Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, (original, huh?) airs on Tuesdays at 10:PM and Saturdays at 8:PM, Eastern time on RainbowRadio.

Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

I'll make this easy...

Some people think they know more than the experts. More than people who have spent their lives studying something, collecting data, making observations, and drawing connections that are supported not only by their own evidence, but by that gathered by their peers as well. And who have spent their careers reconciling the differences between each others work, that we may collective reach a greater and more complete understanding of some phenomenon.  See... that's how science WORKS.   But some people don't think that the opinion of someone who's spent a career learning everything there is to know about something, and collaborating with others who do the same, is the slightest bit more
valuable than that of a talk-show host with a high-school diploma, or a bought-and-paid-for politician, or that most absurd of scientific references: the Bible, or the ideology that they have chosen to follow.

In general, these people call themselves "Conservatives."

Now I have always claimed to be a man of science - by both philosophy and by profession. I have also claimed that I never let ideology do my thinking for me.  If I identify with a certain group on a given issue (or on most issues) it is because their position matches the evidence. And because it matches my own. Which must first match the evidence, regardless of the ideological implications of this. So let's be clear, here: Liberals are not right because they agree with me. Nor am I because I agree with them. (When we DO actually agree, that is.)  And of infinitely more importance, Scientist and Academics are not right because they agree with Liberals, or because they agree with me

WE are right because we agree with THEM.

And you can take almost any Scientific and/or Economic issue and see this quite clearly, if you bother to actually LOOK and actually care about BEING RIGHT, rather than being Liberal or Conservative.  And, yes, to be fair, Liberals ARE guilty of pseudo-science too: witness the lawsuits brought against Dow Chemical over their perfectly harmless silicone breast implants, back in the late '80's, and early '90's, for example. But as Liberals have come to embrace science more and more over the past decade or two, Conservatives have reactively pulled away from it.  One recent Conservative commenter on this blog said it best, I think: "We're Conservative because we don't want to be Liberal." 

(And apparently they don't care a lick about being RIGHT, it seems.)

So anyway... I'm on Wikipedia today, just putzing around. Now I didn't used to consider Wikipedia to be a credible reference. I once told someone, "Don't quote me Wikipedia! ANYONE can edit Wikipedia! Shoot, even I'VE edited Wikipedia!" But I will say that in past year or two, I notice that they've gotten really good about requiring CITATIONS for the facual statements being made. (It's probably also helped that I've limited my own input to the one subject that I actually DO know more about than anyone else: Baseball. LOL) Anyhow, one particularly well-cited article that I read recently was the one on HOMOSEXUALITY.

Very interesting read.  Here are a few of the statements I found to be particular relevant to some of the more spirited discussions we've had recently...

Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biological and environmental factors.

Supported by two citations!

While some religious organizations hold the view that homosexual activity is unnatural or dysfunctional, research shows that homosexuality is an example of normal variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects.

One citation.

Homosexual behavior is also widely observed in animals.

That statement was supported by no less than FIVE citations!

[Homosexual] relationships are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in essential psychological respects.

One citation.

People with a homosexual orientation can express their sexuality in a variety of ways, and may or may not express it in their behaviors.

One citation.

The longstanding consensus of research and clinical literature demonstrates that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality.

One citation.

There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment.

One citation.

The American Psychological Association says that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

One citation.

No major mental health professional organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and virtually all of them have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation. These include the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Counseling Association, National Association of Social Workers in the USA, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and the Australian Psychological Society. The American Psychological Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists expressed concerns that the positions espoused by NARTH are not supported by the science and create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.

FIVE Citations spread throughout that paragraph.

Scientific research has been consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents...

Three Citations

[And] ...According to scientific literature reviews, there is no evidence to the contrary.

FIVE Citations

Here are some particularly important ones:

Stigma, prejudice, and discrimination stemming from negative societal attitudes toward homosexuality lead to a higher prevalence of mental health disorders among lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals compared to their heterosexual peers.

One citation.

Evidence indicates that the liberalization of these attitudes over the past few decades is associated with a decrease in such mental health risks among younger LGBT people.

One citation.

Sexual orientation does not affect the likelihood that people will abuse children.

Three citations.

Claims that there is scientific evidence to support an association between being gay and being a pedophile are based on misuses of those terms and misrepresentation of the actual evidence.

One Citation.

Now... Admittedly, some of those citations are from the same source. But, all and all, this is a ~11,000 word article, in which I didn't find a single line in that doesn't fit perfectly well into my views on the matter, and it is supported by a total of 211 different sources.

TWO. HUNDRED. and ELEVEN. 

See... Being Liberal doesn't make me right.

Being RIGHT makes me right.

And they day the Conservatives decide to start being right, and the Liberals decide to abandon all reason, knowledge and wisdom? I'll happily identify as a Conservative. Until then? I don't require an ideology to do my thinking for me, nor will I labor under the delusion that I can do to do a little bit of five-minute crack research and think that somehow I know something that the world's collective, foremost experts don't.  I'm content to let those with the inclination to spend their lives researching and studying something to figure it out. Because if you're capable of recognizing who is and is not a credible source, and the data supports the position you are accepting?

Well, shoot... I'll always be right.

192 comments:

  1. A non-scientist's opinion about science simply doesn't matter, at all, at any time or in any venue. Our every-opinion-is-valid world (and media) will never get over that.

    Science has been wrong, massively stupidly embarrassingly wrong, several times (including evolution, incidentally). But it's always scientists who make the corrections. Non-scientists can't spot the wrong parts more accurately than a roulette wheel. They have no say at all.

    Perhaps the easiest "political" science fact to figure out is the age of the earth. And yet even that took me a couple weeks and a university library to get to the bottom of. The arguments go down and down and down. It's too much for a talk over dinner. It's too much for an entire Chris Hayes show.

    Some people dispute science in good faith. "That doesn't make sense to me. I wonder if they thought of ..." But they just can't get over the fact that the answer is "yes", over and over again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (I didn't mean to say that evolution is massively wrong. I was saying that at one time, evolutionists were stupidly wrong about aspects of the theory. They're not massively wrong now. Gould and others made the corrections.)

      Delete
    2. Steeve,

      You have said it beautifully, PERFECTLY , inf fact. I can't tell you how much it warms my heart to know that there are some people out there who don't need to have this EXPLAINED to them! Bravo!

      Delete
  2. Steve, how "old" is the Earth? What is the 'current' guess by those super-intelligent scientists who have spent their entire career looking over the data and making factual scientific conclusions?


    Eddie said: "Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biological and environmental factors."

    Ok, does "understanding" mean they have found definitive proof that will show someone will be gay before they are born? Or do these "biological and environmental factors" come into play AFTER they are born? Liberals are the ones making the claim that gays are BORN THAT WAY and you just wasted an entire 11,000 word article (that you are using to support your theory) that states gays are NOT born that way.


    "There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates ... "

    Um, how large is "large body"? Is that ALL? You mean ALL those brilliant scientists (who have spent their careers doing this research) and only some agree with each other? Or are the ones who disagree the ones who have only spent half their career doing the research?


    "Well, shoot... I'll always be right."

    And what are you right about this time? That homosexuals are gay? Yeah, you're right. However, the article you cited does NOT show they are BORN THAT WAY. It still shows homosexuality is a CHOICE lifestyle. You are BORN a man or a woman, you CHOOSE who you want to have sex with.

    How are you going to handle that? You gonna start calling me names again?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great, the guy who can't parse language wants to enter a two-week scientific discussion.

      The best image I could quickly find online shows the age of the moon. Notice how the blue dots fit the line real close.

      Questions such as "what about the red dots" or "what the hell am I looking at" are left an exercise for the reader. If you have an alternative explanation for the close fit, feel free to revolutionize the field and become famous.

      Delete
    2. "Great, the guy who can't parse language wants to enter a two-week scientific discussion."

      Great, another liberal who won't answer direct questions. Never expected that!

      Delete
    3. Given that you know how to wikipedia, you weren't asking a direct question.

      4.54 billion years.

      Delete
    4. "Liberals are the ones making the claim that gays are BORN THAT WAY and you just wasted an entire 11,000 word article (that you are using to support your theory) that states gays are NOT born that way."

      OK, you mental pipsqueak, for the last fucking time: If you're going to tell us what Liberals think, or say, or claim, make the slightest fucking effort to GET IT RIGHT!

      The POINT (you know, that thing you refuse to grasp?) is that you don't CHOOSE who you're ATTRACTED TO. (Or WHAT, for that matter.) It is completely irrelevent whether you are born with it, concieved with it, or get it from a damned virus. No one choose who they are attracted to. "Born that way" is a convenient way of making a larger comples point, and it works just fine until obtuse ignoramuses like you enter the picture. You are creating a strawman and killing it. Well done. That's a lot of effort though, just to still be wrong.

      "And what are you right about this time?"

      Sorry, I thought I'd made theat clear: EVERYTHING I'VE SAID ON THE MEATTER.

      "It still shows homosexuality is a CHOICE lifestyle. You are BORN a man or a woman, you CHOOSE who you want to have sex with."

      NO, YOU GREAT MORON! YOU CHOOSE WHO YOU HAVE SEX WITH! YOU DON'T CHOOSE WHO YOU WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH! YTF CAN'T YOU GET THIS THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL?!

      "How are you going to handle that? You gonna start calling me names again?"

      (1) I hardly need to "handle it" becuase, once again, you are simply speaking nonsense. Your arguments are like mental masturbations: They "handle" themselves.

      (2) If you're worried about the name-calling you can do one of two things: Stop posting stupid shit or fill out a hurt feelings report.

      Delete
    5. "Great, another liberal who won't answer direct questions."

      This is the guy who claims that scientific proof was presented in order to grant women the vote 32 years before that proof existed, says Jesus advises that homosexuality is a sin, and bases most of his argument on the notion that he "chose" to be straight, but at the same time is not attracted to men.

      We lowly liberals just have to take what he says on faith, apparently.

      Delete
    6. "NO, YOU GREAT MORON! YOU CHOOSE WHO YOU HAVE SEX WITH! YOU DON'T CHOOSE WHO YOU WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH! "

      Ahh ha ha ha ha. Thanks for the clarification. I'll bookmark this and come back here often ... whenever I need a good laugh. You couldn't sound more ... well ... stupid with that comment: hey everybody, I was born wanting to eat peas, but I choose to eat carrots!!! I sure hope I get special rights because I was born WANTING to eat peas, but I CHOOSE to eat carrots. Ah ha ha ha ha ha ah ha ah ha ah

      And to think, THAT is the mental 'base' that is calling me a "mental pipsqueak". Wow , I have to say I've never heard that one before: I was born wanting short sleeve shirts but I choose to wear long sleeve. Oh, wait, here's another one: I was born wanting candy but I choose to eat vegetables. Please .... please can I do one more? I was born wanting a Mac but I choose to use Dell.

      Classic ... simply classic. Thank you Eddie for the good laugh. I'll get by for a couple days on that classic liberal statement.

      One serious question for you, though, Eddie. Do YOU think anyone has a "right" to a marriage license? Brabantio says NO, what do you say?

      Delete
    7. William, do you have a "right" to a fishing license? A gun license? If getting a license is a "right", then what's the purpose of the licensing process?

      Besides, you asked the question the wrong way. You're trying to establish that "liberals" think that homosexuals should have rights that heterosexuals don't, so you should be more specific in your question. Asking about "anyone" doesn't help that cause, as idiotic as it is anyway.

      Delete
    8. "And yet even that took me a couple weeks and a university library to get to the bottom of."

      I'm glad you were able to go to a university and find out how old the Earth is... taking 2 weeks. Wouldn't it have been more simple to just google it? That's the kind of "action" we get from liberal lawmakers. No wonder this nation is going down the tubes. These liberal leaders are wasting our money, costing us jobs and letting the infrastructure go to waste. Perhaps "anyone but" a democrat will win the next election and save this nation. I think democrats have been ruining it long enough. Time to kick them out.

      But, on a serious note: Brabantio says NOBODY has a "right" to a marriage license. What do you say?

      Delete
    9. "find out how old the Earth is"

      Yeah, that's what I was doing in the library. Locating the number 4.54.

      I grew up in a massively conservative household -- Fox News, young earthers, the whole bit. If I was like you, I could have observed that my family was happy and stayed conservative for the rest of my life. But instead, I was aware of the existence of objective truth.

      So it took me two weeks to change my position. There are lots of young earth arguments. Lots and lots and lots. They go deep. Very deep.

      Have you ever changed your position on something? Can you even conceive of the possibility that it might be needed?

      Delete
    10. I don't make any "young earth" claims. I think the Earth is as old as the scientists say (at any given time). But, that is a good diversion.

      Delete
    11. Then:"Steve, how "old" is the Earth? What is the 'current' guess by those super-intelligent scientists who have spent their entire career looking over the data and making factual scientific conclusions?"

      Now:"I think the Earth is as old as the scientists say (at any given time). But, that is a good diversion."

      Now that's funny. I guess the standard of absolute scientific proof goes out the window if it doesn't hinder your bigotry.

      Delete
    12. Steve, do you think it's "funny" how a person can think the current scientific guess as to the age of the Earth is the most accurate data available? I just thought it was weird that a confirmed liar would call me out on the most current scientific data that is available with the technology we have in use.

      Delete
    13. The point would be that "the most current scientific data that is available with the technology we have in use" says that homosexuality is not a choice.

      If some young-earth believer demanded "proof" of the age of the Earth, you couldn't provide it. And then you would lose the argument, right?

      Delete
    14. Williams wrote: "You couldn't sound more [...] stupid with that comment: hey everybody, I was born wanting to eat peas, but I choose to eat carrots!!! I sure hope I get special rights because I was born WANTING to eat peas, but I CHOOSE to eat carrots."

      Will... FIrst of all? I'M RIGHT. Look it up.

      Second of all? Who's asking for SPECIAL rights, exactly? Seems to me they just wan the SAME rigths everyone else takes for granted. Good luck with that.

      BTW... If you think the onus is on THEM to proove that they DESERVE them, as opposed to it being on the Gov't to make the case that they DON'T, that fine. You can have that opinion. It's biggoted, but you're definitely entitled to it.

      I WILL however, hit you over the head with it the next time I hear you say anything about "small" or "less intrusive governement" or "personal freedom" or anything along those lines.

      Because onece again, your comments make one thing abundandlty clear tp anyone notnamed "William": You really don't know what words mean, do you?

      Delete
    15. "Who's asking for SPECIAL rights, exactly? Seems to me they just wan the SAME rigths everyone else takes for granted."

      YOU ARE EDDIE !!! AND VIRTUALLY EVERY OTHER LIBERAL. Just for the record, Eddie, do you consider it a "right" to get a marriage license? I DO NOT. Neither does Brabantio. Therefore, NOBODY gets "SPECIAL RIGHTS" when seeking a marriage license. If you haven't been able to pick on that theme, before now, then I really can't help the way you are so lost in this conversation. Maybe you should check the "meaning" of the words "rights" and "marriage license". Because NOBODY in America has a "right" to a marriage license. Yet, YOU and every other liberal think gays should have that "right" while nobody else should.
      That's just fine if YOU and every other liberal are demanding "special rights" for gays while you deny asking for "special rights". It further enforces that annoying habit liberals have about telling you one thing but doing another.

      Should we try the old liberal method of providing some learning lessons from LOGIC 101?

      If NO ONE IN AMERICA has a RIGHT to get a marriage license, then demanding that gays HAVE THAT RIGHT is giving them SPECIAL RIGHTS.

      So, YES, Eddie, YOU ARE ASKING FOR SPECIAL RIGHTS !!

      Delete
    16. "Will... FIrst of all? I'M RIGHT. Look it up."

      No you're not. I don't need to look up something as stupid as that because you don't have anything valid to back that statement up. Everything concerning "having" sex is chosen. You choose your partner, you choose what is appealing and you choose what is not appealing and you choose who you do not want to have sex with. You failed miserably in your attempt to use OPINION as VALID REASONING. Conchabhar thinks that is "precious".

      Delete
    17. William, nobody ever demanded a "right" to a "marriage license". You brought up "license". Nobody else.

      Prove me wrong.

      Delete
    18. This is going to be a long post, but for anyone who's not familiar with the backstory here, I think it's worth the read. From the "Hey William" thread:

      William:"I asked you if getting married is a civil right." (note:"getting married", not "getting a marriage license".)

      Me:"Civil rights:"The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination."...Wouldn't the right to marriage fall into that? Why not?"

      William:"No. Do you have a "right" to a driver license? What's the difference between them and how."

      Me:"Driver's licenses are granted based on responsibility. That has nothing to do with marriage."

      William:"That's not what I asked."

      Me:""Granted based on responsibility" means it isn't a right."

      William:"Is it a right to get a marriage license?"

      Me:"I suppose not, but is that based on responsibility?...What does this change about freedom from discrimination?"

      William:"But, you think homosexuals have a "right" to marriage? Even though you just admitted that there is no "right" to get married."

      Me:"This has got to be the most dishonest tact you've taken so far. From the conversation there's no way for you to suggest that I'm talking about superior rights for homosexuals...Again, "freedom from discrimination". That means what other people can do, they can do."

      (continued)

      Delete
    19. William:"Talk about dishonest. At what point did I suggest them getting "superior rights"?!?" (note that after this point, William repeatedly claims I support "superior rights" for homosexuals, but I was somehow dishonest for calling him out on the initial claim)

      Me:"You're trying to say that I don't think heterosexuals have a right to marriage, but homosexuals should. Isn't that one group getting more rights than another?"

      William:"You just did say that. I asked if there was a "right" to get a marriage license and you said "I SUPPOSE NOT"...Are you now saying that marriage licenses are a right for some and not others?" (note "now" as if that wasn't the claim already)

      Me:"The point, obviously, is that homosexuals can't get married in most states. They should be allowed (such as heterosexual couples are within the parameters of the ever-so-strict standards for handing out marriage licenses) to get married in every state."

      And as clear as that statement is, and as consistent it is with everything I've posted here, William refuses to let his phantom argument go. One more thing, though:

      Me:"So nobody has a "right" to a marriage license, because that's a contradiction in terms. If you had a right to it, then nobody would have to give you a license to begin with."

      William:""So nobody has a "right" to a marriage license" (note the truncated quote, the second time William did this in one conversation)...Right. Nobody has a "right" to a marriage license. But, you are seeking those rights for homosexuals while you are saying no one has those rights (twice). Isn't that a little bit contradictory in its own? Are those the "superior rights" you keep calling for?"

      It's hard to imagine how anything could be any more clear than "contradiction in terms", but somehow I'm supposed to be "seeking" something which I've not only never suggested and that I had denied even before this exchange, but also which I declare a logical impossibility.

      The possibility of anyone here giving him credit doesn't worry me, I just wanted to make his dishonesty abundantly clear.

      Delete
    20. Can you "legally" get married in America without a marriage license? Yes or NO

      For that matter, can you legally buy a gun in America without a license? Since that is your constant measuring stick.

      You can choose to answer that question or you can choose to make excuses --- your choice

      Delete
    21. "Can you "legally" get married in America without a marriage license? Yes or NO...For that matter, can you legally buy a gun in America without a license? Since that is your constant measuring stick."

      No, otherwise they wouldn't have licenses. That doesn't mean that the general concept of marriage is the same thing as the specific aspect of a license. So what's your point?

      Delete
    22. After all your complaining about 'what' I said and what you thought I said, it boils down to this:

      Me: "Can you "legally" get married in America without a marriage license? Yes or NO"
      Brabantio: "No, otherwise they wouldn't have licenses."

      OBVIOUSLY, when I said "marriage license" I was talking about "marriage license". Since you CANNOT get married without a license, then, asking the question about having a "RIGHT" to get married is the SAME.

      When you want to discuss the "general concept of marriage" concerning gays then you go for it. But, OBVIOUSLY (you noted it several times) I was talking about the "license". Which YOU have said is not a "right". But YOU claim gays should have a "right" to marriage. That means YOU say gays should be getting "superior rights".

      Is that what all the rest of you are claiming also? Don't be afraid to answer


      Me: " Even in your last response you try changing the subject. I will respond to you no more."

      Couldn't help myself.

      Delete
    23. "OBVIOUSLY, when I said "marriage license" I was talking about "marriage license". Since you CANNOT get married without a license, then, asking the question about having a "RIGHT" to get married is the SAME."

      No, it isn't, otherwise the Second Amendment would be nullified by the requirement for licenses. You also introduced "license" after asking the question about what kind of right "marriage" is, therefore you can't attribute that to me.

      "But YOU claim gays should have a "right" to marriage. That means YOU say gays should be getting "superior rights"."

      I never claimed heterosexuals DON'T have a right to marriage, though. It was never even implied, because we were talking about the general concept until you brought up licenses. You yourself said you thought of marriage as a "human right". Were you talking about marriage licenses then? That seems pretty strange if you were, and there certainly wasn't anything to indicate it.

      The fact is that even if I gave you any reason to believe this nonsense, which I didn't, I've clarified my position more clearly and far more often than any honest and intelligent person should require. And you have no basis to doubt that clarification whatsoever.

      Delete
    24. " I've clarified my position more clearly and far more often than any honest and intelligent person should require."

      Certainly right, you have.

      Your position is that gays should have a "right" (to get married) that heterosexuals do not have. Those are "superior rights".

      Your position is that you want superior rights for gays than others.

      Believe me, as many times that I've asked you, I fully understand your postion. That's why I have to ask 5 times. You keep denying you answered the other times.

      Delete
    25. You demand answers, but you don't provide them. That seems like a double standard.

      "You yourself said you thought of marriage as a "human right". Were you talking about marriage licenses then?"

      "It's hard to imagine how anything could be any more clear than "contradiction in terms", but somehow I'm supposed to be "seeking" something which I've not only never suggested and that I had denied even before this exchange, but also which I declare a logical impossibility."

      Repeating yourself doesn't make your argument any more valid. Try addressing those points in order to help yourself out a bit. That is how adults behave.

      Delete
    26. Ok, you got me there. I don't understand that answer at all. How does what you just wrote have anything to do with the conversation about rights that you think gays should have that no one else has?

      No, no ... don't answer. I fully understand why you would fail to address the concern I have with rights being given to one group and not all.

      Delete
    27. I'm glad to help, although I don't think either quote is that difficult to understand. In fact, the relevance of the first one should be clear already. Obviously, if you were talking about the general concept of marriage, then you can't take my comments about marriage as being specific to "licenses". This is especially true when you realize that you brought up "licenses" afterwards.

      The issue with the "contradiction in terms" quote is that it doesn't just say that there IS no right to a marriage license. It says that there CAN NOT be a right to a marriage license. It means it's not possible. It's pretty easy to understand why you clipped that phrase off when you quoted me, and the relevance to this conversation shouldn't have to be explained.

      "I fully understand why you would fail to address the concern I have with rights being given to one group and not all."

      From the definition of civil rights that I provided:"...and freedom from discrimination." When I don't want people to be discriminated against, that includes heterosexuals. Your concern shouldn't need to be addressed at all.

      Delete
    28. Ok, you want to talk about the "general concept of marriage" and no longer want to talk about those superior rights you are seeking for gays that no one else has?

      Fine, what aspect of the "general concept of marriage" do you wish to discuss?

      Delete
    29. You said you didn't understand the relevance, I responded, and now you won't address what I wrote?

      Why not? Are you not accountable for what you write?

      Delete
    30. Maybe someone else would like to jump in now, since none of the rest of you have anything to say about those 'rights' you want to give gays that no one else has. This could be a "precious" moment.

      Having 'rights' secured is one thing, having 'wants' full-filled is something different. Try to make up your mind about which one you want to talk about first.

      Delete
    31. I am talking about rights. You said marriage was a "human right", but now you won't explain how that supposedly applied to licenses. Where did I say "wants"?

      Either you can engage in honest debate, or you can't. It affects you more than it does me.

      Delete
    32. "Either you can engage in honest debate, or you can't. It affects you more than it does me."

      That is a fair thing to say, since I am expected to discuss honestly while you have none of those expatations put upon yourself.

      Delete
    33. As you try to change the subject...

      Delete
    34. Technically, it is YOU who is changing the subject. I just agreed with you.

      Delete
    35. "Fine, what aspect of the "general concept of marriage" do you wish to discuss?"

      "Having 'rights' secured is one thing, having 'wants' full-filled is something different."

      "That is a fair thing to say, since I am expected to discuss honestly while you have none of those expatations put upon yourself."

      If any of those answer the questions I asked, tell me how. Otherwise, you're trying to avoid taking responsibility for your accusations.

      Delete
    36. "How does what you just wrote have anything to do with the conversation about rights that you think gays should have that no one else has?"

      Which all happened after the question above. I tried to keep you on-topic, but you decided to go another direction. You DO know this is all right there for everyone to read, don't you?

      Let's do it this way. If you DON'T want to discuss another subject, perhaps you could answer why your position is that gays should have a "right" (to get married) while heterosexuals do not have that right.

      Why do you support such discrimination?

      Delete
    37. "Which all happened after the question above."

      And I answered your question. At which point you decided not only to ignore my points, but to avoid explaining why my explanation of relevance was not adequate.

      "If you DON'T want to discuss another subject, perhaps you could answer why your position is that gays should have a "right" (to get married) while heterosexuals do not have that right."

      That's been addressed. The burden is on you to defend your accusation now.

      Delete
    38. Yes, you answered my question concerning your insistance on having superior rights for gays over everyone else. I'm trying to figure out WHY you would support such discrimination, but you are avoiding that. Hey, it's not like I didn't expect you to avoid that issue, I just didn't think you'd act so proud while refusing to accept that you wish to discriminate against a populance of our nation.

      Now, what was it you wanted to talk about again?

      Delete
    39. Why do you frame every post as a "have you stopped beating your wife" question? That's hardly respectable.

      I want you to justify your accusations against me. If you feel capable, of course.

      Delete
    40. Ok, here's my "accusation" against you.

      I asked: Can you "legally" get married in America without a marriage license? Yes or NO

      You answered: No

      Now, explain to me how you justify discriminating against a populance of our nation in order to give gays rights that no body else has.

      There is my accusation. I say you are discriminating against people and you deny it. Are you changing your stance, now?

      Delete
    41. By all means, refer back to my double-post above for the answer.

      I didn't ask you to repeat the accusation. Justify it by answering my questions. Thank you.

      Delete
    42. "I didn't ask you to repeat the accusation. Justify it by answering my questions."

      Wait just a minute there, you want ME to justify YOUR desire for discrimination in America?

      Delete
    43. No, I'm asking you to justify your accusations. Again, and more politely than your behavior deserves. Thank you.

      Delete
    44. Being the good liberal that you are (assuming) which do you hate more? discrimination or accusations?

      Since I've proven my accusations already (4 times and counting), it would be wise for you to defend yourself as opposed to attacking the witness.

      I know (assuming) if you knew of a right-winger who supported discrimination, you would 'throw the book at them' for their desires to discriminate in America. Would that be correct?

      Delete
    45. You haven't proven anything if you can't answer simple questions. What are you afraid of?

      Delete
    46. "What are you afraid of?"

      Nothing. Ask some simple questions. Like the simple yes/no question that completely threw you for a loss. I noticed how quickly you changed the subject and refuse to go back to it.
      Don't worry, all the other left-wingers (who post here) will be glad to help you out with your discrimination problem. I notice none have shown up to defend you. Just sayin

      Delete
    47. Were you referring to marriage licenses when you talked about the right to marriage as "human rights", yes or no?

      Do you know what "contradiction in terms" means, yes or no?

      Bonus question:Did you bring up the term "marriage license", yes or no?

      Delete
    48. 1: When I mentioned "license" I was talking about licenses. That seems pretty obvious. Are you going to prosecute everyone who denied marriage to anybody for "human rights violations"? Ha ha ... that's pretty funny.

      2: Yes How is the "right" to marriage different from the "right" to get a marriage license? Even you said nobody in America can get married without a license. So, they are inter-connected in the context I was alluding to. Simply put: Does anyone in America have the "right" to marriage? Marriage is not a guaranteed right ... IMHO

      3: Yes For the reasons from #2.

      Are you ready to address your demands that America discriminate against part of it's population?

      Delete
    49. 1.Try again. I didn't say when you said "license". I said before that, when you were talking about marriage as a human right.

      2.How is the right to bear arms different from the right to a gun license? As for your context, that's the purpose for question #1, which makes it clear why you have so much trouble reading it.

      3.Good.

      Delete
    50. Actually, you were the one having trouble reading. You got very confused when license was used. You got so confused that you said no one in America has the right to a marriage license. In fact you got so very confused you said no one in America has the "right" to marriage.

      As far as the right to bear arms, since that isn't the subject being discussed I'll let you talk about constitutional rights on your own. Is there a constitutional right to marriage in place at this time?

      Maybe you want me to ask that question again? Ok: Does anyone in America have the "right" to marriage?

      Here's your chance to back-track on your answers. You can change your mind now that you know what the implications are. I had thought you were smart enough to understand what you were reading, perhaps I was wrong. Go ahead, try it again.

      Delete
    51. "You got so confused that you said no one in America has the right to a marriage license."

      Nobody in America has the right to a marriage license. It has to be approved.

      "In fact you got so very confused you said no one in America has the "right" to marriage."

      I'm quite sure that's not true. That's probably you conflating two different concepts again.

      "As far as the right to bear arms, since that isn't the subject being discussed I'll let you talk about constitutional rights on your own. Is there a constitutional right to marriage in place at this time?"

      If you can point out a salient difference based on the different types of rights, you should do so. Otherwise the principle stands.

      "Does anyone in America have the "right" to marriage?"

      Yes, heterosexuals of legal age. It's just not an absolute right, as it would be if one had a right to a marriage license (if that wasn't an oxymoron).

      Delete
    52. Oh, and please stop dodging the question about what you said about marriage as a "human right". Were you referring to a "marriage license", yes or no?

      Delete
    53. "Yes, heterosexuals of legal age. It's just not an absolute right, as it would be if one had a right to a marriage license"

      Ahhh, that is so much better of an answer, from you, than your previous answer of NO. So, you're going to discriminate based on age? You got a real thing for discriminating don't you?
      What is stopping homosexuals from getting married? Oooo, the little thing called a license. Oh, wait, heterosexuals can't get married without a license either, can they? So, does anyone in America have a "right" to a marriage license?


      WHAT is an "absolute right"?

      Delete
    54. What did I say about marriage as a human right? Please bring link to conversation and time/date stamp(s) so I (and others) can find it and check the actual context. Bring all mentions of marriage as human rights that I have said so all context can be verified. You might have something there, but you've got to prove your accusations. :)

      Delete
    55. "Ahhh, that is so much better of an answer, from you, than your previous answer of NO."

      Can you possibly make an effort to differentiate between the two actual phrases in play here, instead of trying to hold me accountable for your conflation of them? That would be great.

      "What is stopping homosexuals from getting married? Oooo, the little thing called a license."

      The laws that don't allow them to get married, more accurately.

      "Oh, wait, heterosexuals can't get married without a license either, can they? So, does anyone in America have a "right" to a marriage license?"

      No, because licenses have to be approved.

      Again, please stop dodging the question about what you said about marriage as a "human right". Were you referring to a "marriage license", yes or no? You asked for a "yes or no" answer, then you renege on that.

      Delete
    56. http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2012/04/hey-william.html?showComment=1333492199372#c7281373079508872420

      Delete
    57. Yes. It looks like I did call the "right to get married" a human right.

      And, I noticed, if you continue reading that conversation, you refused to answer whether you were talking about "civil" rights. (Well ... were you?) While I offered my opinion. Since you would not designate what 'kind' of right we were talking about --note: the statement you linked to was designed to find out that parameter. How could the conversation continue without you telling me what type of rights you were talking about. And because of that I had to ask those questions based on the basic "right" to something. Different than civil rights or human rights. Notice how you agreed that NO ONE has the "right" to marriage.

      Now, are you changing the discussion into "civil rights" or "human rights"?

      Delete
    58. "And, I noticed, if you continue reading that conversation, you refused to answer whether you were talking about "civil" rights."

      Just from memory I can tell you that I cited the definition of civil rights and asked you why marriage wouldn't fit into that. That's hardly refusal.

      "Notice how you agreed that NO ONE has the "right" to marriage."

      Link?

      "Now, are you changing the discussion into "civil rights" or "human rights"?"

      I'm waiting for you to answer the question. When you made the comment about human rights, were you referring to a "marriage license", yes or no?

      Delete
    59. I notice that you keep referring to gun ownership rights. I looked at wiki and it looks to me that world-wide (human rights?) all public/private gun ownership is restricted by license and/or training, some places it's not allowed.
      So, you may want to be careful if you continue to use gun ownership rights as an equal to marriage rights.
      At which point it differentiates based on whether you are talking about civl rights, human rights or basic rights. Would you like to answer that question now? Or continue avoiding it?


      Me: Notice how you agreed that NO ONE has the "right" to marriage.
      You: Link?

      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2012/04/hey-william.html?showComment=1333498122779#c4716989577564523825

      and that relates to my 'gun ownerhip rights' concern in this post.

      Delete
    60. "So, you may want to be careful if you continue to use gun ownership rights as an equal to marriage rights."

      I never claimed they were equal. The principle that you can't conflate conditions with the broader right is what is important. Again, if you want to explain what difference the type of right makes, do so.

      "Me: Notice how you agreed that NO ONE has the "right" to marriage.
      You: Link?"

      Where I find the response is to:"Is it a right to get a marriage license?" Again, you're conflating terms. I understand you're trying to make them the same. That doesn't mean I do, and therefore I'm not responsible for saying anything about "marriage" when I'm responding to a question about a "marriage license".

      I notice you still refuse to answer the question. Funny how you complain about having to ask me a question five times when I actually answer it the first time. Do you want to start a count of how many times I've had to ask you this one, with no legitimate attempt at an answer from you?

      Delete
    61. "I never claimed they were equal."

      No, but you are alluding to it with your constant mention of them during this conversation. Why is that?


      What is the difference between 'marriage' and 'marriage license' in the context I'm using them? Does ANYONE have a "right" to marriage? Does anyone have a "right" to a marriage license? Well, do they?


      "Just from memory I can tell you that I cited the definition of civil rights "

      Well, here's your chance. (BTW, I think it's funny you link that exact instance and then you need to resort to memory for reference)
      Are you talking about "civil right" or just "basic rights". Because just bringing a definition of the word isn't acceptable for acknowledging that you are referring to them. So, which one were you talking about? Civil, human or basic rights? If you think the difference between each type is important, then you should tell us which one you're talking about. Because it CAN make a difference. For example marriage has no place in a discussion about "civil rights". Marriage has no place in a discussion about "basic rights". Marriage has limited value in a discussion about "human rights". And I've explained why many times- if you make a CHOICE, that CHOICE should not give you superior rights over other groups. You are demanding that a CHOICE give you superior rights. And that's the term YOU called them. That would be discrimination. And YOU support that discrimination (duly noted several times already).


      "were you referring to a "marriage license", yes or no?"

      No. What are you going to change the subject to this time?


      Are you going to stop demanding discrimination in America based on who has a "right" to marriage? You say you want gays to have that "right", but you also say heterosexuals do not have that "right". Are you going to continue seeking those "superior rights" for gays?





      Happy Easter, my brother. Hope you have a safe and pleasant celebration of our Lord's resurrection.

      Delete
    62. "No, but you are alluding to it with your constant mention of them during this conversation."

      No, I was stating a principle. It wouldn't have to be "constant" if you would address it in the first place.

      "What is the difference between 'marriage' and 'marriage license' in the context I'm using them?"

      You tell me. You said yourself that you weren't referring to a marriage license when you were talking about marriage as a "right", so you must have been making the distinction yourself.

      "Does ANYONE have a "right" to marriage?"

      Yes, again.

      "Does anyone have a "right" to a marriage license?"

      No. You think marriage is a human right, but you don't think a marriage license is a right. What's the difference? What is it about this that is so difficult for you to comprehend?

      "(BTW, I think it's funny you link that exact instance and then you need to resort to memory for reference)"

      I think it's hilarious that you can't get it right while you're actually reading it. I didn't "need" to use my memory, I just knew what I said without needing to resort to reading.

      "If you think the difference between each type is important, then you should tell us which one you're talking about."

      I don't. And your explanation doesn't cover what difference the type of right makes.

      "Are you going to stop demanding discrimination in America based on who has a "right" to marriage? You say you want gays to have that "right", but you also say heterosexuals do not have that "right"."

      So now it's "marriage" and not "marriage license"? That's interesting, because I distinctly said in a fairly recent post that heterosexuals of legal age have the right to marriage. I believe you made an idiotic response about how I feel a need to discriminate based on age, even though on another thread you expressed concern about age of consent laws. Isn't it funny that I don't have to scroll or jump to another thread to know that?

      Since you admitted that you were not talking about a "marriage license" when you started talking about the right to marriage, then that is not the context. It's not the context you were alluding to, or using, or whatever you've claimed countless times. You were talking about "marriage" as a general concept. Then, for some reason, you felt the need to make a separate argument and retroactively apply what I said to what I had said in the previous context.

      Happy Easter. If you're going to church, ask someone to find out where Jesus advised that homosexuality is a sin. Surely someone has to know, since you don't.

      Delete
    63. "ask someone to find out where Jesus advised that homosexuality is a sin."

      You need to clarify your position on Jesus being God. I believe Jesus is God. And since you don't believe in either God or Jesus, I'll be wasting my time with this because suddenly you'll become an expert on religion and tell me why these versus mean nothing to you. So, I'll give some versus where God says homosexuality is a sin:

      Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
      1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor sexual perverts
      Romans 1:24-27 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion

      We have God (Jesus) calling homosexuality an "abomination" (or "detestable" in some translations) and saying it is a "perversion" and "unnatural". Can't get any more clear than that. The key to remember is that God hates the behavior, not the person. Just like lying, cheating, stealing, murdering. He hates the sin not the sinner.


      ""Does ANYONE have a "right" to marriage?"
      Yes, again. "

      What's the difference between a right to a marriage license and a right to marriage? I think there is no difference. Since you won't offer what "type" of rights we are talking about, I have to go with basic rights. And there is NO basic right to marriage or marriage licenses. If you think everyone has a "right" to marriage, why is that right limited by age? Are you saying some people have that right, but others do not based on the law of the land? Which would disrupt your argument that gays have a right to marriage ... because it is against the law of the land.

      Delete
    64. "I believe Jesus is God."

      Well by all means, just use the terms as synonyms whether others do or not. Jesus (supposedly the son of God, his own entity) said nothing about homosexuality. As one entity God seems to have something of a split personality.

      "What's the difference between a right to a marriage license and a right to marriage? I think there is no difference."

      You must, otherwise you would have been referring to marriage licenses when you were talking about rights. You treat the two terms are interchangeable when I use either, but for you it's different. Why?

      "Since you won't offer what "type" of rights we are talking about, I have to go with basic rights. And there is NO basic right to marriage or marriage licenses."

      I don't see the relevance of what "type" of right, because it doesn't change my meaning.

      "If you think everyone has a "right" to marriage, why is that right limited by age?"

      Because it's not an absolute right. How about "legal" rights, since marriage is a legal institution? Are there any of those rights that have no conditions whatsoever?

      "Are you saying some people have that right, but others do not based on the law of the land?"

      Of course. That's been the whole point regarding licenses. That's how you verify that you have the right.

      "Which would disrupt your argument that gays have a right to marriage ... because it is against the law of the land."

      Provide a link to "gays have a right to marriage", please. I'm pretty sure the point has consistently been that they should have a right to marriage, which would imply they don't have it already.

      Delete
    65. A little reminder of your religious back-ground and expertise:

      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2012/03/verdict-in-web-cam-case.html?showComment=1333586395013#c1525084706256309031


      I noticed you failed to answer whether you think Jesus is God in that link. For some reason you don't think that is important in a conversation about what Jesus calls sin.

      Delete
    66. "Because it's not an absolute right."

      What kind of right is it? Or is that the question you consider irrelevant? We have narrowed this down to: it is NOT an "absolute right" but you refuse to answer what type of right it IS. Maybe it's a "regulated right" that is only allowed when the laws allow it. Like gun ownership (your favorite comparison). And you already complained that felons don't have the "right" to own guns. You see, each "right" you compare marriage rights to have limits to who is allowed that "right". So does marriage. And the law of the land is that gay marriage is illegal. If you want to change that, then attack the laws, not the morality behind it. So far you are attacking the morality of not giving rights to gays, yet even YOU want to restrict who gets those marriage rights.


      You want the link where you said gays have a right to marriage? Ok:

      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2012/04/ill-make-this-easy.html?showComment=1333893580232#c1175720565103472783

      But, you really only have to scroll up a couple comments. Do you forget that easily what you've said? If gays have the innate "right" to marriage (as you've claimed), why is it limited by age? Do they not know they are gay until they reach 18? Or 16? Or 14? Or 10? At what age does a gay person figure out they are gay? Why do you discriminate so much?

      Delete
    67. What does belief have to do with expertise?

      "I noticed you failed to answer whether you think Jesus is God in that link."

      I said I was an atheist, in the link you provide. If you can't pick up on that, then I'm not sure what else is going to help you.

      So Jesus killed people? Is that what you believe?

      Delete
    68. "So Jesus killed people? Is that what you believe?"

      That's the problem with discussing religion with non-believers. They make things up that were never said in order to promote their ideals that religion is worthless.

      Which, in this case, would mean you are lying, mis-representing and misquoting what I've said. Something you have denied ever doing. Should I bookmark this comment too as a reminder of your habit for lying, mis-representing and mis-quoting?


      "I said I was an atheist, in the link you provide."

      You also said you were "raised a Christian" in another article. Which is it? Liberals sure are good at giving themselves both worlds, so they can claim each side of the fence at any given moment. You are telling me what Jesus did (Christian background?) while claiming to be atheist.

      Delete
    69. "You see, each "right" you compare marriage rights to have limits to who is allowed that "right". So does marriage. And the law of the land is that gay marriage is illegal."

      You're not saying anything I haven't already said already. Good job making the distinction as to how heterosexuals have the right to marriage as opposed to homosexuals.

      "If you want to change that, then attack the laws, not the morality behind it. So far you are attacking the morality of not giving rights to gays, yet even YOU want to restrict who gets those marriage rights."

      You can't reasonably base laws on religious morals, because not everyone abides by those morals. There's no reason that I shouldn't be allowed to by alcohol today, for instance. There's an objective reason for having an age limit, though.

      "If gays have the innate "right" to marriage (as you've claimed), why is it limited by age?"

      Where on earth did I claim that? Your link didn't even show where I said homosexuals had the right to marriage, and now it's an "innate" right? Please try to be more specific here.

      Delete
    70. Are you going to answer the question about you discriminating based on age? What age are you going to set the limit at? Why are "laws of the land" an acceptable reason to exclude people sometimes (gun rights), but not acceptable other times (marriage rights)?

      Delete
    71. "They make things up that were never said in order to promote their ideals that religion is worthless."

      I didn't say you said it. I asked if you believed it. Are you not familiar with any instances of God killing people?

      "Should I bookmark this comment too as a reminder of your habit for lying, mis-representing and mis-quoting?"

      Yes, please provide an example of your inability to distinguish between "say" and "believe". I can handle it.

      "You also said you were "raised a Christian" in another article. Which is it?"

      It's both. The past is not the same as the present.

      Delete
    72. "Good job making the distinction as to how heterosexuals have the right to marriage as opposed to homosexuals."

      Legality is not equal to rights. I have not said heterosexuals have a RIGHT to marriage. IN FACT I have said the opposite. More examples of you lying, mis-representing and mis-quoting.


      "You can't reasonably base laws on religious morals, because not everyone abides by those morals."

      That is what YOU are doing by assigning an "age limit" on marriage. Some places may not have those limits. What moral reason is there to limit marriage based on age? What legal reason is there? What 'any kind of reason' is there to restrict marriage according to age? (keep in mind the age of some kids being tried as adults in certain criminal cases).

      Delete
    73. "Are you going to answer the question about you discriminating based on age? What age are you going to set the limit at?"

      I believe states set their own ages.

      "Why are "laws of the land" an acceptable reason to exclude people sometimes (gun rights), but not acceptable other times (marriage rights)?"

      Of course laws are an acceptable reason to exclude people. Do you believe that anytime someone advocates changing the law that they don't respect the entire concept of law, or what?

      Please note the word there was "believe", not "say". I don't want you going off on another unnecessary rant.

      Delete
    74. "It's both. The past is not the same as the present."

      Both sides of the fence. You are raised a Christian. Obviously, you were not raised a Christian if you are an atheist. You were raised an atheist. You may have gone to a Christian Church once a year, but that is way different than being raised.

      Delete
    75. "Legality is not equal to rights. I have not said heterosexuals have a RIGHT to marriage. IN FACT I have said the opposite."

      I thought you considered it a "human right". Regardless of what you believe, you stated what I've been saying the whole time.

      "That is what YOU are doing by assigning an "age limit" on marriage."

      No, because there has to be an age where people are responsible for themselves. What kind of society do you imagine where thirteen year-olds were getting married and having kids? That doesn't work in the post-industrial revolution world. It discourages higher education, obtaining and maintaining the skills needed to survive today, and would have a massive impact on our economy. None of that has anything to do with morality, as you can see.

      Delete
    76. "Both sides of the fence. You are raised a Christian. Obviously, you were not raised a Christian if you are an atheist."

      Both of my parents were Mormon. I was baptized in the church and went to services every week until I was a teenager.

      Scott Romney was my Bishop at the LDS church in Bloomfield Hills, MI. George Romney also attended services there.

      I'm pretty sure I'm not the first person to claim to have abandoned a church. You don't seem to require any basis at all to accuse people of lying.

      Delete
    77. Again:"Where on earth did I claim that? Your link didn't even show where I said homosexuals had the right to marriage, and now it's an "innate" right? Please try to be more specific here."

      And do you believe Jesus killed people or not? This isn't a difficult question.

      Delete
    78. I'm afraid Mormonism isn't the same as Christianity. Who is Joseph Smith? So, I'm afraid you were raised an atheist, since Mormonism is not Christianity that means you were NOT "raised a Christian". Do you know anything about the "narrow way"? How does Mormonism fit into that category?


      Are you asking if Jesus "killed" or "murdered". You do realize there is a difference don't you?


      I said I would call them "human rights". Are you going to define what type of rights you are discussing now? Or are you going to waffle back and forth in an effort to make your stance fit the question?

      Delete
    79. "I'm afraid Mormonism isn't the same as Christianity."

      Nonsense. Mormons learn the Bible, all of it, including the teachings of Jesus. It's a form of Christianity. Besides, even if that were true, it wouldn't mean I was raised an atheist. That's just dumb.

      "Are you asking if Jesus "killed" or "murdered"."

      I said "killed" twice. Would you prefer "murdered", for some reason?

      "I said I would call them "human rights"."

      Then how can you say that you not only don't consider marriage a right for heterosexuals, but that you've said the opposite? I still say that when talking about homosexuals that marriage is a civil right. Otherwise, it makes sense to classify it as a legal right. So what does this change?

      Delete
    80. Here's a little story our pastor told us today concerning non-believers telling believers about God/Heaven and hell: A little girl (9-10) was on an airplane and a gentleman sat next to her. The gentleman made a point to say that he likes to talk the entire time of flying because it makes the time go faster. So the little girl asked what he wanted to talk about. The man says he wants to discuss why he does not believe there is a God or a Heaven or a hell. He asks her what she thinks about that. The little girl says; there is a deer and a cow and a horse. Each of them eats grass. The deer poops pellets, the cow poops paddies and the horse poops clumps can you tell me why? The gentleman looked at her and said; no, I don't know that. The little girl says to the man; what gives you the authority to talk about God/Heaven and hell if you know nothing about poop?

      That's about as far as I'll take any more of your off-topic religious concerns. Since you nothing about poop.


      Now, back to the topic: Are you going to define what type of "rights" you are discussing? Because I may call marriage a human right, but it is in no way a civil right. And, I'd like to see how you make that distinction. And it certainly isn't a "legal right" or a "basic right" to get married. How can you call marriage a "legal right"? I don't know how you can even try to make that claim.

      Plus, since you now call the right to marriage a "legal" right, you should bring some supporting evidence that reflects that claim. And since you are no longer calling it a civil right, then I take it you've given up on that claim?

      Delete
    81. From earlier:

      "Again:"Where on earth did I claim that? Your link didn't even show where I said homosexuals had the right to marriage, and now it's an "innate" right? Please try to be more specific here."

      And do you believe Jesus killed people or not? This isn't a difficult question."

      If you're going to claim I say certain things, then it's on you to substantiate that. The same way that when you say "Jesus" advises against homosexuality, you should be able to answer a simple question to explore your rationale.

      Your idiotic church story doesn't change that a bit.

      "Because I may call marriage a human right, but it is in no way a civil right."

      Why not? You're still not explaining what difference any of this is supposed to make. Why don't you make a little bit of an effort to make your point clear?

      Delete
    82. "Why don't you make a little bit of an effort to make your point clear?"

      I've been dealing with your lies, mis-quotes and mis-representations for the entire article. I've plainly said my position and why. If you choose not to comprehend what is written, then you can also choose to be gay. Because you are taught at a very young age how to read, just like you can be taught at a very young age what sex to prefer. Just like you made your choice to not be able to read, you also made your choice for what sex to be attracted to.


      "Your idiotic church story doesn't change that a bit."

      Hard to talk religion with someone who does not know religion. You're always welcome to accept the saving grace of Jesus Christ. You do know that He died on the Cross and shed His blood to pay the price for all of our sins, then was raised again on the 3rd day. It's not hard to be saved, just read John 3:15. Jesus fully explains the process to be saved and have eternal life. You can choose to accept His offer or decline it. Just like the many other choices you have in life.


      Ok, so you plan on ignoring the actual topic from now on? Because I didn't see you say anything about "legal rights" or "civil rights" being defended for the claims you make. When you confirm your preference as to which "right" you are talking about, I'll continue my explanations. It's much easier to be talking about the same thing instead of watching you take this conversation everywhere BUT the actual topic.

      Delete
    83. "Nonsense. Mormons learn the Bible, all of it, including the teachings of Jesus. It's a form of Christianity."

      I take it you feel asleep during all the sermons and other teachings?

      http://www.gotquestions.org/Mormons.html
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormons

      Delete
    84. "I've plainly said my position and why. If you choose not to comprehend what is written, then you can also choose to be gay."

      So what difference does the type of right have to do with this? Do you think that Loving v. Virginia established civil rights for mixed-race couples? If not, why not? And if marriage isn't a civil right, then what were you referring to when you asked if bisexuals were going to get "civil rights"?

      "Hard to talk religion with someone who does not know religion."

      It's also someone hard to talk religion with someone who can't explain his own beliefs. I suppose abandoning the "Jesus is God" argument is your choice, though.

      "Because I didn't see you say anything about "legal rights" or "civil rights" being defended for the claims you make."

      Honestly, when you keep saying it's not this and not that, and I have no idea what the hell the difference is supposed to establish, I don't have much motivation to do anything but to say something different. I don't like guessing games. I'll say it's a civil right, like I did already. So what is your point?

      And please tell me where I said marriage is a right for homosexuals, much less an "innate" right. Or admit you made it up, while you accuse me of misquoting and misrepresenting you.

      Delete
    85. " I'll say it's a civil right"

      Alright, now we're finally getting somewhere. Are you born gay? Are you really making a comparison of the choice of homosexuality to the ethnicity equity laws? If you say you are born gay, then you need to bring the proof.


      "I suppose abandoning the "Jesus is God" argument is your choice, though." AND "And if marriage isn't a civil right, then what were you referring to when you asked if bisexuals were going to get "civil rights"?

      Goes to provide more proof that all you do is lie/mis-represent and mis-quote.

      Delete
    86. "I take it you feel asleep during all the sermons and other teachings?"

      Not at all.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity

      Check out "major groupings within christianity", under "others".

      Christianity:thefreedictionary.com:
      1. The Christian religion, founded on the life and teachings of Jesus.
      2. Christians as a group; Christendom.
      3. The state or fact of being a Christian.

      "Founded on the life and teachings of Jesus" is the definition. Mormonism qualifies.

      Delete
    87. You're funny. An atheist defending a non-Christian religion. Can you post some more qualifications to be Christian? Is believing in Jesus Christ in there somewhere?

      Delete
    88. "Are you born gay? Are you really making a comparison of the choice of homosexuality to the ethnicity equity laws? If you say you are born gay, then you need to bring the proof."

      That's it? That's the same garbage you've been vomiting out since the beginning. What difference does the type of right make to that? What type of right would prevent you from making that lame argument?

      "Goes to provide more proof that all you do is lie/mis-represent and mis-quote."

      How is saying you're abandoning your argument misrepresenting you? If you run away from your point, then you're abandoning it.

      As for your questions about civil rights and bisexuality:

      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2012/04/hey-william.html?showComment=1333489098769#c602276445462255498

      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2012/04/hey-william.html?showComment=1333490384093#c2914379879092216416

      And I will take your refusal to answer my question about my supposed claim of the homosexual's "innate" right to marriage as an admission that you made it up. That seems fair, at this point.

      Delete
    89. "You're funny. An atheist defending a non-Christian religion."

      Is it a religion? I thought being raised Mormon meant I was raised atheist. Anyway, it's called objectivity. It's a funny concept, the same way that "memory" is funny.

      "Can you post some more qualifications to be Christian? Is believing in Jesus Christ in there somewhere?"

      If you're basing a religion off of the teachings of Jesus, then believing in Jesus Christ would go along with that, yes. Mormons believe in Jesus Christ. Next?

      Delete
    90. Great links you brought. Are you going to answer the questions I asked?

      Here's another link to look at:
      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2012/04/hey-william.html?showComment=1333487730645#c9063049795909813226

      Why don't you answer those questions too? Or you can continue to ignore them as you have continually done so far.


      Homosexuals have no "innate" rights derived from being homosexual. Is that the answer you are looking for?

      Delete
    91. "Great links you brought."

      Thank you. Glad to correct your mistaken impressions.

      "Why don't you answer those questions too?"

      Which of those questions was not subsequently answered? The post below it clearly responds to it, so you should be more specific.

      "Homosexuals have no "innate" rights derived from being homosexual. Is that the answer you are looking for?"

      No, I knew that was your opinion. It doesn't explain how you claimed I made the comment about "innate" rights. Again, you made it up, so anything other than proof otherwise is irrelevant.

      Delete
    92. By the way, regarding your dodging of the "did Jesus kill people" question:

      "If I ask you 'what color is the sky in your world' and you answer "I don't want to tell you", then I will make an assumption about the color of the sky in your world. That assumption will be correct until I have more facts (the ones I am asking from you) to work with."

      I guess I can fairly say you think Jesus has killed people. How's that philosophy working out for you now?

      From the same post:"At least I have the nads to answer questions when asked. You may not like the answer, but I'm not afraid (or embarrassed) to answer."

      Classic.

      Delete
    93. "I guess I can fairly say you think Jesus has killed people. How's that philosophy working out for you now?"

      Well, considering you are also lying, mis-representing my statements and mis-quoting me, I would expect nothing less from you. Is that how atheists do things? I guess "honest" conversation is out of the question if you're going to act like that.


      "Which of those questions was not subsequently answered? "

      This one: "As far as civil rights are concerned you are saying that bi-sexuals don't get them, but homosexuals do?"

      Delete
    94. "No, I knew that was your opinion."

      Then why would you ask it?


      Do you remember what the topic is?

      Delete
    95. "Then why would you ask it?"

      I didn't. I asked you to back up what you claimed I said. None of this is making it seem like you didn't lie, you know, so I don't know what you imagine you're accomplishing.

      "This one: "As far as civil rights are concerned you are saying that bi-sexuals don't get them, but homosexuals do?""

      That post is further down. This is why you need to be more specific. If you notice, I did answer the question, but you then claimed that you weren't talking about marriage. You never explained exactly what "civil rights" you were referring to, even though I asked. So, I'm glad to answer the question, if you will finally allow me to. It's pretty hard to claim I wasn't making the effort.

      "Well, considering you are also lying, mis-representing my statements and mis-quoting me, I would expect nothing less from you."

      Are you denying posting that? If not, then why would your stated standard not be available to others? You're sort of admitting that your own behavior is dishonest, if that's the case.

      Delete
    96. "Why don't you answer those questions too? Or you can continue to ignore them as you have continually done so far."

      I had an instinct about that question you wanted me to answer, and it panned out.

      Me:"Again, what rights are you referring to, then? I'm not seeing the alternative."

      You:"I asked you if getting married is a civil right. Can you answer that question before you go off onto another subject change, yet again."

      Now that is priceless. While I tried to answer the question you're now saying I ignored, you berated me for changing the subject.

      That hardly seems fair, does it?

      Delete
    97. "No, I knew that was your opinion."

      You're right. It hardly seems fair that you lie/mis-represent and mis-quote on a regular basis. Too bad too, you sure give the impression that all liberals are like you.

      Well, the weekends over, and I'm done playing games with you. When you want to discuss honestly I'll be around ( I guess I'm forever hopeful that you'll actually discuss honestly). I won't ever expect it, but it may happen.

      Delete
    98. "That hardly seems fair, does it?"

      This is the quote I meant to reply to.

      Delete
    99. Do these threads close? The weekend seems like an arbitrary deadline.

      "It hardly seems fair that you lie/mis-represent and mis-quote on a regular basis."

      I guess that means you admit to what I just posted, which undermines every accusation you've made. So by all means, run away.

      Delete
    100. "This is the quote I meant to reply to."

      Obviously.

      Delete
    101. "Do these threads close?"

      You're not at Mediamatters any more. You don't have a limited time to spout your lies and run. Here, you must face the music all the time.

      Hey, Brabantio, tell us more about how Mormanism is a Christian religion. That gave my wife a good laugh too. I figure since you avoid that actual topic as much as you do, you would appreciate more religious conversations. She was wondering if you could expound on your claim you were "raised a Christian" while saying you lived in a Mormon environment.

      Delete
    102. "Here, you must face the music all the time."

      Precisely my point.

      "She was wondering if you could expound on your claim you were "raised a Christian" while saying you lived in a Mormon environment."

      When you can address the definition of "Christianity" and wiki's inclusion of Mormonism as a Christian religion, then there will be something new to talk about. Until then, you and your wife can laugh all you like.

      Delete
    103. Oh, ask your wife what she thinks about Jesus killing people in the Old Testament. I'd love to get her religious expertise on the matter.

      Delete
    104. "When you can address the definition of "Christianity" and wiki's inclusion of Mormonism as a Christian religion"

      I can't speak for why wiki does what it does. It also includes Catholicism as a Christian religion. Isn't that the religion that you liberals hate so much because of the issue with child raping? Please tell me what part of Christianity approves/condones child-raping and multiple wives?

      Delete
    105. "I can't speak for why wiki does what it does."

      You probably shouldn't have used a wiki link yourself, then.

      "Isn't that the religion that you liberals hate so much because of the issue with child raping? Please tell me what part of Christianity approves/condones child-raping and multiple wives?"

      I disapprove of the way the Catholic church handles the pedophilia issue, but I've never claimed they're not a Christian church because of it. So what does that prove? Also, let me know when the LDS church abandoned polygamy. Unless you're under the impression that policy is still in effect, of course.

      Delete
    106. "ask your wife what she thinks about Jesus killing people in the Old Testament. "

      But, you're the one claiming to be "raised a Christian" why don't you explain how Jesus killed people in the Old Testament. That line was one of the statements of yours she got the biggest kick out of.
      Let's hear from the atheist on how Jesus killed people. This ought to be interesting.

      Wait, I'll answer that concern of yours. Jesus killed nobody at any time. Do you have evidence or proof that He did?

      Delete
    107. "Let's hear from the atheist on how Jesus killed people. This ought to be interesting."

      You tell me. "Jesus is God", remember?

      Delete
    108. "You probably shouldn't have used a wiki link yourself, then."

      I used one to describe the religion. I also used another one. Are you going to comment on the other link I brought? Perhaps address the MANY concerns that link had about the Christianity of Mormonism? Polygamy wasn't the ONLY problem. But, you know that. That's why you left that church and went to another.

      Delete
    109. "You tell me. "Jesus is God", remember?"

      Yes, Jesus IS God. So, I've answered your question. Jesus (God) killed nobody at any time. Do you have evidence that He did?

      Delete
    110. God never killed anyone? Have you read the Bible? You must be trying to challenge the word "kill". What word or phrase do you think is fair? "Ended lives"? "Smote"?

      Delete
    111. BTW, my wife also says Jesus (God) killed no one at any time. She is also wondering if you have any evidence or proof that He did.

      Maybe you can call your friends at Mediamatters and get their help bringing proof of people killed by God (Jesus). Maybe someone at this blog site can help you. They seem so smart concerning issues of religion.

      Delete
    112. Yes, Brabantio, let's use either "smote" or "ended lives". Any version of the word "kill" will be acceptable by me. Do you have any proof or evidence that Jesus (God) killed (or any version of that word) anyone?


      BTW, Yes I read the Bible and listen to Bible teachers on the radio. I know much about the Bible. Does that have anything to do with this concern of yours?

      Delete
    113. "Perhaps address the MANY concerns that link had about the Christianity of Mormonism? Polygamy wasn't the ONLY problem."

      I'm familiar with people's concerns, but none of those things change the definition of words. There is no "Believe in the teaching of Jesus...and conform to the standards that other religious people demand." Considering the church is much more mainstream than it was when it started, criticism of unprovable beliefs don't carry a lot of weight coming from people with other unprovable beliefs.

      "That's why you left that church and went to another."

      Actually, I left because I never really believed in what they were teaching me from the start. I never said I went to another church, either. How you came up with that is a mystery.

      Delete
    114. "Do you have any proof or evidence that Jesus (God) killed (or any version of that word) anyone?"

      Sure, we'll play this out.

      http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/godkills.htm

      Delete
    115. I'm sorry, Brabantio, I thought you were going to bring REAL proof. Instead you bring evidence taken out of book of fairy tales, claimed to be written by a mythical being.
      How about you bring real historic evidence of the people killed by Jesus (God). Not something that is ONLY believable by a small percentage of people who believe in fairy tales and mythical beings. Bring some of that good atheist proof, not proof taken from a book you don't even believe is real.

      Unless, you are now willing to admit that Jesus (God) says MUCH on the sin of homosexuality?

      Delete
    116. Although, from your link, my favorite one has to be: "God sent a lion to eat a man for not killing a prophet". Ah ha ha ha .... God sent a lion to eat a man ... ah ha ha hahah. Whew, you're good.

      Delete
    117. "I'm sorry, Brabantio, I thought you were going to bring REAL proof. Instead you bring evidence taken out of book of fairy tales, claimed to be written by a mythical being."

      Is that how you view the Bible? We're talking about your beliefs, not mine.

      Delete
    118. Next best has to be this one: "God forces Midianite soldiers to kill each other."

      That link is going to be good for some laughs all day long. Do you have any more atheist links I can go to for that kind of comic humor?

      Delete
    119. "Is that how you view the Bible? We're talking about your beliefs, not mine."

      Yeah, but YOU are making the claim that Jesus (God) killed people, not me. YOU need to bring proof that YOU believe is real. Are you saying you believe the Bible as completely true with no errors?

      Delete
    120. "Yeah, but YOU are making the claim that Jesus (God) killed people, not me."

      I asked if that was your belief, based on your claim that "Jesus is God". If you're going to attribute God's words to Jesus, then how do you not attribute His actions as well? That's the subject. Are you trying to deflect?

      "Are you saying you believe the Bible as completely true with no errors?"

      Are you? Either it's God's word or it isn't, right?

      Delete
    121. I'm going to go to work, now. I'll check back later to see if you (laughs) can bring any evidence that Jesus (God) killed anyone. You know, proof that your peers can agree with. Perhaps some of your friends would like to help you find that proof? Let me ask for you: Hey, does anyone out there have historical proof that Jesus (God) killed anyone? Conchabhar? Eddie? Mediamatters? Anyone?

      Delete
    122. "Are you? Either it's God's word or it isn't, right?"

      That's right, it either IS or ISN'T God's word. If I bring His word as evidence that homosexuality is a sin are you going to agree with it? Because I can do that with the Bible. Are you going to accept the Bible as a factual book with factual stories/lessons?

      Either you DO or you DO NOT. If you do not, then you certainly can't use it as proof of anything you are trying to say. If you do, then we can carry this conversation on a little more honestly.

      Delete
    123. "If I bring His word as evidence that homosexuality is a sin are you going to agree with it?"

      No, because I don't believe in the Bible. Objectively, you can't use the Bible as evidence for social issues that affect everyone.

      You, on the other hand, do believe in the Bible. Asking you about your beliefs can involve your interpretation of a book you believe in. That's the arena we're in, and my views have no influence on that whatsoever.

      Does that make the distinction clear enough for you? I hope it does, so you can continue your fearless tackling of questions.

      Delete
    124. "No, because I don't believe in the Bible. Objectively, you can't use the Bible as evidence for social issues that affect everyone."

      I think if anyone is going to use any evidence to prove their case (whatever the issue is) then it should be mutually agreeable by all as acceptable. Otherwise, I'll bring evidence you don't believe and you'll bring evidence I don't believe and everyone will be upset with everyone because no one will be able to bring acceptable evidence. If you decide that the Bible is acceptable evidence for my concerns then I'll use it, and you'll be able to use it for the evidence you wish to bring.

      Delete
    125. "I think if anyone is going to use any evidence to prove their case (whatever the issue is) then it should be mutually agreeable by all as acceptable."

      Are we talking about proving something to an objective audience here? No. Let's try:"Asking you about your beliefs can involve your interpretation of a book you believe in." That's better, since it addresses the "whatever the issue is" line before you even wrote it. I don't have to believe IN what you're saying. By your logic, any two people of different faiths can't possibly try to ask questions of the other, since they're not going to accept their "evidence".

      What's really odd about that is that you were relaying concerns about the Christianity of the Mormon church. One of those concerns is the existence of supplemental holy books, such as the Book of Mormon. I feel it's safe to assume these are books you don't believe in. Now, I could have very easily told you that the virgin birth is cited in the Book of Mormon (and it is), which was relevant to your repeated questions on the matter. I would think you would almost have to expect something of the sort.

      So why would you ask a question about something that wasn't "mutually agreeable"? You're not going to believe what Mormon scripture says about Jesus, so why would you ask for further evidence that Mormons believe in Jesus Christ? Or ask me to address the "MANY concerns" about the church, for that matter?

      And since I didn't ruffle my feathers about the thought of you not believing IN any evidence I could have brought forward, then it's only fair you extend the same courtesy. Now that we have that out of the way, you may answer the question in good conscience.

      Delete
    126. "What's really odd about that is that you were relaying concerns about the Christianity of the Mormon church."

      What's really odd is the fact you are getting all bent out of shape trying to defend a religion that I believe is not Christian. Hell, for that matter NEITHER DO YOU !! You are an atheist, remember?

      Now, let's get back to your concern about Mormonism. What was the FIRST question I asked about it? You don't remember, do you? That is because you have a problem with reading comprehension. Tell you what, I'll give you a link to my first question I had and you can answer that one and go from there. It had nothing to do with what book you wanted to believe and had nothing to do with what book I wanted to believe.

      So, if you're done changing the subject, let's get back to discussing supposed rights you want for gays but not for straight people. I believe the last concern was; what makes you think having the choice of being gay gives you civil rights?

      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2012/04/ill-make-this-easy.html?showComment=1333903572447#c8300976649170655429

      Delete
    127. "Now, I could have very easily told you that the virgin birth is cited in the Book of Mormon (and it is), which was relevant to your repeated questions on the matter."

      I could tell you the "virgin birth" is cited in the Koran, also. Are you going to let me use THAT book to argue the merits of homosexuality getting civil rights that heterosexuals do not have? Will you let me use that book to argue that homosexuals shouldn't have any "superior rights" at all?

      Delete
    128. "What's really odd is the fact you are getting all bent out of shape trying to defend a religion that I believe is not Christian. Hell, for that matter NEITHER DO YOU !!"

      You're confused. First off, why does it seem odd that I'm trying to "defend" a religion you believe is not Christian? What difference is your belief supposed to make to me? And being an atheist doesn't mean I can't correct your warped view regarding any faith. "Objectivity". Word of the day, apparently.

      "What was the FIRST question I asked about it?"

      Joseph Smith was the founder of the Mormon church. What possible relevance does that have?

      "So, if you're done changing the subject, let's get back to discussing supposed rights you want for gays but not for straight people."

      That has been covered. Since you admitted you weren't talking about marriage licenses when you led into that conversation, your attributing that meaning to me is null and void. You started talking about religion here, so that's the subject you have now established. Don't try to change it.

      "I could tell you the "virgin birth" is cited in the Koran, also. Are you going to let me use THAT book to argue the merits of homosexuality getting civil rights that heterosexuals do not have?"

      No, for one because I don't advocate homosexuals getting rights that heterosexuals have (have you stopped beating your wife?). Secondly, as explicitly stated, no religious beliefs are grounds for public policy. And, of course the point would be that it supports my argument that the LDS church falls under the definition of Christianity, contrary to your claim.

      Now that we have your predictable deflections covered, do you admit that God killed people in the Bible, yes or no? Remember what you said about your nads and all.

      Delete
    129. "Joseph Smith was the founder of the Mormon church. What possible relevance does that have?"

      Who wrote the book you're referencing as mentioning the "virgin birth" in an attempt to defend the Christianity of a religion while trying to give acceptable authority to the Bible? Yet, you say NO when asked if I can use the Koran because it made the same mention. You're one of those "pick and choose" type religious nuts aren't you?


      "Now that we have your predictable deflections covered, do you admit that God killed people in the Bible, yes or no?"

      Yes, is there a problem with that?


      "No, for one because I don't advocate homosexuals getting rights that heterosexuals have"

      When did heterosexuals get the "right" to marriage?


      "First off, why does it seem odd that I'm trying to "defend" a religion you believe is not Christian?"

      You're an atheist. At what point does ANY atheist care about what religion is or is not Christian? Face it, you're a closet-mormon and mad at me because I called it un-Christian.

      Delete
    130. "Who wrote the book you're referencing as mentioning the "virgin birth" in an attempt to defend the Christianity of a religion while trying to give acceptable authority to the Bible?"

      Who's trying to give "acceptable authority" to the Bible?

      "Yet, you say NO when asked if I can use the Koran because it made the same mention. You're one of those "pick and choose" type religious nuts aren't you?"

      The answer will always be "no" regardless of what point I'm making about anything else. You can't use any religious argument for public policy. Telling you that Mormonism is a form of Christianity does not change that.

      "Yes, is there a problem with that?"

      Then you are saying Jesus killed people in the Bible, because "Jesus is God". Thank you for clarifying your understanding of Jesus.

      "When did heterosexuals get the "right" to marriage?"

      I will give you this, after further contemplation:Marriage is a civil right. See Loving v. Virginia. Your belief is that homosexuals shouldn't qualify for that civil right, because they aren't being unfairly discriminated against. Is that reasonable?

      "You're an atheist. At what point does ANY atheist care about what religion is or is not Christian? Face it, you're a closet-mormon and mad at me because I called it un-Christian."

      Why does it bother you so much that someone can be objective about things? It seems hard to believe that the concept could be this foreign to any functional adult.

      Delete
    131. "Then you are saying Jesus killed people in the Bible, because "Jesus is God". Thank you for clarifying your understanding of Jesus."

      You're welcome. Again, is there a problem with that?


      "Your belief is that homosexuals shouldn't qualify for that civil right"

      That's correct. What "race" are homosexuals?

      Delete
    132. "Why does it bother you so much that someone can be objective about things? It seems hard to believe that the concept could be this foreign to any functional adult."

      No bother. However, your ramblings about "functional adults" being "objective" right after you said you'd never use the Koran to prove any point seem a bit odd in that context. So much for objectivity! Maybe you're not a functional adult?

      Delete
    133. "You can't use any religious argument for public policy."

      You don't happen to have the proof that Jesus killed people in the Bible do you? Try using an authority that is acceptable by both of us. Since killing is covered by "public policy" how you gonna do that?

      Delete
    134. "You're welcome. Again, is there a problem with that?"

      Outside of it being fairly psychotic? "I'm going to have 42 young men mauled by bears because they mocked Elisha, but then I'm going to tell people to turn the other cheek. That will work." You do also realize that you said the opposite earlier, that Jesus did not kill anyone. You even made it a point that your wife found it so hilarious, but you admit it here.

      How about slavery? Does Jesus advise that it's moral to buy people and pass them on from one generation to the next (Leviticus 25:44-46)? Because that's what God said, quite specifically. And if that's what Jesus believes, then who would be those slaves, since we have genetic proof that differences in skin color and gender are innate? Was God/Jesus unaware of the existence of DNA at the time, or did they just not care?

      "What "race" are homosexuals?"

      "Civil rights" is not exclusive to race.

      "No bother. However, your ramblings about "functional adults" being "objective" right after you said you'd never use the Koran to prove any point seem a bit odd in that context."

      What the hell does the Koran have to do with that? No matter what, you'll just have to get over this one. You accuse me of lying solely because I don't require bias to make an argument, and you want to act high and mighty? Sorry, I think it's fair to say that's not how normal people behave, and it's not wise of you to push the issue further.

      "You don't happen to have the proof that Jesus killed people in the Bible do you?"

      How do you come back to this after admitting to it already?

      "Try using an authority that is acceptable by both of us. Since killing is covered by "public policy" how you gonna do that?"

      I have no idea what point you think you're trying to make here. Could you please explain what pointing out the ramifications of your "Jesus is God" argument has to do with public policy?

      Delete
    135. "Outside of it being fairly psychotic?"
      "How do you come back to this after admitting to it already?"

      Psychotic? How can a book of fairy tales be considered psychotic? I can claim I believe in fairy tales all day long, it doesn't mean anything to people who don't. Besides, do you really think a mythical being could tell a lion to eat anyone? Or a bear to kill anyone? Really, you need to control your hatefullness. What proof do you have Jesus had that bear kill anyone? Are there some fingerprints? Eyewitnesses? Surveillance cameras? Hacked phone messages by FOX? All you have to do is use evidence from an "acceptable authority" and we can move on.


      "Could you please explain what pointing out the ramifications of your "Jesus is God" argument has to do with public policy?"

      YOU are the one claiming Jesus killed millions of people. YOU are the one who needs to prove it. Killing is a matter of public policy and YOU said you can't use a "religious arguement" concerning public policy. What proof do you have Jesus killed anyone?
      BTW, I also admit humpty dumpty had a great fall. But, that's also just another fairy tale. I don't think I can use it to prove anything. Perhaps you can, since you are acting so giddy over being able to use books of fairy tales to prove your case that homosexuality is not a sin or morally corrupt or un-natural. Because if you demand it's use to prove killings then you must allow it's use for proof that homosexuality is un-natural. You (like you tell me) can't have it both ways.



      "What "race" are homosexuals?"
      "Civil rights" is not exclusive to race.

      They are in the case you referenced. Do you have another case that won any civil rights for gays? Looks like you lost this arguement. Unless you can come up with some civil rights cases that give homosexuals the right to marriage when not even heterosexuals have that supposed civil right.
      Hell, I'm still waiting for you to prove that heterosexuals HAVE a civil right to marriage. Because if they don't have them, why would homosexuals get them?

      Delete
    136. According to my book of fairy tales every human on earth was nearly destroyed in less than 2 months. What point could you possibly make by having me admit I believe what a book of fairy tales told me? Are you insinuating that the author of my book of fairy tales is a supreme being that can control all aspects of our lives (including creating the universe) and that no one has the ability of their own free will without his approval?

      Delete
    137. "Psychotic? How can a book of fairy tales be considered psychotic?"

      The entire conversation is within the construct of the Bible, which you believe in. I can point out the bizarre nature of your beliefs without having to buy into it myself.

      "YOU are the one claiming Jesus killed millions of people. YOU are the one who needs to prove it. Killing is a matter of public policy and YOU said you can't use a "religious arguement" concerning public policy."

      No, you believe that Jesus killed millions of people. "Jesus is God". I don't believe it for a second, and I'm not making any argument about public policy here.

      "Because if you demand it's use to prove killings then you must allow it's use for proof that homosexuality is un-natural. You (like you tell me) can't have it both ways."

      No, I don't. We're talking about what you believe. That has nothing to do with using the Bible to support public policy.

      "They are in the case you referenced."

      Congratulations, you've proven that civil rights includes race. So what? Look up the definition of civil rights. The concept is not exclusive to race, period.

      "Do you have another case that won any civil rights for gays?"

      Are homosexuals the only other minority/disadvantaged group besides black people? Even if they were, equal protection for all citizens means just that, whether there's any cases that establish rights for homosexuals or not.

      "Hell, I'm still waiting for you to prove that heterosexuals HAVE a civil right to marriage."

      How was there a court case for Loving v. Virginia if heterosexual marriage isn't a right? What would the basis of the complaint be, exactly?

      "What point could you possibly make by having me admit I believe what a book of fairy tales told me?"

      The point would be that it's idiotic to conflate the words of God with those of Jesus. The fact that you didn't address the slavery issue proves that quite well. You said something stupid, and it put you in a horribly awkward position.

      Delete
    138. " I can point out the bizarre nature of your beliefs without having to buy into it myself."

      You can believe something is bizarre when you have no understanding of it.


      "I'm not making any argument about public policy here." AND "That has nothing to do with using the Bible to support public policy."

      Yes, you are. Killing is a matter of public policy. You brought that aspect into the discussion, now you must explain the reasoning behind it or accept the source.


      "Congratulations, you've proven that civil rights includes race. So what?"

      It proves you haven't a clue as to what you are talking about.


      "Are homosexuals the only other minority/disadvantaged group besides black people?"

      Black people don't get to choose what color they are. Gays get to choose what sexual preference they have. You don't get civil rights for a choice like that. If so, then YOU need to prove it.


      "What would the basis of the complaint be, exactly?"

      Race. Is there another reason for that complaint?


      "The point would be that it's idiotic to conflate the words of God with those of Jesus."

      The point would be that you can't have it both ways. You don't get to use the Bible in a rant against God/Jesus if you refuse to use the Bible in rants against homosexuality.

      Delete
    139. "You can believe something is bizarre when you have no understanding of it.

      So provide some explanation.

      "Yes, you are. Killing is a matter of public policy."

      You're mixing two completely different concepts. You asked if you could use the Koran to make a policy argument. It has nothing to do with your beliefs regarding Jesus at all, and you have no argument otherwise.

      "Black people don't get to choose what color they are. Gays get to choose what sexual preference they have. You don't get civil rights for a choice like that."

      Non sequitur. You're now talking about whether civil rights should apply, not whether they could. Try to keep it straight.

      "Race. Is there another reason for that complaint?"

      What right were they fighting for?

      "You don't get to use the Bible in a rant against God/Jesus if you refuse to use the Bible in rants against homosexuality."

      Yes, I do, because we're not talking about what I believe. I'm not obligated to give the Bible any credit myself when I'm pointing out the nature of your belief in it. I'm able to make that distinction, and it's not that complicated if you take some deep breaths and give it a try.

      Delete
    140. "What right were they fighting for?"

      Inter-RACIAL marriage.



      "So provide some explanation."

      Why? This discussion is on homosexuality being choice. You want to talk religion, go to the religion article that Eddie has going.


      "You're now talking about whether civil rights should apply, not whether they could."

      No, I'm talking about whether they could. And, they cannot. Unless you got some proof that gays are born that way. Do you? I've only asked that about 20 times.


      "I'm able to make that distinction, and it's not that complicated if you take some deep breaths and give it a try."

      I don't think I want to try what you are smoking. You seem to have lost your mind and can't even keep track of what is being discussed.

      Delete
    141. "Inter-RACIAL marriage."

      Which is founded off of what right? Are you seriously arguing that equal protection manufactures a right that wasn't already there? Think about it.

      "Why? This discussion is on homosexuality being choice. You want to talk religion, go to the religion article that Eddie has going."

      Funny, it looks to me like you were leaving, then you decided to initiate a conversation about religion. Do you remember it differently?

      "No, I'm talking about whether they could. And, they cannot."

      No, your argument was that it was racial only. That would mean it wouldn't apply to homosexuals even if you did accept it as natural.

      "I don't think I want to try what you are smoking. You seem to have lost your mind and can't even keep track of what is being discussed."

      Failure to make an effort to pursue your point is not compelling.

      Delete
    142. "Unless you got some proof that gays are born that way. Do you? I've only asked that about 20 times."

      I forgot to add, this isn't exactly something to boast about, since I said from the start there was no "proof". Your obsessive, mindless repetition doesn't say a thing about ME.

      Delete
    143. "Which is founded off of what right?"

      Racial equality rights. Duhhh


      "Do you remember it differently?"

      Yes, I have purposely left religion out of my arguement on gays getting rights that no body else has.


      "No, your argument was that it was racial only."

      My arguement on gay marriage has never been based on race. It has consistantly been based on whether homosexuals get civil rights based on whether they are BORN THAT WAY. That makes it 21 times you've ignored (or unable) the request for proof of gays being born that way. Want to make it 22?

      Delete
    144. "Racial equality rights. Duhhh"

      If it's about equality, then for them to get rights of their own, someone else had to have comparable rights to begin with. Otherwise there's nothing to make equal.

      "Yes, I have purposely left religion out of my arguement on gays getting rights that no body else has."

      What does that have to do with you initiating this particular discussion? (have you stopped beating your wife, again)

      "My arguement on gay marriage has never been based on race."

      Well, when you say "what race are homosexuals" in response to a comment about civil rights, you're saying that civil rights apply only to racial issues.

      "That makes it 21 times you've ignored (or unable) the request for proof of gays being born that way. Want to make it 22?"

      Make it a thousand, it's still your obsessive repetition, and doesn't reflect on me a bit. Would you like to take a shot and supporting your contention that DNA evidence was used to grant women the right to vote, since your "proof" argument relies on it?

      Delete
    145. " (have you stopped beating your wife, again)"

      Mediamatters methodology. You can't look any more intelligent by doing that.


      "Make it a thousand, it's still your obsessive repetition, and doesn't reflect on me a bit."

      I probably will because you keep claiming those rights but never provide any proof they apply. I don't expect you (or any other liberal) to bring that evidence. All I expect (and get) is the demand that gays get marriage rights based on "feeling sorry for them". That's one hell of an intelligent arguement you people are making there.
      Oh, and YES, it does reflect on your ability to prove claims of fact you make. If you can't prove them, then every fact you bring is suspect of being another lie. Which you've proven over and over again that you do willingly and often.

      Delete
    146. "Mediamatters methodology."

      No, it's what you're doing every time you incorporate your opinion into a statement as if it were established fact. Did you not pick up on that?

      "All I expect (and get) is the demand that gays get marriage rights based on "feeling sorry for them"."

      That's a pretty obvious lie, considering I made a special point of demonstrating that I wouldn't fight for gay marriage if it was a choice. It's even more obvious when I just challenged your basis for your standard of proof, and you ignore it. My argument is supposedly weak, but you can't handle it? What does that say about you?

      "Oh, and YES, it does reflect on your ability to prove claims of fact you make."

      I'll ask again where I made a "claim of fact" that homosexuality is innate. You haven't answered yet.

      "Which you've proven over and over again that you do willingly and often."

      Like claiming to be an atheist when I'm really a "closet Mormon", right? How devious I am. Seriously, when you gain some credibility, then get back to me on that score.

      Delete
    147. "That's a pretty obvious lie, considering I made a special point of demonstrating that I wouldn't fight for gay marriage if it was a choice."

      ALL the evidence that you have brought says homosexuality is still choice. Yet, you refuse to acknowledge it. I've asked and asked and asked for proof that homosexuality is NOT choice, yet you (and nobody else) has been able to provide any. Do you say homosexuality is a choice now?


      "My argument is supposedly weak,"

      Your argument is non-existant. Next time you have this discussion with a right-winger, just stay out of it. You brought NO viable evidence that homosexuality is or even could be innate. You just lied/mis-represented and mis-quoted your way through 2 150 post articles on the subject. I don't think you could do any different on any other subject, but that's your "style". You have to live with it.


      Thus brings to a close another discussion on the merits of civil rights for gay marriage.

      Delete
    148. "ALL the evidence that you have brought says homosexuality is still choice."

      Nonsense. You just refuse to move past your personal standard of absolute genetic proof. The scientific evidence clearly indicates it's not a choice. Any sensible look at the situation shows that it's innate. Consider your arguments to the contrary:animals might choose to be gay, you must have chosen to be straight because you have male friends (?), the instantaneous recognition of heterosexual urges indicates a choice, people might choose to be gay because there are hookers, the existence of pedophiles proves that homosexuality is a choice because they expose my hypocrisy (which wouldn't have anything to do with whether homosexuality is a choice or not even if it was true), and it's hypocritical to cite all the consequences that happen to homosexuals for their "choice" because mean ol' liberals do all those things to conservatatives. You have no logical arguments at all. When asked what your thought process was behind choosing to be straight, you can't answer. Because you didn't make a damn choice, and you know it.

      "Do you say homosexuality is a choice now?"

      No, because you've provided no reason to accept your standard of proof.

      "You brought NO viable evidence that homosexuality is or even could be innate."

      That's just stupid. You admitted yourself it "could" be innate because you discussed the possibility of discriminating against homosexuals under those circumstances.

      "You just lied/mis-represented and mis-quoted your way through 2 150 post articles on the subject."

      I haven't done any of those things. In this very post, you crop another quote, though (although you didn't ADD punctuation, so that's progress). You also made up the "homosexuals have an innate right to marriage" quote, remember. You quite clearly misrepresented me by saying that I want to grant rights based on "feeling sorry for" homosexuals. Your rabid obsession over "superior rights" is the very definition of desperate intellectual dishonesty.

      If you want to engage in honest debate, then you provide the evidence (of your claim of fact) that scientific evidence was used to grant women the right to vote in 1920. That is what your entire "proof" argument rests on, because otherwise, people grant rights because they feel it's the appropriate course of action, whether science "proves" it to be so or not.

      So please, show me records of the debate on whether being a woman was a choice or not. Show me who had that concern. Demonstrate how DNA proof swayed those people and saved the day for womankind.

      Until you do that, you don't get to talk about dodging questions, much less question my honesty.

      Good luck.

      Delete
    149. "Good luck."

      I didn't think you could defend your argument. Now, all you post are off-topic rants about unrelated items. Great job of being smart enough to stand off a stupid conservative. Great "writing style" you employ there. LOL

      Delete
    150. Great job of ignoring everything I posted. I'll take that as an admission that you lied regarding the "proof" brought about in 1920 and also that you can't substantiate any charges of lying/misquoting/misrepresenting.

      Thank you.

      Delete
    151. Oh I didn't ignore it. I just think you're an idiot who can't prove his claims of fact while denying he even said any. What kind of moron would say something like that?

      Delete
    152. Failure to respond to points is "ignoring" those points. Your ad hominem attacks don't help you at all.

      Delete
    153. For example, I asked you what "claims of fact" I made regarding homosexuality as innate, and you didn't answer. That's the sort of thing you should have responded to forcefully if you want to call me a "moron" for saying I never made any such claim of fact.

      Otherwise, it comes off as pretty childish, honestly. You're just flailing about because you don't have anything intelligent to say.

      Delete
    154. Example of your "writing style": you just took the 'going to trial' article off-topic and into the depths of racial divisions for no reason at all. Yet you will deny having done so.

      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2012/04/going-to-trial.html?showComment=1334222530154#c2549769482114744958

      I hardly expect you to admit to any of your other lies.

      Delete
    155. You'd have to bring some examples of lies in order for me to deny anything. So, no evidence of my making any "claims of fact", then?

      Didn't think so. You can keep calling me a liar, but you're proving yourself to be one. If that bothers you at all, that is.

      Delete
  3. "It still shows homosexuality is a CHOICE lifestyle."

    It "shows" no such thing. That's your interpretation, because you're applying a standard of "proof" that nobody else uses. That's why "Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biological and environmental factors."

    Your prejudices do not determine objective reality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brabantio, if scientists would just agree with each other and lie, then they could say "yes you are born that way". However, they do not lie about their work, so they CANNOT say you are born that way. Even after all the research you have on record, none of them can definitevly say you are born that way. It's not MY standard of proof that is lacking, it the proof that is out there. IT is lacking to support your claims.

      They can absolutely say you are a man or a woman. But they cannot apply the same criteria to homosexuality. If your going to use one criteria to determine man/woman but another to determine homosexuality (sexual preference), then at least bring the criteria to the table.
      All they have is 'maybe it's a complex interplay of biological and environmental factors'. Ok, let's assume it IS that. WHAT are those factors? Is that too much to ask for the proof that is so critical to this discussion?

      Delete
    2. William, I chose to be with my wife. I didn't choose, however, to have physical, nether region reactions to seeing certain naked women. That happens quite naturally. If a man happens to have those same kinds of reactions when seeing a naked man, is he choosing for his body to react that way? Or is it a natural response?

      Delete
    3. "Even after all the research you have on record, none of them can definitevly say you are born that way. It's not MY standard of proof that is lacking, it the proof that is out there. IT is lacking to support your claims."

      The idea that anyone has to be able to "definitively" say someone is born that way is your standard. I didn't say "your standard was lacking", my point is your standard is not used by anyone but you to determine your personal opinion on this matter. Your opinion that it's a choice doesn't mean anything.

      "They can absolutely say you are a man or a woman. But they cannot apply the same criteria to homosexuality."

      Scientific proof did not come into play when granting women the right to vote. Prove me wrong.

      "All they have is 'maybe it's a complex interplay of biological and environmental factors'. Ok, let's assume it IS that. WHAT are those factors? Is that too much to ask for the proof that is so critical to this discussion?"

      That's pretty funny coming from the same person who threw out scientific evidence supporting the theory of innate homosexuality because it wasn't "proof". And "proof" is not critical to "the discussion". That's the point. It's just something you repeat over and over because it's the only way you can rationalize maintaining your beloved prejudices.

      Delete
    4. "Ok, let's assume it IS that."

      I forgot. If we assume it is something complex, then it's obviously different than the relatively simple matter of gender selection. Why would you require the same standard for to wildly different situations? That doesn't make any sense.

      Delete
    5. "Why would you require the same standard for to wildly different situations? That doesn't make any sense."

      Ok, you got me there. I should NOT apply the same standard to the way 'you are born' with the way 'you choose'. That would certainly not make any sense. What standard should I use? The "everyone should feel sorry for them" standard?

      Delete
    6. What's the difference between giving someone rights because they're being unfairly discriminated against and "feel(ing) sorry for them"? I almost get the impression that if you were assaulted and robbed, and you went to the police, you would expect them to say "ohh are we supposed to feel sorry for you?"

      Delete
    7. "I didn't choose, however, to have physical, nether region reactions to seeing certain naked women. That happens quite naturally."

      I can't say what causes you to have those reactions. Perhaps it's the "complex interplay of biological and environmental factors" at work. Did those factors occur before or after you were born? I'm trying to find out, but no one has answered, yet. Can you?

      Delete
    8. "Did those factors occur before or after you were born?"

      How long after are you talking about? And if it's the result of "factors", then it's still not a "choice", is it?

      Since you claim to have made a choice in this matter, I'd like to hear more about that. What was the mental process that went with it?

      Delete
    9. "What's the difference between giving someone rights because they're being unfairly discriminated against and "feel(ing) sorry for them"? "

      Nothing is wrong with that. The problem I have is YOU have said neither homo/hetero-sexuals have the "right" to a marriage license. Does this mean you want to give homosexuals rights that heterosexuals do not have? Didn't you call them "superior rights"?


      "How long after are you talking about? And if it's the result of "factors", then it's still not a "choice", is it?"

      After you are born. After is after. Do you need that dictionary you keep referring me to?
      If it's the result of "factors" after you are born then it is choice. They may be choices that are directed one way or the other by the environmental factors, but still choices. IE: heterosexual parents may guide the child to prefer heterosexual relations and homosexual parents may guide the child to prefer homosexual relations.

      Delete
    10. "Nothing is wrong with that. The problem I have is YOU have said neither homo/hetero-sexuals have the "right" to a marriage license. Does this mean you want to give homosexuals rights that heterosexuals do not have?"

      No, as has been explained to you in no uncertain terms multiple times.

      "Didn't you call them "superior rights"?

      No, I said the situation we're talking about doesn't involve anyone having superior rights. You've been told this multiple times as well. Thanks for bringing up another example after asking me to prove your misrepresentations of my words.

      "After you are born. After is after. Do you need that dictionary you keep referring me to?"

      I see you quoted me as saying "how long after". That's asking for quantification, not the definition of "after". You must be a lot of fun in everyday life. "How much money did you want to withdraw?" - "Money? You work at a bank and you don't know what money is?"

      "If it's the result of "factors" after you are born then it is choice. They may be choices that are directed one way or the other by the environmental factors, but still choices. IE: heterosexual parents may guide the child to prefer heterosexual relations and homosexual parents may guide the child to prefer homosexual relations."

      So why would a child be responsible for someone else's choices?

      Delete
    11. You respond to 4 statements I made. The first 2 you lied (as has been duly noted as asked). The next one you changed the subject. The last one you changed the subject.
      I take it you decided to no longer participate honestly?

      Delete
    12. Back up your charges of lying.

      "The next one you changed the subject. The last one you changed the subject."

      I don't see how. I responded to your "after is after" nonsense. When you say that people might be gay because of the choices of their parents, I ask you why someone's supposed to be responsible for other people's actions. Neither of those examples involved changing the subject.

      Delete
    13. Last time, Andy. From now on, you do your own research.

      William Apr 5, 2012 01:38 PM (Verdict article)
      [ "They should have a right to marriage just as much as heterosexuals do. This is something like the fourth time I've explained this to you"

      "So nobody has a "right" to a marriage license, because that's a contradiction in terms." Those are YOUR words, Andy

      When you were asked if anyone has a "right" to a marriage license, YOU said: "I suppose not." ]

      Again I have done as you asked and proved you to be a liar. Even in your last response you try changing the subject. I will respond to you no more.

      Delete
    14. Your question was:"Does this mean you want to give homosexuals rights that heterosexuals do not have?"

      The phrase "nobody has a right to a marriage license" includes both homosexuals and heterosexuals. "Nobody" means "nobody".

      The phrase "if anyone has a right to a marriage license" would include both homosexuals and heterosexuals. "Anybody" means "anybody".

      The phrase "They should have a right to marriage just as much as heterosexuals do" means the two should be equal. "Just as much". Not "more than", not "just as much and maybe more than".

      So, from all of that, the answer to your question is clearly "no." Now, if you can show where I said "homosexuals should have a right to a marriage license" (which, as I said already, is an oxymoron), then do so. But you can't, because you brought up "marriage licenses" all on your own.

      "I will respond to you no more."

      Good, then my refutations of your moronic arguments will stand unchallenged.

      Delete
    15. "William, I chose to be with my wife. "

      That is wonderful. But how does that have anything to do with what we're talking about?

      Did you realize Brabantio says NOBODY has a right to a marriage license. But he wants to give homosexuals "superior rights" by giving homosexuals the "right" to a marriage license. What do you think?

      Delete
    16. Or, better yet, Sammy ... I chose to get up at 4:20 but I was born wanting to get up at 7:00. Here's another one: I was born wanting a 69 Dodge Dart Hemi but I chose to ride a bicycle.

      Delete
    17. "But he wants to give homosexuals "superior rights" by giving homosexuals the "right" to a marriage license. What do you think?"

      Quit lying. Your behavior is childish at best.

      Delete
  4. William, did you really just ask me if I had erections before I was born? That may just be the single stupidest question I have ever been asked.

    Your hair must be buzzed really short with all the points that go right over your head. The point is I don't control what turns me on, meaning I don't choose who turns me on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "William, did you really just ask me if I had erections before I was born?"

      No, that was YOU making that claim. Not me asking about your situations. Nice deflection, though. Learning from Andy, are you? Your point is invalid because you DO choose.

      "nether region reactions to seeing certain naked women."

      Delete
    2. I choose my body's natural reactions? Exactly how do I CHOOSE to be turned on by the opposite sex? Dude, I never mentioned my pre-birth sexual proclivities. You asked me if those reactions happened before I was born? Man, my hair hurts trying to have a discussion with you.

      Delete
    3. "Exactly how do I CHOOSE to be turned on by the opposite sex?"

      That's really weird. Everybody else is born wanting the same sex. You must have a mental deficiency. Perhaps you should have that checked out. Maybe they'll give you superior rights like Brabantio wants for homosexuals. He also says that NOBODY has a "right" to a marriage license. What do you think?

      Delete
    4. "Maybe they'll give you superior rights like Brabantio wants for homosexuals."

      I'm becoming curious about this behavior at this point. Do you really believe you're going to con anyone into believing that? Or are you just being an emotional mess because I've shot down every argument you've made on these threads?

      Delete
  5. "Your point is invalid because you DO choose."

    Translation:"Your example showing how it's not a choice is invalid because it is a choice." That's circular reasoning.

    So not only do you think you know what someone's name is better than they do themselves, you think you also can tell people that they made a choice when they say they didn't. Your arrogance is outrageous.

    ReplyDelete
  6. And, yet again, you cannot back up your stance with valid reasoning. Opinion is NOT valid reasoning ... as I've been told many times.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pointing out glaring logical flaws in your arguments isn't valid reasoning? And why is that?

      Delete
    2. "Opinion is NOT valid reasoning ... as I've been told many times."
      And you've yet to take it to heart.
      I've been away, and it's taken me a while to go through these massive threads.
      Delicious.
      I have to go run some errands, but I'll be back.
      What fun. I might even skip Blues vs. 'Yotes tonight, for this. Then again, maybe not.

      Delete
  7. So the two choices here are "choice" and "before you were born". How amusing.

    I guess people choose to have a tornado destroy their home.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's see, we are talking about homosexuality. Is there another option we can discuss concerning how it happens? Choice ... born that way ... and what is your theory for homosexuality happening?

      When we talk about tornadoes destroying homes I'm sure you'll have the inside scoop on what determines that.

      Delete
  8. Reading this thread, and especially the colloquy between Brabantio and William has been like watching MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL, with Graham Chapman as King Arthur, and John Cleese as the Black Knight. Sir William the Clueless, has been reduced to a caterwauling cranium, claiming victory and disingenuously decrying the cowardice and dishonesty of his adversary, determinedly denying the fact that he’s been de-limbed and decapitated, and claiming, to the contrary, that no one’s laid a blade on him. Well, Brabs, or should I say, “Your Majesty,” you’ve left nothing for me to slice off but ears (which he wouldn’t miss, because he doesn’t use them) and nose. Call me squeamish, but I think I’ll pass, and just rap on the helm a bit with my Baton de Guerre.

    Hail, Knight of the Spoonfed Fallacies:

    You’ve claimed, and Brabs has called you on it, that you chose to be straight, but that you’re not attracted to men. You did this on another thread, in which you had the poor sense to mention philosophy. Unfortunate, in that Philosophy 101, Logic (which you mentioned in this thread, but honor more in the breach than the observance) is where you would have learned that a DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE is one of the basic logical fallacies.

    You also have a habit of starting assertions with “I have been taught,” which is no more convincing, though much less concise, than “Some people say.” Pick up Aristotle’s RHETORIC some time. If you study both his LOGIC and his RHETORIC you might, just might, stop thinking an allegation is “confirmed” after you’ve asserted it three times. Brabantio never, I repeat, NEVER called for SUPERIOR rights for gays. Neither did anyone else on this site, nor do any of your hated liberals that I know of. You twisted what he actually did say out of all recognition, and then challenged him to defend a claim he’d never made. And when he pointed out, more than once, your error, you doubled, tripled, quintupled down on it. (see below) I’m really hurt. I thought that was something special between us, something you reserved for me alone. (Actually, I’m not and I didn’t.) And this is where your lack of logic comes in. Saying that gays have the same rights that the rest of us have, and that those rights should be recognized, is nothing like saying that they should have rights we don’t have.


    "Exactly how do I CHOOSE to be turned on by the opposite sex?"

    That's really weird. Everybody else is born wanting the same sex. You must have a mental deficiency. Perhaps you should have that checked out. Maybe they'll give you superior rights like Brabantio wants for homosexuals. He also says that NOBODY has a "right" to a marriage license. What do you think? ‘

    Brilliant, William, just brilliant. Time and again, you accuse others on this thread of being afraid to answer questions put to them, when the problem is that you don’t like the answers you’re getting. Then you post this, which clearly shows you doing that which you decry. (Perhaps I should have pointed this out on the Hypocrisy thread.) You can’t answer Sammy’s question, and you know it. And while we’re discussing questions you won’t and can’t answer, you tell me how this boy CHOSE this life:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/opinion/sunday/a-boy-to-be-sacrificed.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper
    Now, I fully expect you to avoid this very pointed question, and to launch ad hominem attacks on me and all liberals, telling me that I love the culture this boy was born into more than my own. Don’t bother. Just TRY to be honest.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Continued:
    “I'm glad you were able to go to a university and find out how old the Earth is... taking 2 weeks. Wouldn't it have been more simple to just google it? That's the kind of "action" we get from liberal lawmakers. No wonder this nation is going down the tubes. These liberal leaders are wasting our money, costing us jobs and letting the infrastructure go to waste. Perhaps "anyone but" a democrat will win the next election and save this nation. I think democrats have been ruining it long enough. Time to kick them out. “
    Non-responsive to the argument made, but a lovely example of hysterical , off-topic ranting. (Don’t bother pointing out that only Eddie gets to decide what’s off-topic.) I’d say, Sir William, that you’re spewing a lovely shade of bile with that sand.


    “That's the problem with discussing religion with non-believers. They make things up that were never said in order to promote their ideals that religion is worthless.”
    No, Brabs didn’t do that, but you misquote and mischaracterize on a constant basis. (See: SUPERIOR RIGHTS)
    And your contention that only a believer can intelligently discuss the Bible is a logical absurdity. It’s like saying that only people who believe in wood sprites and fairies can understand Shakespeare’s A MIDSUMMER NIGHT’S DREAM.
    And, by the way, I had a bet with myself about you, which I just won. Reading what you've written about what you choose to believe, I accurately predicted that you would, sooner or later, quote the Bible, (OK, not so difficult) and that the Evangelist you would pick would be John.


    t's both. The past is not the same as the present."

    ““Both sides of the fence. You are raised a Christian. Obviously, you were not raised a Christian if you are an atheist. You were raised an atheist. You may have gone to a Christian Church once a year, but that is way different than being raised.”
    No, that’s not obvious at all. Once again, you are substituting your prejudices for logic. Now, in argument with me you’ve implicitly indicated that you think that’s a good thing, but it’s a pretty poor rhetorical strategy, at least when dealing with adults.

    You gave a mantra of your beliefs to Brabantio, possibly in the hope that your 'witness' would convert him. It would seem from what you have posted that you believe that a person can be validly converted to your sect from whatever sect they presently subscribe to, or from non-belief. Do you really think that process can't work in reverse? Of course you don't. You've asked me what 'caused' me to 'become an atheist.' Now you're saying that Brabantio, who is a self-proclaimed (notice the PROPER use of that word) atheist, could never have been a Christian, and had to have been raised an atheist? Are you so programmed that you actually believe that crap? You know, that's not unlikely, if you really were impressed by that drivel you quoted from your pastor.

    ReplyDelete