons.

So, let me take you at your word. You're claiming that by calling homosexuals "deviants" you're simply pointing out that they are not like most people. Congratulations, Fantasea, you've just won The Most Pointlessly Obvious Observation in the Universe Award! Take a bow! (Then take a hike...)

Statistically the entire population is 100%. Since the advocates estimate somewhere between 10% and !5% are homosexual, that means that the larger segment, is between 85% and 90%. I leave it to you. Which group constitutes the norm? Which group constitutes the deviant?

Originally Posted by Fantasea
That seems like another way to express another old adage, "The truth hurts." Or, "Calling a spade, a spade

But wait, this would seem to contradict your claim that you're simply noting the statistical prevalence of homosexuals. "The truth" is that you don't have the guts to "call a spade a spade." You hide your disdain and bigotry towards homosexuals in silly pedantry.

Gee, you sure do read funny.

Originally Posted by Fantasea
I prefer to discuss things in a clinically civil manner using standard English.

Yes, a clinic is precisely where you should be making this argument.

Pardon me, was this an attempt at humor?

Originally Posted by Fantasea
You prefer to discuss things in an highly emotional manner bending, twisting, distorting words to fit whatever meaning you believe will dignify your argument.

What a coincidence, this is precisely what I'm contending you are doing: cherry-picking dictionary definitions simply to disparage an entire class of people.

So, what you are saying is that you are the pot who is calling the kettle black. Is that right? (I wonder if you’ll find something discriminatory in that revered old adage.)

Originally Posted by Fantasea
The term African-American puzzles me.

I suppose we could just go back to calling them niggers. Would that make you happy?

If you’re not familiar with the sin called “taking out of context”, allow me to admonish you. You just committed it.

Originally Posted by Fantasea
However, If one were discussing the composition of the population in the US, could one correctly deny that in skin color, first, the norm, or major component, is white; and second, that other skin colors, including black, brown, red, and yellow, each far fewer in number, and not being the same as white, deviate from white?

Congratulations, Fantasea, you just won the Second Most Pointlessly Obvious Observation in the Universe Award! You're really on a roll!

I notice that when you come to a question, a truthful answer to which would cause you pain, you merely ignore the question and scoff. Why is that?

Gay people enjoy sex, want to fall in love and get married, just like everybody else. That's the only "norm" that matters.

Evidently, the need to seek ever more and more is proof that their lifestyle leaves them unfulfilled.
__________________

 

[shuamort]

Evidently, the need to seek ever more and more is proof that their lifestyle leaves them unfulfilled.

You mean like the inability to get married would leave some people unfulfilled? Shocking, since marriage is the norm. And if it were up to you, you'd deny them from it and for no other reason but your selfish and bigoted rationale.

 

[Fantasea]

You mean like the inability to get married would leave some people unfulfilled? Shocking, since marriage is the norm. And if it were up to you, you'd deny them from it and for no other reason but your selfish and bigoted rationale.

Marriage is the norm between one man and one woman. Or hadn't you noticed?

Evidently, this seems to be the norm wherever and whenever the people have been permitted to express their opinion.

You may recall that in all twelve states in which same-sex marriage related initiatives appeared on the ballot, the measures were defeated, not simply be majorities, but by multiples.

You may have also noticed that all of the socialist-lib-dem politicians who, prior to the election strongly advocated same-sex marriage saw the handwriting on the wall and immediately became mute on the subject.

I wonder why? What do you think?

 

[shuamort]

Marriage is the norm between one man and one woman. Or hadn't you noticed?

Evidently, this seems to be the norm wherever and whenever the people have been permitted to express their opinion.

You may recall that in all twelve states in which same-sex marriage related initiatives appeared on the ballot, the measures were defeated, not simply be majorities, but by multiples.

You may have also noticed that all of the socialist-lib-dem politicians who, prior to the election strongly advocated same-sex marriage saw the handwriting on the wall and immediately became mute on the subject.

I wonder why? What do you think?

Wow, you ignored the fact that you're willing to deny people marriage still. How proud you must be to push your will and decisions on consenting adults for selfish reasons.

 

[argexpat]

Evidently, the need to seek ever more and more is proof that their lifestyle leaves them unfulfilled.

Congratulations, you've just described the human race...we're all deviants!

 

[argexpat]

Marriage is the norm between one man and one woman. Or hadn't you noticed?

And it would be the norm between one man and one man if it weren't arbitrarily denied because of religious bigotry.

You're obsessed with this idea of a "norm." It's no wonder, since the rational for denying same-sex marriage is so thin. There's nothing abnormal about wanting to marry the person you love. Only a jerk would want to deny anyone that opportunity.

You may have also noticed that all of the socialist-lib-dem politicians who, prior to the election strongly advocated same-sex marriage saw the handwriting on the wall and immediately became mute on the subject.

You're right, fascist-con-rep politicians had no qualms about pandering to Christian bigotry, ignorance and homophobia.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Marriage is the norm between one man and one woman. Or hadn't you noticed?

Evidently, this seems to be the norm wherever and whenever the people have been permitted to express their opinion.

You may recall that in all twelve states in which same-sex marriage related initiatives appeared on the ballot, the measures were defeated, not simply be majorities, but by multiples.

You may have also noticed that all of the socialist-lib-dem politicians who, prior to the election strongly advocated same-sex marriage saw the handwriting on the wall and immediately became mute on the subject.

I wonder why? What do you think?

Wow, you ignored the fact that you're willing to deny people marriage still. How proud you must be to push your will and decisions on consenting adults for selfish reasons.

Wow, you ignored the question at the end of my post. I wonder why.

 

[Fantasea]

Congratulations, you've just described the human race...we're all deviants!

I recently came across this: "When you're convinced of your own superiority, yet still young and/or insecure, it's easy to show defensiveness by mockery and derision. Such mocking can puff up your internal sense of status, putting yourself above others."

 

[Fantasea]

QUOTE=argexpat

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Marriage is the norm between one man and one woman. Or hadn't you noticed?

And it would be the norm between one man and one man if it weren't arbitrarily denied because of religious bigotry.

You're obsessed with this idea of a "norm." It's no wonder, since the rational for denying same-sex marriage is so thin. There's nothing abnormal about wanting to marry the person you love. Only a jerk would want to deny anyone that opportunity.

So I guess that those millions of folks, both red and blue, who exercised their freedom to vote their consciences are simply religious bigots. Is that correct?

Originally Posted by Fantasea
You may have also noticed that all of the socialist-lib-dem politicians who, prior to the election strongly advocated same-sex marriage saw the handwriting on the wall and immediately became mute on the subject.

You're right, fascist-con-rep politicians had no qualms about pandering to Christian bigotry, ignorance and homophobia.

What had politicians to do with what went on inside the voting booth?

The socialist-lib-dems showed their true color (not true blue, but yellow). They dropped the same-sex marriage thing like a hot potato.

 

[shuamort]

Wow, you ignored the question at the end of my post. I wonder why.

Quid pro quo. Well, that and I'm getting tired of your bigotry and lack of intelligent defense too.

 

[shuamort]

QUOTE=argexpat
So I guess that those millions of folks, both red and blue, who exercised their freedom to vote their consciences are simply religious bigots. Is that correct?
What had politicians to do with what went on inside the voting booth?

Oh, not just religious bigots. There were secular bigots too.

The socialist-lib-dems showed their true color (not true blue, but yellow). They dropped the same-sex marriage thing like a hot potato.

The libertarian party sure didn't drop the same-sex marriage thing. So your claims are unfounded. Like usual.

 

[shuamort]

I recently came across this: "When you're convinced of your own superiority, yet still young and/or insecure, it's easy to show defensiveness by mockery and derision. Such mocking can puff up your internal sense of status, putting yourself above others."

I hope your mirror is clean then.

 

[argexpat]

I recently came across this: "When you're convinced of your own superiority, yet still young and/or insecure, it's easy to show defensiveness by mockery and derision. Such mocking can puff up your internal sense of status, putting yourself above others."

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

[argexpat]

So I guess that those millions of folks, both red and blue, who exercised their freedom to vote their consciences are simply religious bigots. Is that correct?
What had politicians to do with what went on inside the voting booth?

You brought up the politicians. But yes, voting to arbitrarily deny a certain class of people their civil liberties based solely on something as irrelevant as who they have sex with is not just bigotry but discrimination, and many of those people voted for this on religious grounds, ergo they are religious bigots. And fascist-con-rep politicians, including our very own president, pandered to that religious bigotry to win an election. It was an axis of weasel.

The socialist-lib-dems showed their true color (not true blue, but yellow). They dropped the same-sex marriage thing like a hot potato.

Tell you what, I'll grant that the Democrats are wimps, if you'll grant that the Republicans are pompous, sanctimonious hypocrites. Deal?

 

[Fantasea]

Quid pro quo. Well, that and I'm getting tired of your bigotry and lack of intelligent defense too.

When one is tired, that is usually a sign that it is time to go to sleep.

In the meantime, if you're able to specify an exact quote of mine that you judge to be bigotted, cite it and I'll rebut.

 

[Fantasea]

QUOTE=shuamort

Originally Posted by Fantasea
So I guess that those millions of folks, both red and blue, who exercised their freedom to vote their consciences are simply religious bigots. Is that correct?
What had politicians to do with what went on inside the voting booth?

Oh, not just religious bigots. There were secular bigots too.

So by your standards, anyone who exercises a free choice that differs from what you would have chosen is, in your judgment, a bigot.

Originally Posted by Fantasea
The socialist-lib-dems showed their true color (not true blue, but yellow). They dropped the same-sex marriage thing like a hot potato.

The libertarian party sure didn't drop the same-sex marriage thing. So your claims are unfounded. Like usual.

I have no complaint with the Libertarian Party. However, their numbers render them powerless to effect any change. FYI the "lib" is shorthand for "liberal".

Are you agreeing that the Democratic politicians have abandoned the "cause"? If not, then cite some recent efforts.

 

[Fantasea]

You brought up the politicians. But yes, voting to arbitrarily deny a certain class of people their civil liberties based solely on something as irrelevant as who they have sex with is not just bigotry but discrimination, and many of those people voted for this on religious grounds, ergo they are religious bigots. And fascist-con-rep politicians, including our very own president, pandered to that religious bigotry to win an election. It was an axis of weasel.

If it is bigotry to deny same-sex marriages, is it also bigotry to deny ploygamy, is it also bigotry to deny marriage to siblings, is it also bigotry to deny marriage to one's aunt's, uncles, and first cousins?

Tell you what, I'll grant that the Democrats are wimps, if you'll grant that the Republicans are pompous, sanctimonious hypocrites. Deal?

Your statement already concedes what I said about the color of the Democratic politicians. There is no need for me to sing the obvious praises of the stalwart Republican politicians.

 

[shuamort]

In the meantime, if you're able to specify an exact quote of mine that you judge to be bigotted, cite it and I'll rebut.

I think whenever someone has called your opinions bigoted in any of these threads, they were pretty much spot on.

I'll put your ignorant and bigoted comment in italics. You can dig up the links yourself.

The results of its (homosexual community) proslytizing and missionary work would make any religious organization green with envy.

Homosexuality isn't a belief, it's genetic. As such, it can't get adherents any more than a race can.


No, it's not. Homophobia is a word concocted by the PC crowd because never before in the history of mankind was there a need for a label for persons whom they believe should be held in contempt for daring to be disgusted at having the sexual proclivities of deviates constantly thrust into their faces.

Disgusted? Yeah. That's not a bigoted statement right there.

The word "gay" is the epitome of this travesty.
People don't hate homosexuals. What they find disagreeable are the actions of many homosexuals.

So homosexuals and the vernacular applied to them is a "travesty"

However, loving any person does not mean that behavior contrary to the norm must be tolerated, does it?

Ahh, so you don't tolerate homosexual behavior.

You may claim that these are "general feelings" or "norms" or reactions to the "social-dem-lib" intrusion. Or whatever cop-outs you want to use, but you've already tipped your hand and the table knows the cards you have.

So by your standards, anyone who exercises a free choice that differs from what you would have chosen is, in your judgment, a bigot.

Just like you to constantly twist what other people say. Free choice does not equal bigotry, it's what they do with it that matters.

I have no complaint with the Libertarian Party. However, their numbers render them powerless to effect any change. FYI the "lib" is shorthand for "liberal".

While former Governor Ventura was not a libertarian, his party affiliation was the local equivent.

Are you agreeing that the Democratic politicians have abandoned the "cause"? If not, then cite some recent efforts.

Connecticut's Civil Union bill."Passage of this bill will extend civil rights to all couples, no matter their gender, and send the unmistakable message that discrimination in any form is unacceptable in Connecticut,"

If it is bigotry to deny same-sex marriages, is it also bigotry to deny ploygamy, is it also bigotry to deny marriage to siblings, is it also bigotry to deny marriage to one's aunt's, uncles, and first cousins?

Sure. Consenting adults should be able to do whatever the heck they wanna do.

 

[Fantasea]

[

QUOTE]Originally Posted by Fantasea
In the meantime, if you're able to specify an exact quote of mine that you judge to be bigotted, cite it and I'll rebut.

I think whenever someone has called your opinions bigoted in any of these threads, they were pretty much spot on.

I'll put your ignorant and bigoted comment in italics. You can dig up the links yourself.

The results of its (homosexual community) proslytizing and missionary work would make any religious organization green with envy.

Homosexuality isn't a belief, it's genetic. As such, it can't get adherents any more than a race can.

See below. Actually, until 1973, it was a disease.

No, it's not. Homophobia is a word concocted by the PC crowd because never before in the history of mankind was there a need for a label for persons whom they believe should be held in contempt for daring to be disgusted at having the sexual proclivities of deviates constantly thrust into their faces.

Disgusted? Yeah. That's not a bigoted statement right there.

Tell me the genesis of the word "homophobia". When did it first appear? From whence did it come? Who decided that such a word was needed? Why was it decided that such a word was needed?

Why should anyone have to tolerate conduct he finds abhorant? Do we have to tolerate nicotine addicts blowing smoke on our faces in public or work places? Didn't we even have a president who was disgraced for abhorant heterosexual sodomy? Should we have to tolerate lying, stealing, cheating?

Why should homosexual sodomy be elevated to the level of acceptable conduct?

The answer is simple. Until 1973, homosexuality was listed by the American Psychiatric Association as a mental disease. In 1973, however, by a show of hands, as it were, a miracle was performed. The disease which had existed for centuries, was summarily eradicated. How? Why? Simply a case of concerted lobbying effort by a dedicated and highly motivated special interest group.

http://www.aglp.org/pages/chistory.html

The word "gay" is the epitome of this travesty.
People don't hate homosexuals. What they find disagreeable are the actions of many homosexuals.

So homosexuals and the vernacular applied to them is a "travesty"

I separate people from their conduct. I love my fellow man. Why should I have any reaon to hate people, especially those whom I don't evenknow? However, and not to say that their actions are equal, I detest the conduct of, among others, liars, thieves, killers, and those, regardless of gender preference, who do not resist the many forms of temptations of the flesh.

However, loving any person does not mean that behavior contrary to the norm must be tolerated, does it?

Ahh, so you don't tolerate homosexual behavior.

Why should I?

You may claim that these are "general feelings" or "norms" or reactions to the "social-dem-lib" intrusion. Or whatever cop-outs you want to use, but you've already tipped your hand and the table knows the cards you have.

I've clearly defined or justified everything I have said. I have concealed nothing.

Originally Posted by Fantasea
So by your standards, anyone who exercises a free choice that differs from what you would have chosen is, in your judgment, a bigot.

Just like you to constantly twist what other people say. Free choice does not equal bigotry, it's what they do with it that matters.

Judging by what you have said above, this qualifies as a cop-out on your part.

.

Originally Posted by Fantasea
I have no complaint with the Libertarian Party. However, their numbers render them powerless to effect any change. FYI the "lib" is shorthand for "liberal".

While former Governor Ventura was not a libertarian, his party affiliation was the local equivent.

I don't see how this is germane.

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Are you agreeing that the Democratic politicians have abandoned the "cause"? If not, then cite some recent efforts.

Connecticut's Civil Union bill."Passage of this bill will extend civil rights to all couples, no matter their gender, and send the unmistakable message that discrimination in any form is unacceptable in Connecticut,"

You're off the mark. The question is not "Civil Union", which the homosexual community finds to be an abhorant sop, but "Same-Sex Marriage".

Originally Posted by Fantasea
If it is bigotry to deny same-sex marriages, is it also bigotry to deny ploygamy, is it also bigotry to deny marriage to siblings, is it also bigotry to deny marriage to one's aunt's, uncles, and first cousins?

Sure. Consenting adults should be able to do whatever the heck they wanna do.

I'm sure that most readers assume that you are making a joke. If they did not, then they would assume that you are running a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

You have my rebuttal, which shows that you have failed to prove your charge, except within the confines of your head.

 

[shuamort]

See below. Actually, until 1973, it was a disease.

It was never, and I'll repeat this in caps in case you missed it, NEVER classified as a disease. If ignorance were corn flakes, you'd put Kellogg's out of business.

Tell me the genesis of the word "homophobia". When did it first appear? From whence did it come? Who decided that such a word was needed? Why was it decided that such a word was needed?

Suddenly I'm an etymologist? But since you're such a lazy debater, I'll help ya. Just this once. Because I'm hospitable, not like those soddomites.

The word homophobia is a neologism coined by clinical psychologist George Weinberg in his book Society and the Healthy Homosexual in 1971. It combines the Greek words phobos, meaning "panic fear", with the prefix homo-, which means "the same". The "homo" in homophobia comes from the word homosexual, not to be confused with the Latin homo, meaning man (as in homo sapiens).
A precursor was homoerotophobia, coined by Dr Wainwright Churchill in Homosexual Behavior Among Males in 1967.

Why should anyone have to tolerate conduct he finds abhorant? Do we have to tolerate nicotine addicts blowing smoke on our faces in public or work places? Didn't we even have a president who was disgraced for abhorant heterosexual sodomy? Should we have to tolerate lying, stealing, cheating?

Yeah, why should anyone tolerate races that they don't care for. Really? You don't HAVE TO tolerate anything. But you're more likely to find your beliefs labeled as bigoted if that's your stance.

Why should homosexual sodomy be elevated to the level of acceptable conduct?

How do you define sodomy? You mean butt sex? Well, for one, not every homosexual engages in it. Lesbians usually don't. What about heterosexual sodomy?

The answer is simple. Until 1973, homosexuality was listed by the American Psychiatric Association as a mental disease. In 1973, however, by a show of hands, as it were, a miracle was performed. The disease which had existed for centuries, was summarily eradicated. How? Why? Simply a case of concerted lobbying effort by a dedicated and highly motivated special interest group.

http://www.aglp.org/pages/chistory.html

Wow, still LYING fantasea? You know, lying is against the word of God in the Ten Commandments. You really shouldn't be bearing false witness. Of course, when the facts don't stack up your way, you like to change them. Like changing the words DISEASE from what the APA actually originally and incorrectly described it as a DISORDER. But anything for your bigoted cause, eh? Even if it sacrifices the truth in the face of your God.

I separate people from their conduct. I love my fellow man. Why should I have any reaon to hate people, especially those whom I don't evenknow? However, and not to say that their actions are equal, I detest the conduct of, among others, liars, thieves, killers, and those, regardless of gender preference, who do not resist the many forms of temptations of the flesh.

I guess you have to detest the conduct of yourself on this message board then.

Why should I?

You don't "hafta". Just don't expect any respect.

I've clearly defined or justified everything I have said. I have concealed nothing.
Judging by what you have said above, this qualifies as a cop-out on your part.

The "I know you are, but what am I" retort. If you can't address the problem you mudsling. Nice.

. I don't see how this is germane..

It's germane because it renders your arguments (aka, your usual blanket statements) USELESS>

You're off the mark. The question is not "Civil Union", which the homosexual community finds to be an abhorant sop, but "Same-Sex Marriage".

Yes, the whole GLBT community swims together in one collective school. :roll: Republican congressman from northern Minnesota just came out as gay and also against "same-sex" marriage. Barney Frank, Betty McCollum, and Alan Spears are three democrats that are for gay marriage.

I'm sure that most readers assume that you are making a joke. If they did not, then they would assume that you are running a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

Completely serious. Of course, I don't think it's the government's business to run other people's lives. I'm sorry you feel directionless without a government or an antiquated book telling you what to do or how to feel.

You have my rebuttal, which shows that you have failed to prove your charge, except within the confines of your head.

I have your rebuttal which continues to prove that your decisions are bigoted and full of homophobic heterosexualisms with no grounding in fact.