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. ;)

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

Monday, January 28, 2013

Great!

...As soon as they end their ban on atheists, I might start supporting them again!

Still, progress is progress.

212 comments:

  1. And this goes to what I've been saying for YEARS:homosexuality will be accepted, because over time more and more people realize that it's not a choice and it's not harmful. Even FOX is starting to back off of their position, or at least is pretending to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are wrong. It won't be accepted because people "realize it's not a choice", but because of the lax moral standards that those people possess. Since there is NO evidence that you are born that way, it can ONLY be choice. As for harmful? Well, tell anyone and everyone you know who has AIDS how "not harmful" being homosexual is.
      We've seen the lack of moral standards be the beginning of all the mass shootings. Are you going to "accept" that too? Maybe I shouldn't ask a question I don't know the answer to. Perhaps you DO think it is acceptable for the mass shootings to occur. After all, moral standards are just a barometer that change over the years to fit your own personal choices ... like homosexuality

      Delete
    2. Hello, William. "Anonymous", not so much.

      Again, the standard of proof you cite is YOURS, nobody else's. Normal people realize that after thousands of years of telling people not to be gay (up to the point of murder), people are still gay. People realize that animals engage in homosexual acts as well. It's common sense, and your hilarious failures on this subject before demonstrate that better than anyone could on their own.

      AIDS is not exclusive to homosexuality. That argument is just as easily handled as it ever was.

      I eagerly await your demonstration of how anyone made a calm, rationalized call for all the mass shootings. They were never morally justified by anyone, they're acts of irrational people. Thanks for the demonstration in the difference of "harm", since people have changed their views on homosexuality, but not murder.

      Delete
    3. Yes, animals "engage" in homosexual acts. How does that prove they are born gay? Having an 'urge' to do something hardly proves being born a certain way. I've seen a dog hump a pillow. Does that mean he is a gay dog or a straight dog? Use your scientific evidence to explain the difference in that scenerio.


      The CDC say that gays are "most seriously affected by HIV". Do you think that means gays are more likely to get AIDS or less likely that heterosexuals?
      http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm

      Delete
    4. So your theory is that animals are turned gay by...? Peer pressure, societal shifts in the animal kingdom, decorating programs? What, exactly? I know you don't really have an answer.

      Dogs humping random objects isn't gay or straight, it's masturbation.

      "Most seriously" doesn't make homosexuality in itself harmful, as was your claim. It would still exist and would be spread through heterosexuality. And if people like you didn't exist, we'd have more acceptance of homosexuality, and therefore more monogamous relationships and less risky behavior. You're part of the problem.

      Delete
    5. Well, then, Mr B ... dogs humping random objects is "masturbation"? So much for your 'animals are gay too' theory. Look, I don't mind you calling me someone who you know, but if you're going to make claims of homosexuality in animals ... at least bring better proof than it is just "masturbation". If that's the best you got, then you aren't any better than Mr Ed.

      "Most seriously" does make homosexuality more harmful than heterosexuality (in reference to catching AIDS). Which is what I said. Take it out of context in any way you want, but what I said is abundantly clear.

      Delete
    6. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2009/aug/09082609

      Another article referencing the CDC as to the dangers of catching HIV from GAY men and how prevalent it is among that group of people more than ANY other group of people. Sorry, Mr Ed, you can support a lifestyle that has created a danger to all of mankind if you want, I won't. Do you support al queda too? That would only make sense since you obviously enjoy lifestyles that kill people. Just don't use a gun, right? Now, THAT would be just terrible.

      Delete
    7. Did I bring up pillow-humping as an example of homosexual behavior in animals, or at all? No, I didn't. Since I didn't bring it up, it has nothing to do with what I said, and homosexual activity still exists among animals. So, where's your answer as to how animals are turned gay? Not even an attempt?

      "Well, tell anyone and everyone you know who has AIDS how "not harmful" being homosexual is."

      That was your phrasing, remember? Since everyone with AIDS isn't gay, then being gay in itself isn't harmful. It's not as if it's spontaneously created by gay sex or something.

      Delete
    8. "and homosexual activity still exists among animals"

      Sure there is. Where is your proof that they are "gay"?


      "being gay in itself isn't harmful."

      More harmful than NOT being gay. Or are you saying that AIDS/HIV is NOT more prevalent among the gay community than the non-gay community?

      Delete
    9. What, besides homosexual activity, would be required as a standard for "gay"? Do you expect them to dye themselves pink or something?

      Oh, so now it's about "more" harmful. If you have issues with promiscuity, allow gay people to get married. Why didn't you think of that?

      Delete
    10. Hey, you're the one making the claim they are "gay" animals. YOU bring the proof that they are gay. I say they are just acting out on urges they have. You say they are gay. So, let's hear the proof. Let's see your evidence. Unless you can't bring that proof, then I would expect you to continue running in circles and yelling 'no fair' to your mommy.

      Your words are that being gay is "not harmful", I've brought proof that it IS harmful. Now, the best you can do is ask what the word "more" means? Are you going to claim "point. game. set. match" like Mr Ed did after exhibiting some very poor arguments, like yours?

      Delete
    11. No, if you're going to obfuscate what "gay" means as far as animals are concerned, you can answer my question. When two male penguins mate for life, how do you distinguish between an "urge" and being gay? What more do you need, specifically? Note the word "specifically".

      You haven't brought proof of harm, you've brought proof that homosexuals are more promiscuous, which is a natural byproduct of being ostracized in society. So the only thing relatively harmful about that is caused by the discrimination in the first place. It's a circular argument you're making, and you're not slick enough to sell it to anyone with an IQ over 25.

      Delete
    12. Where is your proof that being gay is NOT harmful? You made that claim, yet YOU constantly say there is psychological harm and physical harm possible to the homosexual. How can you claim there is NO harm in homosexuality when YOU make the claim they are in danger throughout their lives of harmful effects caused by their homosexuality?
      You made that claim in the very first post, yet you still cannot or will not back it up with proof. In fact you did just the opposite. You claimed there is no harm in homosexuality then claim they are in constant danger of harm.

      Delete
    13. How do you expect anyone to prove a negative? Sexual activity between two consenting adults is harmless. Two gay men or gay women in a relationship is exactly the same as a man and a woman in one.

      I constantly say what, now? I don't believe I ever said "caused by their homosexuality". Caused by bigots like you, yes. Similarly, you could oppose miscegenation because racists oppose it and harrass mixed-race couples and their children. Or, you can push for acceptance, and then there's no problem. See how that works?

      Delete
    14. So, all the psychological hatred that is aimed towards homosexuals isn't harmful? So, all the diseases they pass among themselves and to others aren't harmful?

      You can't seem to prove ANYTHING that YOU CLAIM IS FACT. Sure, I could push for acceptance of immorality, but then I'd be just like you and have my moral standards change and fluctuate depending on what YOU tell me. You see how that works? My morals stay consistent, yours change. I prefer consistent morals, you prefer inconsistent morals. I think my way is better, you think your way is better. Looks like we're at an impasse.
      Specially considering you refuse to defend or support your stances with evidence, while I bring evidence to support my stance. Looks like your lack of moral consistency is causing your lack of ability to bring evidence to support your claims of fact. If you aren't Eddie, perhaps you should ask him/her for help ... never mind, (s)he's having the same problem you're having: the inability to support your claims of fact with evidence.

      The morally consistent poster is having no problems supporting his/her stance with evidence, both the morally inconsistent posters can bring no evidence to support their respective (sheeplely similar) stances.

      Delete
    15. "So, all the psychological hatred that is aimed towards homosexuals isn't harmful?"

      So you're on record as saying that black people should have just stuck to marrying those of their own race, because the psychological hatred towards miscegenation was harmful? Noted.

      "So, all the diseases they pass among themselves and to others aren't harmful?"

      Same as for heterosexuals. And your two questions, as I've observed previously, are connected. Psychological hatred prompts promiscuity and risky behavior. Quit being part of the problem.

      "You can't seem to prove ANYTHING that YOU CLAIM IS FACT."

      You can't seem to explain why I have to.

      "Sure, I could push for acceptance of immorality, but then I'd be just like you and have my moral standards change and fluctuate depending on what YOU tell me."

      Where have my moral standards changed?

      "Specially considering you refuse to defend or support your stances with evidence, while I bring evidence to support my stance."

      What evidence was that?

      Delete
    16. "What evidence was that?" .... factual

      "You can't seem to explain why I have to." .... because you're asked to

      "So you're on record as saying that black people should have just stuck to marrying those of their own race, " .... where is that said? Don't try to push your racial hatred on me, pal. I don't need your kind of hatred. Racist

      Delete
    17. ".... factual"

      What "factual" evidence, specifically?

      ".... because you're asked to"

      Oh, so you ask me for something and I'm obligated to comply? And you don't have to conform to any standard of rationality? You're special.

      ".... where is that said?"

      Well, feel free to explain why hatred is the fault of homosexuals, therefore they should "choose" to be straight (like you did...?), while it's not the fault of people who choose to marry outside of their race. If you don't explain the difference, then I simply won't make an assumption as to why your attitude doesn't carry over to anyone who's a victim of bigotry.

      Delete
    18. "Oh, so you ask me for something and I'm obligated to comply?" ... well, if you're asked to, then yes. As an example, YOU SAID ANIMALS ARE GAY. I ask you for proof of that. You claim you don't have to bring proof of that. Then claim I must prove they are NOT GAY. This happens as you whine about not being able to prove a negative.

      Excuse me, but race is determined at birth and discrimination of that sort is immoral. Is there any proof that you are born gay? Because if there is then discriminating against them would also be immoral. But there isn't any so I stick with my consistent morals and believe homosexuality is an immoral behavior chosen by those who practice it.

      "If you don't explain the difference, then I simply won't make an assumption as to why your attitude doesn't carry over to anyone who's a victim of bigotry." .... because my morals are consistent. I don't claim being another race is immoral behavior because you cannot choose your race. You can choose your sexual preference and orientation and behabvior and homosexuality is immoral in my opinion.

      Delete
    19. ".. well, if you're asked to, then yes. As an example, YOU SAID ANIMALS ARE GAY."

      Have you addressed the link I provided you?

      "You claim you don't have to bring proof of that."

      No, I was referring to your insistence on absolute scientific proof of people being born gay, since that's what you're fixated on. Besides that, your use of "proof" is self-serving, since nobody deals in "proof". It's an unattainable standard, by design I suspect.

      "Then claim I must prove they are NOT GAY."

      That's an absolute lie. I never said you had to do any such thing. I demanded that you explain what qualifications would have to be met in order for you to accept the premise of a gay animal, because otherwise, you're not engaging in a rational conversation.

      "Excuse me, but race is determined at birth and discrimination of that sort is immoral."

      But marrying someone is a choice, right? So how are you addressing the issue of miscegenation? Nobody HAS to marry outside of their race. So why shouldn't people just stick to their own race instead of standing up to bigots? The "psychological hatred" issue is either relevant, or it isn't.

      "I don't claim being another race is immoral behavior because you cannot choose your race."

      I didn't say anything about "being" another race. Marrying someone of another race. Try again.

      Delete
    20. "Have you addressed the link I provided you?" ... you have provided no link in this line of conversation. Is there one you want me to visit? Should I plan on writing a 400 word essay on it's content? Am I being demanded to answer your questions while you ignore mine?


      "But marrying someone is a choice, right?" .... I think it is choice. So what? People can marry who they want. I simply think the homosexual lifestyle is choice and immoral. Are you going to change this conversation in a "marriage" thing?


      "I demanded that you explain what qualifications would have to be met in order for you to accept the premise of a gay animal, " .... you did no such thing. If you had I would have answered genetic evidence. I bet I can find scientific evidence that proves what sex you are when you are born. I bet I can find scientific evidence that will show what sex a baby is before it is born. Can you find any to prove your position that animals are born gay? Because YOU are the one who said humping a pillow is simply masturbation to the dog, but masturbating on another dog makes it gay. How is masturbating different depending on what you do it to? How do YOU know WHY the dog is humping a pillow or another dog? You have NO CLUE WHY THE DOG IS HUMPING ANYTHING, but you claim to know the PERSONAL INTENT of every animal that humps another animal. I'm sure you're an expert at masturbation, but perhaps not in the animal world. Well, unless you do it with animals. Are your morals that tweaked? I wouldn't put it past you. Because someday that may be moral in your belief that immorality is accepted over time.

      Delete
    21. "... you have provided no link in this line of conversation."

      "In this line"? You bring up the "gay animal" argument all over this thread, and you don't read my link because it's not "in this line" of conversation? And how, exactly, do you go from saying that I've provided no "proof" of that, to then reacting to news of a link by whining that I supposedly want you to write an essay? Either you want evidence or you don't. Which is it?

      Again, as if you didn't see it before:http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

      ".... you did no such thing"

      You're a liar, again. "What, besides homosexual activity, would be required as a standard for "gay"?" And, "No, if you're going to obfuscate what "gay" means as far as animals are concerned, you can answer my question. When two male penguins mate for life, how do you distinguish between an "urge" and being gay? What more do you need, specifically?"

      "Can you find any to prove your position that animals are born gay?"

      You've been asked multiple times what the alternative to that would be. Until you show how your question makes sense, it doesn't warrant an answer.

      "Because YOU are the one who said humping a pillow is simply masturbation to the dog, but masturbating on another dog makes it gay."

      I said what? Sexual behavior between two animals of any kind is not masturbation. You do know that the difference between an inanimate object and something of your own species is a bit of a factor here, right? Or do you refer to sexual intercourse with your wife as "masturbating on each other"?

      "How do YOU know WHY the dog is humping a pillow or another dog? You have NO CLUE WHY THE DOG IS HUMPING ANYTHING, but you claim to know the PERSONAL INTENT of every animal that humps another animal."

      Did you ever notice dogs sniffing at each other? They know it's another dog. They know it's not a pillow. Get a grip on yourself and try a better tack.

      Delete
    22. ".... I think it is choice. So what? People can marry who they want."

      Then why should people have subjected their future children to mockery by marrying someone out of their race? It wasn't a difficult question, so I'm guessing the answer is inconvenient to you.

      Delete
    23. Then why do dogs hump the head on another dog? Is it getting a blow-job? Is that it's intent?

      And, that means you are the animal-wisperer. Since you KNOW the INTENT of each animal as they come all over each other. A dog that humps anything is simply trying to hump. It has NO care about whether it is humping a male dog or female dog. And YOU certainly do NOT know WHY they hump each other. I can say it is for sexual gratification. You make claims it is because of homosexuality. BRING THE DAMN PROOF OF THAT HOMOSEXUALITY. Being horny does not qualify as a determiner of homosexuality.

      I've done as you demanded. Now answer mine: can you find any proof to your position that animals are BORN GAY? I've given alternate reasons for why animals have sex (several times) now it's your turn.

      BTW, I notice you didn't deny having sex with animals. I guess your moral standards aren't as high as you think.


      Your link is stupid. Where does it say the animal same-sex get togethers are because they are born homosexual? Animals have urges, just like people, and animals act on those urges without regard to who or what gets hurt. Some humans do that too, but our morals call that rape. So, an animal that rapes another is considered gay even though no one actually KNOWS WHY THEY do it ... other than having sex is a natural urge.

      Delete
    24. "Then why should people have subjected their future children to mockery by marrying someone out of their race? " ... I don't know. Why would they? You seem to be the racist here, why don't you explain why they do that?

      Delete
    25. "... I don't know. Why would they?"

      Why not? Bigots shouldn't stand in their way, obviously. Just like you shouldn't stand in the way of gay people having full equality, so the problem with "psychological hatred" belongs to you, not the target of it.

      And, to prevent your broken record skipping again, it makes no difference if YOU think homosexuality is immoral. That has the exact same bearing as someone who thinks that miscegenation is immoral. It's just your opinion, nothing more.

      Delete
    26. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    27. "Then why do dogs hump the head on another dog?"

      Who cares? You keep acting as if actual sexual behavior between two animals doesn't exist by bringing up all these idiotic distractions.

      "It has NO care about whether it is humping a male dog or female dog. And YOU certainly do NOT know WHY they hump each other. I can say it is for sexual gratification. You make claims it is because of homosexuality."

      I said it was "homosexual behavior". And you can claim you know what a dog is thinking without being an "animal whisperer"? Give me a break. If what you're saying had any merit, then homosexual and heterosexual interaction would be equal in occurrence. Are you really going to say that?

      "can you find any proof to your position that animals are BORN GAY?"

      I'm saying that homosexual behavior occurs in nature. If your position, really, is that animals don't know the difference between genders, then there is no "gay". Of course, the suggestion is so absurd that I know you can't possibly come up with any scientific evidence of it. Notice how I didn't say "proof"?

      "Where does it say the animal same-sex get togethers are because they are born homosexual?"

      I never said it did. It's evidence of homosexual behavior in animals, which is all I ever said.

      Delete
    28. "I said it was "homosexual behavior". And you can claim you know what a dog is thinking without being an "animal whisperer"?" .... oh? You can? Wow, you must be quite rich right now if you have the ability to read the minds of animals. What am I thinking right now? Wow!!! You are right, I am thinking you don't know DICK about anything except what you are told to think. You have no ability to rationalize, are you still in 3rd grade? You'll be in big trouble when you're old enough to move out of mommies house considering the lack of intelligence you exhibit.

      "I said it was "homosexual behavior". " ... YOU SAID IT MEANS YOU ARE GAY. Do you remember saying this: "What, besides homosexual activity, would be required as a standard for "gay"? YOU SAY ANIMALS ARE GAY BECAUSE OF THEIR ACTIVITY. What's the difference between homosexual behavior and homosexual activity?


      "Just like you shouldn't stand in the way of gay people having full equality," ... I'm not standing in anyone's way. I simply say homosexuality is an immoral choice and is being approved of by a lack of or lowered moral standard used in this country. Since there is NO proof of anyone being BORN GAY, then it is obvious that choice is involved. Unless you have some scientific proof of what sexual preference you are born with. Or some proof of what sexual orientation you are born with. Or some proof of sexual behavior you are born with that prove you are born gay. Since I've only been asking you that for a couple days I fully understand your inability to find any.

      Do you sleep with your dog? Are you gay? Do you prefer girl dogs over boys dogs? What age did you make that choice? If you haven't made that decision, yet, that proves you are into beastiology. Do you like having sex with your dog? I think that is immoral too. Am I standing in the way of your happiness by saying that beastiology is immoral?

      Delete
    29. "And you can claim you know what a dog is thinking without being an "animal whisperer"?""

      "Homosexual behavior" doesn't rely on intent. Sexual behavior between two animals of the same gender qualifies.

      "Do you remember saying this: "What, besides homosexual activity, would be required as a standard for "gay"?"

      Yes, because you were talking about "gay animals", but would only discuss "urges". Clarification was very much required.

      "... I'm not standing in anyone's way. I simply say homosexuality is an immoral choice and is being approved of by a lack of or lowered moral standard used in this country."

      Yes, which is what people said about miscegenation as well. You are no better, because all you have is your opinion, with no objective rationale whatsoever.

      "Since I've only been asking you that for a couple days I fully understand your inability to find any."

      You can ask for "proof" until you collapse, but I never said there was any, and your standards are still unreasonable. Is your refusal to understand this intentional, or do you need medication?

      "I think that is immoral too. Am I standing in the way of your happiness by saying that beastiology is immoral?"

      Of course bestiality is immoral, because it's animal abuse. Are you saying gay people are like animals, unable to consent to sex?

      By the way:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/magazine/04animals-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 It's pretty hard to claim that animals that mate for YEARS are acting out "urges" like dogs humping pillows. Just throwing that out there for your consideration.

      Delete
    30. "Homosexual behavior" doesn't rely on intent." ... no but being gay does. Are you able to show that intent in the animal kingdom? I can show it in the human race. Which takes away from your "born that way" argument if you can't show the intent to be homosexual.

      Delete
    31. I didn't say "born that way", I just don't accept the premise that there's an alternative. What else causes female albatrosses to mate for years? It's not "urges". There's something that causes that behavior, and it's not outside influence. The point is that it's natural, contrary to homophobic rhetoric.

      Incidentally, do you have any concept of how stupid you sound talking about "intent" of animals? Is someone supposed to get an interview to find out what a penguin was thinking, or what? Again, you rely on setting up standards that are so ridiculous that they have no meaning whatsoever.

      Delete
    32. "Incidentally, do you have any concept of how stupid you sound talking about "intent" of animals?" .... says the little boy who claims to know what animals are thinking.


      "I just don't accept the premise that there's an alternative." .... which is why you are an idiot. You can't accept any alternatives. Even when the explanations are right in front of you ... you have no mental capacity to understand. Please for the sake of all mankind ... stop posting. You are a clueless idiot who can't follow the simplest of statements. Or in the words of this site's owner: SHUT THE FUCK UP

      Delete
    33. ".... says the little boy who claims to know what animals are thinking."

      I never claimed that, of course.

      ".... which is why you are an idiot. You can't accept any alternatives."

      Really? I'm asking you what you think causes female albatrosses to mate for years, besides urges, and you're flying off the handle? Obviously you're the one who can't accept alternatives. The reason I don't accept the premise is that it doesn't conform to reality. Again, "urges" don't cover it, and you haven't addressed that, and there's no way outside influence is a factor. So, you can act like a jackass, but all that does is show that you can't answer questions which are inconvenient to your argument.

      Which is fine by me, since I know you don't have answers anyway. What's your next all-cap rant going to entail? I can't wait.

      Delete
    34. "I never claimed that, of course." ... yes you did:

      "Did you ever notice dogs sniffing at each other? They know it's another dog. They know it's not a pillow."

      Got any more denials that are easily refuted? Why should I discuss with you? You aren't honest. You don't follow logic. Your mind wanders far from what was said. You ignore base points and question definitions to extend your denial of facts.

      Delete
    35. So you have to be a mind-reader to SEE that a dog recognizes another dog? Get therapy, seriously. If you can find a single credible source on the internet that even suggests that dogs are that stupid, I'll quit posting. Let's see it.

      Delete
    36. Oh? Now you KNOW the dog "recognizes" the other dog? How do YOU KNOW the dog is looking for another gay dog to hump? Maybe he's just looking for somewhere to put his snauzer and where that ends up doesn't matter to him as long as it does. So, tell me, how do YOU KNOW?

      Delete
    37. Did you just hurt yourself moving those goalposts? You went from "pillows" to "looking for another gay dog". Some dogs do, according to their owners, only pursue dogs of the same sex. The way you talk about it, that's severely against the odds, because it's a 50/50 chance every time.

      Have you found that source which supports the idea that dogs can't recognize other dogs? I'm really looking forward to reading that.

      Delete
    38. Should I cue the Cheech & Chong skit now or later?

      http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/canine-corner/201107/does-my-dog-recognize-himself-in-mirror

      dogs don't even recognize themselves.

      Delete
    39. So we went from "sniffing other dogs" to a dog looking at itself in a mirror. Can you spot the difference between these two concepts? I know I can.

      Delete
    40. You're the one who changed the parameters: "Have you found that source which supports the idea that dogs can't recognize other dogs?". Now, you're complaining about the site? I take it you don't think Psychology Today is not a reputable site?

      Besides, are YOU a dog? How do YOU KNOW what they recognize? Still avoiding that question?

      Delete
    41. Not as if your response wasn't asinine on the face of it, but I visited your site anyway:

      "Young puppies encountering mirrors for the first time may treat the image as if it is another dog. They may bark at it, or give a little bow and an invitation to play as if they are encountering a real dog and engaging in a social interaction."

      So, your damning evidence that dogs don't recognize other dogs...is that a dog will see itself in a mirror and act like it does when it meets an actual dog. Based on image alone, not even any other senses. Wow. Great job.

      Delete
    42. It had nothing to do with the site, you changed it from a question of whether a dog can recognize another dog to whether a dog can understand when it's looking at itself. Those are two completely different concepts. The "can you spot the difference" was obviously alluding to that, since it clearly wasn't a comment on the site.

      If you've ever SEEN a dog, you see it recognize other dogs. This really is so basic it's not debatable, but feel free to scour the internet for something that actually comes close to helping you.

      Delete
    43. Does he recognize the cat? The squirral? The skunk? The Lion? The Tiger? The Bear? Does that dog recognize EACH and EVERY ONE OF THOSE?

      And, I'm sorry. It was YOU who changed the question. Did you forget to read what I quoted from you? So, yes the dog recognized something. Again ... and again ... and again ... How do YOU KNOW what they recognize? Even from the part YOU quoted they say "AS IF ENCOUNTERING ANOTHER DOG". Even they aren't so stupid as to claim absolute knowledge of what the dog recognizes. They could easily have used "just like" instead of "as if", but the phychologists know they cannot read the dogs mind, like YOU say YOU CAN.

      Alright, so you accept the site as being good enough to fulfill your promise. I'll bet you lied and will continue posting. That would add on to all the other known factors about you. So much for your morality standards. Do you think lying is moral?

      Delete
    44. "Does that dog recognize EACH and EVERY ONE OF THOSE?"

      Moving goalposts again? Why are lions or whatever else relevant here?

      "It was YOU who changed the question."

      How's that, now?

      "Even from the part YOU quoted they say "AS IF ENCOUNTERING ANOTHER DOG"."

      Yes, because it wasn't actually another dog. The context suggests that the dog didn't think it was a pillow, though. Did you notice that at all?

      "Alright, so you accept the site as being good enough to fulfill your promise."

      I also said it had to support your argument, which you surely know full well. And, by the way, if you actually read your link, you'll see how it talks about the fact that smell is a much more relevant sense when it comes to dogs recognizing things. Which goes right back to what I said about "sniffing other dogs". Checkmate, bozo.

      Delete
    45. "Which goes right back to what I said about "sniffing other dogs". Checkmate, bozo" ... then WHY did you change the question, later on? I knew you'd lie about your offer.

      Moving goalposts? Aren't you in the middle of demanding that I answer why some albatros mates?

      "Yes, because it wasn't actually another dog" ... the dog didn't know that, or it wouldn't have tried to play with it. I take it you don't know how to play chess either. Usually you say checkmate when you win, not when you lose.

      Delete
    46. Aren't you also asking why pengiuns mate? Just saying ... about those goalposts.

      Delete
    47. " ... then WHY did you change the question, later on?"

      I asked you how I changed the question, and you didn't answer. Sorry, not buying it.

      "... the dog didn't know that, or it wouldn't have tried to play with it."

      Which means it recognized a dog. What part of this are you not grasping? Is your suggestion that it would try to engage in "play" with a pillow, but not a dog? Did you forget what your argument was?

      "Aren't you in the middle of demanding that I answer why some albatros mates?"

      Alright, let me educate you regarding something I like to call "scope". Here's the original relevant text (which you should know, because you stupidly claimed it was "off topic"):"People realize that animals engage in homosexual acts as well." Note that word:"animals". It isn't spelled D-O-G-S. Albatrosses are animals. So are penguins. So are any other animal that I choose to bring up to point out that even if (in some alternate universe) you were able to show that a dog can't recognize another dog, you're not addressing the point. So, to clarify that for you, since I said "animals" and you're obsessed with "dogs", it's not moving the goalposts for me to continue talking about "animals".

      See, you aren't in charge here. Things aren't "off topic" just because you didn't bring them up first. I'm not "moving the goalposts" just because my argument isn't as narrow as you wish it was. Quit being so goddamn arrogant, seriously.

      Delete
    48. "Alright, let me educate you regarding something I like to call "scope"." ... So, when you change the subject and go off-topic it's called "scope", but when I change the subject and go off-topic it's called moving the goalposts. Gotcha

      Ooo, teacher, I have a question. When someone tells me I cannot use other animals as comparisons in a discussion on animals, but someone else IS allowed to use other animals as comparisons in a discussion on animals ... is that called arrogance or hypocrisy?

      Delete
    49. Let me go way off topic on this next question. Do you think the moral standards have increased or decreased since the 60's? Because I think they've decreased and I can demonstrate it in every aspect of our lives. Clothing? Yes. Speech? Yes. Entertainment? Yes. Sports? Yes. Behavior? Yes.

      Let me teach you something, now. The reason you go off on your tangents putting words in my mouth and failing to grasp what is written is because you know I'm right but you don't want to admit it because it would make all the progress that liberals have made since the 60's look unworthy. Which they are. How many school massacres have occurred since 1960? How many occurred BEFORE 1960?

      Here's a question directly related to the article as it is posted: Would you prefer sexual perverts attack children while in Church or while at the Boy Scouts? Because I've already heard about children being in danger of sexual perverts (in positions of authority) abusing them while at Church. And the liberal people wildly screamed bloody murder about that (rightly so, too). In this article, liberals are wildly welcoming and pursuing the ability to force sexual perverts into another position of authority over children.
      I think sexual perverts should not be allowed to instruct/interact with children at all. But, I'm not a liberal and I don't think letting sexual perverts teach children is harmful in one setting but not harmful in another setting. I think both would be harmful. I guess that would make me a bigot?

      Delete
    50. "... So, when you change the subject and go off-topic it's called "scope", but when I change the subject and go off-topic it's called moving the goalposts. Gotcha"

      In other words, you didn't read my post. If you can actually address what I wrote instead of repeating your stupidity, please do.

      "When someone tells me I cannot use other animals as comparisons in a discussion on animals, but someone else IS allowed to use other animals as comparisons in a discussion on animals ... is that called arrogance or hypocrisy?"

      What "comparisons"? The thing about lions? If you have a genuine point to make, do so, otherwise I'm going to call you out for blowing smoke in no uncertain terms. Your random argumentation is your psychiatrist's problem, not mine.

      "Do you think the moral standards have increased or decreased since the 60's?"

      On balance, probably neither. You wish that things were all "Leave it to Beaver", surely, but the fact is that all the morality of those days was a facade. Just because people didn't talk about what was going on and swept everything under the rug doesn't make it any better in reality. I also take things like equality into account, and we are much more evolved in race and gender relations than we were then.

      As for your "lesson", grow up. I haven't gone off on tangents. I didn't put words in your mouth. And if you don't make yourself clear, that's your fault. I stand by equality and the sexual revolution. Outside of that, I don't know what, specifically, you think you're blaming on liberals. School massacres are because people think they're acceptable, in your mind? It's ludicrous in the extreme. You don't think that our increased population is a factor? Or the fact that we've gone from largely single-breadwinner families to parents having two, three, four jobs between the two of them? This is so much more complex than just pointing your crooked finger and screaming "LIBRULS!!!"

      "In this article, liberals are wildly welcoming and pursuing the ability to force sexual perverts into another position of authority over children."

      I can address your two paragraphs with four words:Homosexuality is not pedophilia.

      You're welcome.

      Delete
    51. "Homosexuality is not pedophilia." ... I didn't say it was. Putting words into my mouth again?

      "School massacres are because people think they're acceptable, in your mind?" ... NO. I think they are because of lowered moral standards.

      Delete
    52. You didn't say homosexuality was the same as pedophilia? Really? You claimed you were talking about homosexuals in the BSA, remember:

      "Would you prefer sexual perverts attack children while in Church or while at the Boy Scouts?"

      If you're not talking about pedophilia, then why are you citing sexual abuse of children by adult priests while saying that we shouldn't have "perverts" around children? Are you even aware of what you post?

      "... NO. I think they are because of lowered moral standards."

      Oh, right. Why would I think otherwise?:"We've seen the lack of moral standards be the beginning of all the mass shootings. Are you going to "accept" that too? Maybe I shouldn't ask a question I don't know the answer to. Perhaps you DO think it is acceptable for the mass shootings to occur. After all, moral standards are just a barometer that change over the years to fit your own personal choices ... like homosexuality"

      Delete
    53. "If you're not talking about pedophilia, then why are you citing sexual abuse of children by adult priests while saying that we shouldn't have "perverts" around children?" ..... Do you honestly believe there are ONLY 2 possible sexual perversions? There's cheating on your spouse, premarital sex, threesomes, swapping, ect. Any deviation of sex from the confines of a married couple is considered a sexual perversion. Why do you get your panties all up in a wad over my opinion?

      Delete
    54. Was that supposed to be an answer as to how you were NOT conflating pedophilia and homosexuality?

      Delete
    55. Yes. What did you think it was?

      Delete
    56. I think it was an intentional misunderstanding in order to distract, since there's nothing in my post to suggest I believe there's only two sexual perversions. You described pedophilia when talking about homosexuality, and your post did not explain how you didn't mean it that way.

      Here's the question again, try actually addressing it this time:"If you're not talking about pedophilia, then why are you citing sexual abuse of children by adult priests while saying that we shouldn't have "perverts" around children?"

      Delete
    57. I did not describe nor mention the word "pedophilia". That is ALL on you and your bigoted thought process.

      "Here's the question again, try actually addressing it this time:" ... I'm not going to "address" something I did not say. You want to put words into my mouth, then you answer for those words. Don't expect me to answer for what you deduce I'm saying. If you have no understanding what sexual perversion is, then perhaps you shouldn't even be talking about the reduction of morals in this country. Obviously, if you can't tell the difference between moral sex and immoral sex there is NO way you'll be able to convince anyone your morals don't fluctuate over time.

      Delete
    58. "I did not describe nor mention the word "pedophilia"."

      Grown men sexually abusing boys is pedophilia. That was your reference to priests. If it had nothing to do with your concerns about homosexuality, then you might want to talk to a doctor, because you may be suffering a stroke.

      "You want to put words into my mouth, then you answer for those words."

      I cited exactly what you said. You talked about abusive priests in the context of your concerns of homosexual men in the Boy Scouts. Do you deny that, really? It's hardly "putting words in (your) mouth" to take what you say about grown men sexually abusing boys and call that "pedophilia", since that's the defintion of the word. If you want to explain how that's wrong, or how you misspoke or something, do it. Don't lecture me about doing something wrong, though, especially when you cropped a quote to read "So?" and then claimed that I ADMITTED to being a racist. You want to talk about putting words in people's mouths? You have no chance in a reasoned conversation, so that's one of YOUR maneuvers, not mine.

      You've had enough chances to explain yourself. You obviously think homosexuals are pedophiles, which marks you as ignorant. Again, not surprised.

      Delete
    59. "That was your reference to priests." ... would you have prefered that I compare it to cheating on your spouse? That is a sexual perversion also. I will gladly correct that comparison, if you prefer, when I compare sexual perversions. Just let me know. I hate to hurt your feelings.

      "I cited exactly what you said. You talked about abusive priests in the context of your concerns of homosexual men in the Boy Scouts. Do you deny that, really?" ... No. I think the same abusive dangers are present in both situations. You prefer one situation, yet angrily refuse to accept the other. Those are YOUR moral choices. Mine are different. Part of what I mentioned at the beginning of this article.

      Delete
    60. "... would you have prefered that I compare it to cheating on your spouse?"

      How would that work? "Would you prefer sexual perverts attack children while in a motel or while at the Boy Scouts?" It doesn't seem to fit with the context you provided. What I would prefer is that you, at least, stand by what you say instead of being intellectually dishonest about it.

      But, if you want to change it to that, I'll welcome you to explain whose trust is violated by a gay relationship. Who, exactly, had a promise broken to them in that scenario? No, that doesn't work, either. If you could explain some sort of rationale other than "God's word", then maybe you could formulate some sort of comparison.

      " ... No. I think the same abusive dangers are present in both situations."

      Between two consenting adults? Explain.

      Delete
    61. You are dribbling so incoherently that, in your second paragraph, I actually have no idea what you said.

      "It doesn't seem to fit with the context you provided. What I would prefer is that you, at least, stand by what you say instead of being intellectually dishonest about it." .... Actually, I answered this concern in the post you are replying to. If you had bothered to read it you would have gotten the "context" you are so worried about.

      Delete
    62. "You are dribbling so incoherently that, in your second paragraph, I actually have no idea what you said."

      Oh, really? You don't understand "whose trust is violated by a gay relationship" when you want to compare homosexuality to infidelity? I eagerly await your explanation of what's not clear about that. Otherwise, you're lying because you can't handle your end of the conversation.

      ".... Actually, I answered this concern in the post you are replying to."

      Actually, that's not possible. All you did is repeat how there's some potential for abuse, but you're not talking about pedophilia. So you couldn't have addressed that concern, since the "abuse" is currently in some conceptual no-man's land. Feel free to untangle your mess.

      Delete
    63. "whose trust is violated by a gay relationship" ... Who CARES? The point is that it is a sexual perversion ... just like ANY of the other examples I posted. That is my opinion. If you can't handle it, then just ignore it. Otherwise, you're starting (well, not starting) to sound like a raving lunatic who starts foaming at the mouth if anyone doesn't fall lock-step within your moral standards. You really must be a racist the way you've jack-booted various opinions. All I can say now, is to tell you to wear those jackboots with pride. I'll bet you live deep in the heart of some large liberal city. Your opinions are so formed by others that you don't even know how to think for yourself. Is that how you form your morals? By having someone tell you what they are then you yell "sieg heil" and snap those boots together? Yes, you're very well trained.

      "All you did is repeat how there's some potential for abuse, but you're not talking about pedophilia." ... putting words in my mouth again? You really need to stop that. You should try something very unique to your conversational habits: try discussing what IS said and not what you THINK is said. I realize that will be difficult for the first month or so as you learn how to change your in-grown habits. But, trust me, after a while you start feeling better knowing that you can actually answer grown up questions and actually SOUND like you are a grown up too.

      "So you couldn't have addressed that concern, since the "abuse" is currently in some conceptual no-man's land." ... Again, you can't read (or didn't read). I said EXACTLY why I think it would be a bad idea to have homosexuals being in a position of authority over male children. Apparently, you think there is NO danger? Or that homosexuals never are tempted by male children. You must think that the moment you decide to be gay that your ability to behave more immoral is not possible. You must be saying that no homosexual in history EVER abused male children. Because that is what you are insinuating by your faux outrage that I think there is a danger to let homosexuals be in a position of authority over children of the sex they are attracted to.

      What amazes me (about your stance) is that you DO think sexual perverts should be allowed to control small children in the Boy Scouts, but you DON'T think sexual perverts should be allowed to control small children in Church. Why the hypocritical stance?

      Delete
    64. "... Who CARES? The point is that it is a sexual perversion"

      I care, because any "sexual perversion" that has a seriously negative connotation also carries HARM along with with. Abuse is harm. Breaking someone's trust is harm. Monogamous homosexual relationships, no harm.

      "Your opinions are so formed by others that you don't even know how to think for yourself."

      Do you know how funny it is to watch you talk about how I'm about to "foam at the mouth" simply because I'm pointing out your logical lapses, but then you go off on a completely unhinged rant? And, again, test me. I can justify everything I say, without an old book to tell me what to believe.

      "... putting words in my mouth again?"

      No, you very clearly both repeated that there's a potential for abuse (you do it again in this very post, genius), and you say you're not talking about pedophilia. So, what exactly are you disputing?

      "Apparently, you think there is NO danger?"

      There's danger with heterosexuals, obviously. So...?

      "You must be saying that no homosexual in history EVER abused male children."

      That's pedophilia. Look it up.

      "Because that is what you are insinuating by your faux outrage that I think there is a danger to let homosexuals be in a position of authority over children of the sex they are attracted to."

      Yes, because you're trying to link homosexuality with pedophilia! What part of this are you not grasping? You act all indignant when I mention your conflation, and then you continue to conflate these two completely separate concepts.

      "Why the hypocritical stance?"

      It's not hypocritical, because heterosexual men abuse children also. Again, homosexuality is not pedophilia. So, you have something that is proven harm (pedophile priests) versus something that has no bearing on the potential for harm, since heterosexual men abuse children also.

      Delete
    65. "Monogamous homosexual relationships, no harm." ... but, still a sexual perversion. "Harm" isn't the deciding factor (IMHO) about what constitutes morality.

      "and you say you're not talking about pedophilia." ... again, putting words into my mouth. I AM saying that the dangers of abuse from sex perverts is the same in Church as it will be in the Boy Scouts if sex perverts are allowed to have authority over small children.

      "That's pedophilia. Look it up." ... you mean if a homosexual chooses to be attracted to young children he becomes a pedophile and is no longer homosexual? Interesting distinction. You say that homosexuals NEVER abuse young children because that would be called pedophilia, yet you say pedophilia and homosexuality are distinctly separate of each other. You are saying that homosexuals have NEVER ... EVER abused young children. Because, if they had, they would be called pedophiles. Hmmm, interesting way of defending your hypocrisy.

      "Yes, because you're trying to link homosexuality with pedophilia! " ... that's right. They are linked to each other. BOTH are sexual perversions and immoral. You support one and denounce the other. Color me surprised.

      "because heterosexual men abuse children also."
      "since heterosexual men abuse children also." ... you keep saying "ALSO" when describing that heterosexual men abuse children. Is that an admission that homosexual men abuse children ALSO? Well, that proves my point that the children in the Boy Scouts would be in danger of abuse if they are forced to have homosexuals as leaders and authority figures. A point that YOU deny is possible, yet insinuate it IS possible. Yes, that is VERY hypocritical.

      Delete
    66. " ... but, still a sexual perversion. "Harm" isn't the deciding factor (IMHO) about what constitutes morality."

      It still makes your comparisons idiotic and inflammatory. And what IS the deciding factor, besides what's in the Bible? You can't seem to put that in words, for some reason.

      "I AM saying that the dangers of abuse from sex perverts is the same in Church as it will be in the Boy Scouts if sex perverts are allowed to have authority over small children."

      That's already the case, because homosexuality is not pedophilia. The only way your concern makes sense is if you think this is introducing danger, which means you're linking pedophilia to homosexuality. You can't get around that.

      "... you mean if a homosexual chooses to be attracted to young children he becomes a pedophile and is no longer homosexual?"

      I mean you don't refer to a pedophile as either heterosexual or homosexual, because it's a completely different classification of behavior. Do you really not know anything about this topic?

      "They are linked to each other. BOTH are sexual perversions and immoral."

      That's not a "link", jackass. I'm saying you're connecting two totally separate patterns of behavior as if one has anything to do with the other. It's a question of psychology, not morality there.

      "... you keep saying "ALSO" when describing that heterosexual men abuse children. Is that an admission that homosexual men abuse children ALSO? Well, that proves my point that the children in the Boy Scouts would be in danger of abuse if they are forced to have homosexuals as leaders and authority figures."

      It proves no such thing, obviously, since you already have heterosexual men who could abuse children. You're not adding an element of risk.

      Delete
    67. "I mean you don't refer to a pedophile as either heterosexual or homosexual, because it's a completely different classification of behavior." ... Cool. You think homosexuality is a "behavior"? You might want to look that word up before you use it again. LOL

      "That's not a "link", jackass." ... there's not a "link" between murder and homosexuality either. Yet both are immoral and sinful (IMHO). What IS the point you're trying to make?

      "You're not adding an element of risk." ... and your proof or evidence of that is ... where? Or is that your bigoted (against heterosexuals) opinion?

      Delete
    68. "I mean you don't refer to a pedophile as either heterosexual or homosexual, because it's a completely different classification of behavior." ... Cool. You think homosexuality is a "behavior"? You might want to look that word up before you use it again. LOL

      "That's not a "link", jackass." ... there's not a "link" between murder and homosexuality either. Yet both are immoral and sinful (IMHO). What IS the point you're trying to make?

      "You're not adding an element of risk." ... and your proof or evidence of that is ... where? Or is that your bigoted (against heterosexuals) opinion?

      Delete
    69. "... Cool. You think homosexuality is a "behavior"?"

      It manifests itself in sexual behavior, sure. Did you want me to say "orientation"? Because I wouldn't classify pedophilia that way. All you're doing is showing the apples vs. oranges nature of the subjects at hand, so thank you for that.

      "... there's not a "link" between murder and homosexuality either. Yet both are immoral and sinful (IMHO)."

      So how does that address you trying to connect homosexuality to pedophilia outside of the "immoral/sinful" aspect?

      "... and your proof or evidence of that is ... where?"

      Logic, although you can actually try to learn something on the subject (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html). If you don't deny that straight men sexually abuse children (and they're not really classified as "heterosexual" then either, of course), then you're admitting that they're already a threat. Ergo, you are not adding an element of risk.

      Delete
    70. "So how does that address you trying to connect homosexuality to pedophilia outside of the "immoral/sinful" aspect?" ... I use "logic", just like you do. Logically, a male authoritarian figure, whose sexual preference is his same sex, would pose a greater risk to male children and hence you wouldn't want that person in authority over male children. The risk out-weighs the advantage.
      For a heterosexual male to be in that position the risk is greatly reduced (albeit still minimally present). There is the connection you want and the danger I think would be more present.

      Delete
    71. "... I use "logic", just like you do. Logically, a male authoritarian figure, whose sexual preference is his same sex, would pose a greater risk to male children and hence you wouldn't want that person in authority over male children."

      Your ignorance is not logic. I could at least give you credit for honesty if you hadn't been told numerous times that homosexuality has nothing to do with pedophilia. Gender is not a factor. Your argument is that gay men are greatly more likely ("still minimally present", your words) to be pedophiles, when earlier you denied it. "... I didn't say it was. Putting words into my mouth again?" Remember?

      Given your pattern of behavior, I can reasonably conclude that you found the information in that link inconvenient to your argument, otherwise you would be setting it up against some ridiculous standard in order to discredit it ("daaaah, it doesn't prove that homosexuals NEVER molest boys!").

      Delete
    72. "I could at least give you credit for honesty if you hadn't been told numerous times that homosexuality has nothing to do with pedophilia." ... you sure have a major hang-up on pedophilia. I have stated that I think the danger of male child abuse is more likely from male homosexuals than male heterosexuals. You have brought pedophilia into this discussion and stayed glued to that behavior since. Why did you bring pedophilia into this discussion on homosexuality and the Boy Scouts? Oh, never mind. It must be that connection that you say is NOT present. That must be why you are concerned about homosexuals being called pedophiles. I wonder if you have that same concern about heterosexuals being called pedophiles. I'll bet the percentage of pedophiles is larger among the homosexual population than the heterosexual population. Will you look that up for me?


      "Given your pattern of behavior," ... Is my "behavior" learned or was I born with it? Because if I was born with my behavior, then you are a bigot for denouncing my behavior as unacceptable. If behavior is learned after birth then you have admitted that homosexuality is CHOICE.

      Delete
    73. "I have stated that I think the danger of male child abuse is more likely from male homosexuals than male heterosexuals. You have brought pedophilia into this discussion and stayed glued to that behavior since."

      Sexual abuse of a child by an adult is pedophilia, your word games aside.

      "That must be why you are concerned about homosexuals being called pedophiles. I wonder if you have that same concern about heterosexuals being called pedophiles."

      When heterosexuals are a persecuted minority (never), then I'll have that concern.

      "I'll bet the percentage of pedophiles is larger among the homosexual population than the heterosexual population. Will you look that up for me?"

      Check the link.

      "... Is my "behavior" learned or was I born with it?"

      My guess is that you have a personality disorder, in all seriousness.

      "Because if I was born with my behavior, then you are a bigot for denouncing my behavior as unacceptable. If behavior is learned after birth then you have admitted that homosexuality is CHOICE."

      Wrong as usual, because your behavior is not an orientation. People can be naturally gay, and that doesn't change just because you're an asshole.

      Delete
    74. "When heterosexuals are a persecuted minority (never), then I'll have that concern." ... Wow ... simply wow. So, you demand that homosexuals be given authority over young male children in spite of the dangers of HARM to the child simply because of your love for the homosexual lifestyle?


      "Check the link." ... what link?


      "Wrong as usual, because your behavior is not an orientation." ... you just said it was a "personality disorder". That means I was born with it. Then you say it is NOT an orientation. You have said homosexuality is an orientation you are born with. How can I be born with a "personality disorder" but not the "orientation"? Your support and love of the homosexual lifestyle is making you quite the bigot. A racist and a bigot ... color me surprised.

      Delete
    75. "So, you demand that homosexuals be given authority over young male children in spite of the dangers of HARM to the child simply because of your love for the homosexual lifestyle?"

      Gay men pose no bigger threat than straight men.

      "... what link?"

      Scroll up.

      "... you just said it was a "personality disorder". That means I was born with it."

      No, personality disorders are often the result of abusive parents, severe trauma, etc. Besides that, I didn't state it as a fact, I just have a hard time believing that anyone can post the crap you do without having a genuine problem. Since I don't know for sure, you're sure as hell not getting the benefit of the doubt, which means I'm going to call out all of your unacceptable behavior as exactly that. Cry to mommy, but don't cry to me.

      Delete
    76. Here's something interesting :http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/DS00652

      DID YOU SEE THE LINK? Just making sure.

      Now, apparently recent research (since I last studied psychology) show that there may be some genetic factor to this and some other personality disorders. But, you can't claim that you're born with it unless you have definitive proof, right? That's your philosophy for homosexuality, so it's good enough for this as well.

      Seriously, though, you should probably look into this, as the symptoms fit your behavior quite well. Note that I said "behavior", because whether or not you're born with a personality disorder, that disorder is defined by behavior. Therefore there can't be any distinction between "behavior" and "born with it".

      Also note that since a personality disorder is defined by behavior, it's obviously not "bigoted" to note that behavior is unacceptable no matter what the cause of it is. Because, and I mean this sincerely, you can't get help until you realize you have a problem. But refusing to get help and to remain dysfunctional is, undeniably, your choice.

      Delete
    77. "Scroll up." ... provide it.

      I see you other link, doesn't mean I'll go there. Personally, I don't like going to links that people who lie and are bigots recommend. I also don't see movies that people with low morals recommend ... same reasons.

      "Note that I said "behavior", because whether or not you're born with a personality disorder, that disorder is defined by behavior." ... is that true for you racist bigotry and lying all the time? Were you BORN a racist bigot or is that behavior learned? Were you born lying? or is that behavior learned?

      Delete
    78. " ... provide it."

      No, scroll up, you self-entitled, lazy bastard. It's where you ask how I know homosexuals won't add an element of risk. I reply "logic" and then tell you that you should learn something about the topic anyway. That's off the top of my head. You can make a tiny effort, it's not going to hurt you. And since I mentioned it and you didn't say anything about it (while quoting part of that reminder, so I know for a fact that you didn't skip over the paragraph in reading), I don't believe your claim that you never saw it anyway. You're just being petty.

      "Personally, I don't like going to links that people who lie and are bigots recommend."

      How convenient that you cut off any means of substantiating arguments, so you can continue to misrepresent me as a liar and a bigot. And it's consistent with someone with narcissistic personality disorder to refuse to recognize their problem.

      "... is that true for you racist bigotry and lying all the time?"

      Are you still beating your wife? It's easy to tell when you know you're up against the wall, because you flail about so dramatically. It's not as if I'm not going to notice your failure to address my point or anything.

      Delete
    79. "you self-entitled, lazy bastard." .... Me? no, I'm not a liberal.

      http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=11517 Here is an interesting article on the "disorder" (as you call it). Looks like the Federal government classifies it as a "sexual orientation".
      "Pedophilia has already been granted protected status by the Federal Government. The Matthew Shephard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act lists “sexual orientation” as a protected class; however, it does not define the term."

      Then those bigoted republicans tried to prevent pedophilia from being included in that "hate crime prevention act" but the compassionate democrats said; 'no, you leave our friends alone'.
      "Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fl) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law. “This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.” Amazing how compassionate those democrats are. Democrats want to call pedophilia a "sexual orientation".

      There is PROOF that the morals of this country have declined since the 60's (as I stated). In 1973 is when the psychic's of the nation determined that homosexuality is no longer a mental disorder. A mere 40 years later and they are considering doing the same thing to pedophilia. Yeah ... those morals just keep dropping and dropping. JUST AS I SAID THEY DO


      "Are you still beating your wife? " ... no, I stopped years ago. What's your point? Do you even have a point? Better yet, do you even know what your own point is? Didn't I just shoot that "point" all to hell when I posted that democrats and the federal government consider pedophilia an "alternate sexual lifestyle" and/or a "sexual orientation". JUST LIKE HOMOSEXUALITY. Low and behold, I STILL call both sexual perversions.

      "And it's consistent with someone with narcissistic personality disorder to refuse to recognize their problem." ,,,, thanks, I'll remember that as I discuss with you. I'll be careful not to upset you so your behaviors don't manifest themselves too often.

      Delete
    80. I'd let you read the article on your own, but the more I read the better it gets: "The White House praised the bill saying, “At root, this isn’t just about our laws; this is about who we are as a people. This is about whether we value one another – whether we embrace our differences rather than allowing them to become a source of animus.” "

      "Earlier this year two psychologists in Canada declared that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality or heterosexuality."

      "In July, 2010 Harvard health Publications said, “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.” " .... they call them "sexual urges". Isn't that what I called it for homosexuals?

      http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10F01.pdf .... another article on homosexuality. Myth 6 says (and is backed up with several credits) that the homosexual lifestyle IS more harmful than heterosexual lifestyle (another point that I made and you said was not true). But, whatever you do ... DON'T read MYTH #8. I don't want to be proven right again with facts. "A study in the Journal of Sex Research found that although heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a ratio of at least 20 to 1, homosexual pedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses.62".
      See that? ONE THIRD of sex offenses against children were committed by homosexuals, yet heterosexuals outnumbered the homosexuals 20-1.
      I'm sorry that FACTS contradict ALL your arguments that promote immorality. Maybe you'll have better luck discussing sports, since you aren't doing very well on "alternative sexual lifestyles".

      Delete
    81. So you're reading an article that you won't post? I'm curious what you're hiding.

      "Earlier this year two psychologists in Canada declared that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality or heterosexuality."

      Do they have any support on that? And what difference would it make, since from even what you said it's clearly not being accepted.

      ".... they call them "sexual urges". Isn't that what I called it for homosexuals?"

      No, that's what you called them for dogs, I believe. But since the context is trying to prevent molestation, I'm not sure what else you would expect to read.

      "Myth 6 says (and is backed up with several credits) that the homosexual lifestyle IS more harmful than heterosexual lifestyle (another point that I made and you said was not true)."

      My link already addressed the FRC, so you're a bit late to the party here. However, myth #1 says that homosexuality is not something you're born with, but is instead caused by developmental factors. That's a bit inconsistent with your "choice" argument. #6:"Both because of high-risk behavior patterns, such as sexual promiscuity, and because of the harm to the body from specific sexual acts, homosexuals are at greater risk than heterosexuals for sexually transmitted diseases and other forms of illness and injury." Again, promiscuity is a byproduct of discrimination, so that's been covered already. As for "specific sexual acts", heterosexuals do them as well, along with plenty of things that cause physical harm other ways. So...? And for #8, my link already addressed this specifically, noting that male-on-male molestation is improperly called "homosexual". Gender has nothing to do with it, again.

      But, of course, you won't read my link, so your failures will just have to remain a mystery to you.

      Delete
  2. @Will-nonymous,

    Your igorance of, or refusal to accept, "the evidence" does not mean that there isn't any. It just means you're a moron.

    Oh, and regarding, "tell anyone and everyone you know who has AIDS how "not harmful" being homosexual is..." What, pray tell, should I tell those who contracted HIV from a heterosexual encounter? Just curious.

    *sigh*

    I really should just "not feed the troll." I'll probably regret this reply.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My refusal to accept evidence that isn't available is quite normal. You have actual evidence? Or, just hearsay? Why don't you submit some of this evidence you claim is present. It's like your "you go girl" article, even THAT article states sexual deviances are choice. Do you even read what you link to? Your article ... your prideful gloating, yet you make wild claims of scientific evidence ... and bring nothing but opinion to back up your stance. Is that the way you do things around here?

      "What, pray tell, should I tell those who contracted HIV from a heterosexual encounter?": You tell them "sorry". Then go on to explain that there is no cure for that disease, then explain that they should have paid more attention during sex-ed while in 2nd grade of those schools that are required to teach kids how to have sex before they are ready. Maybe you can get your agenda to change the age that you teach children about sex ... maybe start teaching them in pre-school. That way when they start experimenting and contract AIDS you can blame the right-winger in some fashion or another ... like you usually do.
      Is your compassion so limited that you can only care about those who will advance your agenda? BTW, with such compassion for the heterosexual ... what are the possibilities that a heterosexual will contract AIDS compared to the possibilities that a homosexual will contract AIDS? Are you more worried about the 3% who contract AIDS than the 97%? Or is that your strawman argument on a subject you haven't a clue about?

      Delete
    2. OK, FFS, let’s get one thing out of the way up front: Are you just William Johnson, posting anonymously, or has my humble blog attracted yet another bigoted, idiotic, Right-Wing troll? Initially most of us assumed you were just William. If you ARE, then fuck you, I’ve already addressed everything you’ve brought up here, so STFU and GTFO. Go spray your verbal diarrhea on someone else’s blog for a change, and come back when you’re ready to have a debate based on actual facts, using actual logic, and responding to actual points that actual people have actually made.

      If you’re not? Here’s my takedown of this absurd drivel you’ve posted. This will be the last bowl of troll-food I’ll feed on this matter, BTW, unless you bring up a point that’s remotely interesting or worth debating. Feel free to have the last word, but I’m not going to simply repeat myself, ad nauseam, to someone who simply can’t, or won’t read.

      1) Lack of evidence. Go read this: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2012/04/ill-make-this-easy.html. In it I include over 200 citations from publications of people who’ve actually studied the phenomenon. Go suck on that for a while and then see if you can come anywhere close supporting your outdated bigoted dogma in the same manner. My political position came from an evaluation of the evidence. Your evaluation of the evidence comes from your political position. Which is typical of how Conservatives thynk.

      2) HIV Infection rates… Men who have sex with men represent 53% of new HIV infections, not 97%, dipstick. To clarify: That’s about half. That means that the other half? Are Heterosexuals. OTOH, your ass represents just 3% of your body, yet you seem to get 97% of your information from it. BTW… My chances of getting HIV from having sex with an uninfected man is precisely the same as me getting it from an uninfected woman: DICK.

      3) Teaching sex to second graders. Not sure what YOU’RE talking about, seeing as how the “age appropriate” sex ed programs that the President once proposed would have extended as far as explaining about inappropriate touching for the purpose of pedophile/molestation prevention at that grade level; something you’d know if you were more interested in having an intellectually honest discussion than you were in spreading Right-Wing filth & Anti-Obama propaganda. (Or are you just trying to make the world better for pedophiles?) HOWEVER… One of those “AIDS Prevention” tips that s/he might have learned, several years later, as part of a comprehensive sex education program, would have been CONDOM USAGE. But that’s something that most idiotic Conservatives, want to bar in favor of exclusively Abstinence-only programs which have been shown time and time again to be less effective in preventing teen pregnancy and STD transmission.

      Delete
    3. (con't)

      4) Where does the article I linked to say that “sexual deviance” is a “choice?” That’s an interesting conclusion seeing as how… IT TOTALLY FUCKING DOESN’T SAY ANY SUCH THING! In fact, the words “sexual,” “deviance” and “choice” NEVER EVEN APPEAR IN THE ARTICLE. What I DO see, is a lot of talk about how people should be FREE (remember FREEDOM, asshole?) to BE who they ARE. YOU are the one who wants them to make a conscious choice to be someone they’re not. That’s AMOST a choice, but not really seeing as how it’s being made by SOMEONE ELSE.

      BTW… Before you say even one more word on the matter of CHOICE, please share with us, in as much detail as you feel comfortable with, that moment in your life when you made that oh-so-monumental CHOICE to be strait. Because you know what? I never had one. Neither has any other of my strait readers, not anyone else, gay or strait, that I have ever discussed the matter with. See, I was… duh-du-daaaah… BORN strait. William never did share anything about that moment in his life, and I betting you won’t either. Because it likely didn’t happen. And if it did? If you had to actually CHOOSE to be strait after careful consideration of all available alternatives? I have news for you: YOU’RE GAY. (Or Bi-.) So good luck with that. (BTW: REALIZATION is not the same as CHOICE, so don’t waste my time having pointing you towards a dictionary.)

      You sir, are living proof that light travels faster than sound. Because I thought you might have been bright, before I heard you speak.

      And THAT’S how “we do things around here,” BTW. Feel free to come back for more though. I find annihilating Right Wing trolls to be immensely entertaining, even if it is about as difficult as putting on a hat.

      Delete
    4. "Sadie socially transitioned from male to female in kindergarten.". Uh, how do you expect tweeked minds to explain the CHOICE? He "socially transitioned"??? Did you see the definition of "transgender"? Is Merriam-Webster suddenly no longer a viable CHOICE to use for a dictionary?
      Transgender is a CHOICE. Strictly CHOICE.

      However, I take your refusal to bring any evidence of FACT as an admittion that you, in fact, do not know what you are talking about.

      Delete
    5. Just as how you lot refuse to acknowledge the difference between sexual ORIENTATION and sexual BEHAVIOR, which is self-evident to actual THINKING PEOPLE, here you likewise fail to distuiguish the difference between the CHOICE of behavior and the CONDITION that motivates it. Being Transgendered is not a chouce. TRANSITIONING is a choice. One is still transgendered whether they CHOOSE to transition or not. Just as one GAY whether they CHOOSE to have same-sex relations or not.

      Having a dictionary is a great thing, but it still doesn't show that you - or the legion of idiotic RW trolls that came before you - actually know and UNDERSTAND what WORDS MEAN. So you have a dictionary. You knwo what I have? Many Transgendered people who I've spoken to in order to better understand the whole phenomenon, and who have been gracious enough to share some of their experiences. (Not to mention that pesky little thing called FUCKING EVIDENCE, which comes from people who ahve done ACTUAL RESEARCH on ACTUAL PEOPLE and who don't just cherry-pick the most convenient definition that happens to fit their Political Agenda. There's a big-picture here, and you fools consistently choose to IGNORE it. Hence the word: IGNORANCE. Look that one up. Then try BIGGOT. I'm sure you'll find both of them in your trusty dictionary as well.

      Delete
    6. Back this fruitcake train up. You mean to say that transgendered people are born that way because 'you say so' and that's final?!? You are a complete moron and the only people you want visiting your extreme left-wing blog site are other extreme left-wing sheeple who think and breathe the same as you. And, GOD FORBID, should anyone else have or express an opinion that fails to align with yours they get read the riot act about how insensitive they are for daring to tell you what they think. Well, class act idiot, your ideals are just as unforgivable as you claim other's are. It's a good thing, being the liberal you are, that you don't believe in Jesus Christ, because shirley you would have a lot to explain for when you visit st peter ... simply for your views on this one subject, let alone how you feel about REAL issues.
      Personally, I don't give a flying fuck what you think about my opinions, but you certainly make yourself look like the fool you appear to be by whining about someone coming to your BLOG site with an opinion. So, whether you like it or not, I'll freely post whatever I want ... whenever I want ... saying anything I want. THAT is called having FREEDOM to choose to do what pleases me. Just like your transgendered friends. Was I BORN with those freedoms?

      Definition of BIGOT
      : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

      Did you really want that posted? Because it fits your behavior towards right-wingers to a T. You're just a fricking whining woose who complains about others visiting your BLOG site because they don't agree with your tweaked opinion on what constitutes a CHOICE.

      BTW, your analogy concerning what CHOICE was made to be heterosexual ... is a grasping strawman. Your stance makes NO sense and has no basis in reality.

      Delete
    7. Hey Brabantio or Eddie (who ever you're calling yourself today) I went to that link that you provided on the unarguable proof that you are born gay. Well, in that article you cited so many times (over 200) there are these statements:
      1: Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood.[4][138][139]

      2: Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences.

      Your claims that people are born gay is NOT supported by the scientists YOU cite as experts. They use words like "probably" and "current knowledge" and "usually". Those are NOT supportive of your statements that there IS scientific proof that you are born gay. That sounds like opinion designed to sway the uneducated into thinking like you're told to think. Quite like you are doing with your link of over 200 citations. You know there IS scientific proof that your sex is determined by genetics. And the scientists have been able to show the genes that do that. Yet, you still adhere to words like "probably" and "usually" to be the ONLY scientific evidence you have that you are born a homosexual. Even the Royal College of Psychiatrists (one of your citations used) says this: "Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice, though sexual behaviour clearly is.". That means you are born male or female then CHOOSE what partner you prefer. Not very good at bringing real evidence are you?

      Delete
    8. William, if sexual orientation is not a choice, then you don't choose who you're attracted to. What did you think "orientation" meant? And if you note MY original post, I said it was "not a choice", not "born gay". What the difference between being born gay and having orientation determined as gay in early childhood through "genetic, hormonal and environmental influences" is in your mind, only you can explain. Is that really supposed to make your discrimination acceptable?

      Delete
    9. Eddie, sexual preference IS choice. The sex you are born as is NOT choice. You have NO scientific proof or evidence that counters those facts. If you did you would have brought it by now. But, since you have none, you bring none.

      Delete
    10. It is and I have. That you continue to deny it does not mean it isn't there. (Life must be nice in the bubble, huh?)

      I did not choose to like girls. I always have. I CHOSE to BEHAVE in a way that follows that orientation. (Why is this so hard for you morons to grasp?!) Further I did not choose to prefer Red-heads. (My life would be a lot easier if I didn't.) But I did CHOOSE to marry one. (I didn't CHOOSE to be attracted to her, only to follow up on it.) I don't need to PROOVE that. Asking me to PROOVE that which I know about myself is absurd. And I asked you to share with us that moment in your life when you chose to be strait. And you said THAT was an absurd question. I agree. It was meant to be.

      But then... that prooves that you and I were born with a sexual orientation. And so you know what evidence support that? ALL OF IT.

      ORIENTION and PREFERENCE are not choices. BEHABVIOR is. I do need scientific proof for this, I just need to know what FUCKING WORDS MEAN.

      BTW, Brab? I don't think this is William. If anything, this guy seems even dumber. (If that's possible.)

      Delete
    11. "Eddie, sexual preference IS choice."

      YOU quoted the link as saying orientation is not a choice. Can you define "orientation"? Because if it's not "preference", what the hell do you think it means?

      Delete
    12. Gee, Mr Ed, are you going to ask for civil rights because you "like redheads"? That is the equivalent of what you're saying with your examples for what homosexuals are seeking.

      Orientation: 2b : a person's self-identification as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual
      Preference: 1b : the power or opportunity of choosing AND 5 orientation 2b
      Behabvior: 1c : the response of an individual, group, or species to its environment

      Are those the definitions of the FUCKING WORDS YOU WANT ME TO KNOW???
      The definition of ALL 3 words indicate CHOICE is involved. You choose to behave a certain way, you choose to prefer certain things and you choose who you are oriented towards romantically. You and your alter-ego fail miserably on this subject. You might want to go back to discussing something you know even less about ... Jesus. Hell, you might as well have told me to look up the word "choice" and then claim it means genetically formed behabviors. You DO know we are using the internet, right? You DO know that I have access to dictionary's too, right? Why would you make such a stupid statement like "ORIENTION and PREFERENCE are not choices." when they clearly are according to your prized word definitions. Why don't you bring your 200+ citation loaded article that clearly says sexual preference is choice. You know, the one where YOU claim it says you are born gay. Bring that article again, would you? That sure gave me a good laugh before the Super Bowl. I'm getting better laughs out of your demands that century old definitions are wrong as they are written and only you know the true meaning of words that are commonly accepted and defined as choices.

      If you aren't brabantio, then he/she is providing excellent fodder for what sheeple left-wingers are towards their false ideology of genetics and definitions of words.

      Delete
    13. "Gee, Mr Ed, are you going to ask for civil rights because you "like redheads"? That is the equivalent of what you're saying with your examples for what homosexuals are seeking."

      If redheads were being discriminated against, then why wouldn't they deserve civil rights? You know that's a natural hair color, I hope.

      You quoted from a link, again:"Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice, though sexual behaviour clearly is." Now, you want to say that the word "orientation" suggests a choice? Based on...? There's not a single word in what you posted that objectively leads to that conclusion. You wish it did, of course, but you can't justify it. Which is probably the reason for your manic tone, hoping that if you act rightfully exasperated that I'm going to somehow believe you haven't been making a moronic argument the entire time.

      "Why would you make such a stupid statement like "ORIENTION and PREFERENCE are not choices.""

      Did I say that, or are you confused again? Your comment about the 200+ citations would suggest you can't tell two completely different screen names (and styles) apart.

      Delete
    14. I posted the definitions of each word in question. Which one is NOT choice, according to their definitions? Orientation is the "SELF-IDENTIFICATION" of sexual preferences. There's no "born that way" in ANY OF THOSE DEFINITIONS.

      Where did I say redheads were being discriminated against? Wow, if you aren't Eddie, you sure show the same contempt for honesty as (s)he. However, you do seem to have a problem with understanding what is said at any given time. Perhaps you are different people who happen to have the same problem with moral standards and honesty. I guess with a lack of morality, you wouldn't worry about honesty so much, huh?

      Delete
    15. And now I laugh at you. You really think "born that way" is supposed to be in a definition in order for it to NOT be a choice? That's insanely ludicrous, and I mean that literally. You're the one who insists that the definition itself suggests it's a choice. What is there, in those words that you posted, that indicates that? Not an absence of a suggestion otherwise, something that specifically supports your claim.

      "Where did I say redheads were being discriminated against?"

      If they weren't being discriminated against, why would anyone be talking about civil rights? Your comment made no sense, and you're not changing that yet.

      Delete
    16. I don't expect you to understand simple questions (not posed to you). I don't ask YOU these questions because you aren't able to understand them. Do you want me to explain it for you? Damn ... I didn't mean to ask another question you don't understand. Sorry.

      Delete
    17. So, you can't explain your own words? Got it.

      Delete
    18. Do you really want me to? It will make you look pretty stupid. Even more-so than you do on your own

      Ok, HERE IS WHAT I SAID: "Gee, Mr Ed, are you going to ask for civil rights because you "like redheads"?"

      Let's break it down simply.
      First of all I am addressing someone OTHER THAN YOU. You'll notice that by the name I used. Unless you are Mr Ed.
      Secondly, I asked Mr Ed if HE was going to ask for civil rights because of the CHOICE he makes to like redheads.
      Third, I never said redheads were being discriminated against. Just more words you make up and claim I said them. Is that your common M.O.?
      Don't worry, I don't think you'll understand the explanation either.

      Delete
    19. Most people know me as "Eddie" as well, so no, I didn't really pay attention to the distinction, especially since you've been acting as if you're only talking to one person. Now you're making the distinction, since it's convenient to you. I'm glad I broke you of that idiotic habit, at least.

      Now that I re-read his post, he never said he had the CHOICE to like redheads. He said the opposite. And it still doesn't make sense, because you're comparing a group that isn't discriminated against to one that is.

      Now, again, what is there in your definition of "orientation" that suggests it's a choice?

      Delete
    20. You can't read, can you? What language should I use that would help you understand what is being said?

      Orientation: 2b : a person's SELF-IDENTIFICATION as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual

      Now, which word are you having trouble understanding. Do you want me to bring the definition of "SELF-IDENTIFICATION" ?? Well, do you?

      Self-identification: 2 : the act of identifying yourself as a particular kind of person

      Did you read that? The act of identifying yourself as a particular kind of person. Does it say or even HINT that it refers to you being born any particular way?

      Are you still having trouble reading English? Again, what language would be better for you?

      Delete
    21. "Self-identification" doesn't mean it's a choice. If you naturally are attracted to women, then you identify yourself as heterosexual. But, since you put yourself in this unenviable position, you can easily refute that by explaining how and when you chose to be straight.

      Delete
    22. I don't have to explain anything about myself to you or anyone else. My claim is that homosexuality is immoral and you stated this immoral act is becoming more acceptable because of a change in time. My moral standards do not agree with you and you have been bringing up gay animals, marriage, race relations and word definitions ever since.

      The word says SELF-IDENTIFICATION. Not NATURE-IDENTIFICATION or GENETIC-IDENTIFICATION. You choose to identify yourself as one identity over another. CHOICE. Nothing else but CHOICE. I even brought you the definition of the word "self-identification" and that definition agrees with what I say and disagrees with what you say. Can you explain that?

      Delete
    23. "I don't have to explain anything about myself to you or anyone else."

      Sorry, but you do. Unless you want to say that you don't have an "orientation", which would definitely require some added explanation.

      Your definition doesn't suggest "choice", again. If you're naturally attracted to women, then you identify yourself as heterosexual. It's just that simple. Labeling that a "choice" makes no sense, because the alternative to labeling yourself as "heterosexual" is to choose to label yourself as "bisexual", for instance. Can you explain why you would choose to do that? You know what you are, so where does self-deception come into play, exactly?

      Delete
    24. What if you're attracted to women but chose to have sex with men. Are you heterosexual by "self-identification" or homosexual by actions?


      "Sorry, but you do." ... Ok, I chose to be heterosexual when I was 4. When did you make your choice?

      Delete
    25. "What if you're attracted to women but chose to have sex with men."

      You would be "bisexual" by self-identification, obviously. It makes no sense that someone chooses to have sex with a person of a gender they're not attracted to.

      "... Ok, I chose to be heterosexual when I was 4."

      So you were attracted to boys, therefore you're bisexual. Otherwise, you never made a choice.

      Delete
    26. "It makes no sense that someone chooses to have sex with a person of a gender they're not attracted to."

      YOU just said self-identification and sexual preference are CHOICE. Are you a liberal? Because this entire time you've been saying that both were NOT choices, now you claim they are choice. How can someone make 2 opposing claims, like that, if you aren't wacked-out extreme liberal?


      "So you were attracted to boys, therefore you're bisexual. Otherwise, you never made a choice."

      I have NEVER been a Catholic Priest. I could NOT have been attracted to boys.
      What an amazing straw-man argument. How could you possibly say I preferred boys before I was 4? Did you make choices on what sex you liked before you were properly informed about both? But, otherwise, yeah I thought girls were icky when a was an infant. Of course I had no ability to make an informed decision until I became 4 so any decision NOT made before that would have been an un-informed decision (the kind that liberals make). And, certainly wouldn't fit within your parameters of being gay or bi-sexual. Well, that goes to prove your animal analogy is wrong also. Unless you can definitely prove those dogs we've been discussing are having sex BECAUSE they are gay or BECAUSE they are bi-sexual. How are you able to distinguish between the 2?? Otherwise you are making a wildly idiotic and completely stupid statement that ALL humans alive are be-sexual or gay. You must be a gay liberal if you are saying that all people are either bi or gay.

      Have you ever eaten strychnine or sugar? Which did you like better? How could you have possibly known the difference between which preference you had without trying both?
      What color do you choose to prefer? At what age did you choose to prefer that color? How could you possibly had made a decision on what color you choose to prefer if you didn't know what all the colors were? Did you have a 8-crayon box as a child or a 64-crayon box as a child? You must have liked white as a child because of all the racist tendencies you have expressed. Racists should all eat strychnine at least once in their lifetime. Eat yours soon.

      Delete
    27. "YOU just said self-identification and sexual preference are CHOICE."

      No, I don't believe I did.

      "How could you possibly say I preferred boys before I was 4?"

      Because you yourself said you "chose" to be heterosexual.

      "Unless you can definitely prove those dogs we've been discussing are having sex BECAUSE they are gay or BECAUSE they are bi-sexual."

      If a dog is attracted to a dog of the same sex, then that would fit, yes. That's sort of inherent to the definition.

      Delete
    28. "How are you able to distinguish between the 2?? Otherwise you are making a wildly idiotic and completely stupid statement that ALL humans alive are be-sexual or gay."

      I don't have to distinguish between the two. Homosexual activity is just that. And in fact, you are the one asserting that all humans alive are bisexual, because you're the one saying that people choose whether to be gay or straight. That ONLY makes sense if someone is attracted to both genders. Otherwise, it's not a choice. Would you like to look in the dictionary? Because I can assure you, either you considered homosexuality as a viable possibility, or you're lying. Those are not good options. As for the "racist" nonsense, explain how anything I've said is racist. I'm not even saying "please". Even a child should be able to realize that since I'm supporting gay rights, and I'm comparing YOUR position to that of racists, that I oppose racism. I don't expect you to own up to your reckless charges, but I can at least make you aware of them and prove that you can't back them up.

      Delete
    29. " As for the "racist" nonsense, explain how anything I've said is racist."

      "So you're on record as saying that black people should have just stuck to marrying those of their own race, " .... when you said that, you brought a racial aspect into the discussion that nobody else did. Obviously, you have an ingrown racism problem. What else would even make you think of typing something like that?

      "And in fact, you are the one asserting that all humans alive are bisexual, because you're the one saying that people choose whether to be gay or straight." ..... I think that has to read "gay AND straight" for you concern to be correct. But it doesn't say that, does it? You can choose to be one or the other and you can choose to be both. Still are choices you make.

      "Would you like to look in the dictionary?" .... yes, I'd be interested in what kind of dictionary you use. Since you can't seem to understand the words that have already be defined.

      "I don't expect you to own up to your reckless charges" .... when I make one, please make me aware of it. Especially if there is one I haven't already backed up.

      Delete
    30. ".... when you said that, you brought a racial aspect into the discussion that nobody else did."

      So? When you can point to a dictionary definition that says anything like "brings up race", then you'll have a point. Until then, the actual meaning of "racism" involves a belief that one race is superior to another. Obviously, since I support miscegenation, that's not the case. Meanwhile, the purpose was to point out that you, like a racist, are a bigot. You have yet to explain why mixed-race couples are supposed to stand up against hatred, but homosexuals are supposed to "choose" to be straight.

      "..... I think that has to read "gay AND straight" for you concern to be correct."

      That makes no sense. You're the one saying that you chose to be straight. Did you choose to be gay AND straight? If everyone chooses such a thing, then everyone is attracted to both genders (bisexual).

      Delete
    31. "So?" .... and now the little boy admits being a racist. A racist liberal. You must live in the heart of Mississippi.

      "You have yet to explain why mixed-race couples are supposed to stand up against hatred, but homosexuals are supposed to "choose" to be straight." .... And still demands answers to questions (s)he never asked. Listen, racist, I'm not going to answer your stupid, unrelated questions because you have no clue and are an idiot. Don't make me say this again: STOP FUCKING POSTING

      "Obviously, since I support miscegenation, that's not the case." .... oh, gee, and my cousin is gay so that means I'm not a bigot. You are a class act ... no brains, no morals and no purpose. Sheeple sure have empty souls, don't they?

      Since you have such a hard time using correct names for me, from now on, brabantio, your name is racist. I will refer to you as racist in all future statements. When you stop posting in my direction, I'll stop calling you racist. Ha ha ... no I won't. You will still be called racist.

      Delete
    32. That has to be the lamest cropping job ever. I'll say it again, as if you have the courage to face it:"When you can point to a dictionary definition that says anything like "brings up race", then you'll have a point. Until then, the actual meaning of "racism" involves a belief that one race is superior to another." By the way, since you brought up bestiality when "nobody else did", does that make you a pervert? Your warped logic would suggest so.

      " .... And still demands answers to questions (s)he never asked. Listen, racist, I'm not going to answer your stupid, unrelated questions because you have no clue and are an idiot."

      I never asked that before? "Then why should people have subjected their future children to mockery by marrying someone out of their race?" and "Well, feel free to explain why hatred is the fault of homosexuals, therefore they should "choose" to be straight (like you did...?), while it's not the fault of people who choose to marry outside of their race. If you don't explain the difference, then I simply won't make an assumption as to why your attitude doesn't carry over to anyone who's a victim of bigotry." and "So how are you addressing the issue of miscegenation? Nobody HAS to marry outside of their race. So why shouldn't people just stick to their own race instead of standing up to bigots? The "psychological hatred" issue is either relevant, or it isn't." It's not an unrelated question, because YOU cited harm from other people's hatred as a reason for people not be gay. Either back off of that, or explain why the exact same thing doesn't apply to the choice of marrying someone outside of your race.

      " .... oh, gee, and my cousin is gay so that means I'm not a bigot." That doesn't logically follow at all, because you may hate your cousin for it. Meanwhile, I'm talking about a position that I already took which is completely inconsistent with your phony, desperate charges of racism.

      "Since you have such a hard time using correct names for me, from now on, brabantio, your name is racist."

      Since you've (at least) read the past threads here, you already know that I can't be intimidated. Knock yourself out. Meanwhile, all you're doing is making it obvious that you're kicking and screaming like a child today because you've painted yourself into a corner on your story about "choosing" to be straight. You know, the part of the last post that you somehow forgot to address here?

      Delete
  3. "because 'you say so' and that's final?"

    Sure, putting aside that I referredy to a post which included over 200 citations. Also? Not becuase "I" say so, but rather becuase THEY say so. You know... those people you claim to know so well, but whom you've never actually gortten to know?

    "should anyone else have or express an opinion that fails to align with yours they get read the riot act"

    Bullshit. I've had spirited debates with every single regular poster on this blog. And only you (and William) have this whine. YOU came here and posted HATE. (When you denigrated millions of people you've never even met as "sexual deviants," for example) If you want to have an intellectually honest debate about equal rights, you can start any time. (Though you'd be the first RW'er to ever attempt it, in my experience.)

    "It's a good thing, being the liberal you are, that you don't believe in Jesus Christ"

    And it's a shame that, being a Conservative, you know so little about what he actually preached, taught and stood for. Do you what he, himself, actually said, in the New Testament, about homosexuality? Precisely DICK.

    "BTW, your analogy concerning what CHOICE was made to be heterosexual ... is a grasping strawman. Your stance makes NO sense and has no basis in reality."

    Not in the RW bubble, perhaps, but you'd have a rude awakening if you ever ventured into "reality." I'll accept your concession on the point of choice, seeing as how you apparently DID NOT choose to be strait. Congratulations: You're straight. (And I'm right.)

    And I'll thank you for posting the definition of "biggot." It saves me the trouble of refuting pretty much anything else you have to say.

    And, please, come back anytime. This was fun. (Not to mention good for business, in my experience.)



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know exactly what Jesus Christ says on homosexuality. And He does NOT approve of it as He states SEVERAL times. When it comes to religion you know DICK about it. Why don't you stick to preaching what you DO know (immorality and hate) and leave morality to people who actually believe in it.

      And, obviously, you live in denial. I posted the definition of bigot so you could see what a bigot you are towards the millions of people you've never met based solely on your hate and intolerance of others not like you. So shut your pie-hole you bigot and go back to ignoring your blog site so people who have opinions can post them without being interrupted by your hatefulness.

      So, posting hate is good for business? Only in your kind of world could that be true. And to think you whine about RW being the awful people, yet here you are posting hate and lies and demanding people to love you or you cuss them out like a drunk sailor.

      Your supposed link to 200 facts about transgender people is missing. Why don't you be a good boy and repost it so that you won't seem like such a liar again.

      Delete
    2. Your continued ad hominen attacks are amusing, but only betry you lack of understanding about all things.

      But fair enough - the link I poseted was a path to 200+ citations backing up my views on Homosexuality, not Transgenderism. Tell you what, I'll make you a deal: You provide me with so much as a single Bible Verse in which Jesus Christ, himself, speaks out against homosexuality, and I'll give you a write-up on Trangerism that's as well-cited as the example I did on Homosexuality.

      Until then, all people are free to read what has been posted and conclude what they may from it. I am perfectly comfortable letting me work thus far stand on it's own.

      Delete
    3. In Matthew 19, Jesus is speaking about divorce. In His statements He mentions "sexual immorality" (Matt 19:8). If you're going to deny He is including homosexuality in that statement, what do you consider to be immoral that would fit in that use?
      And for clarification: do you believe Jesus IS God (as Jesus claims) or not? This clarification can go a long way in determining whether you are going to believe anything Jesus says on anything at any time. Or, if you're going to pick-and-choose what to believe, like most liberals choose to do, in order to justify your moral standards.

      Delete
    4. Um, infidelity, maybe? Is your suggestion that homosexuality is the only form of "sexual immorality"? If not, then obviously there are other things that would qualify.

      We've also gone around on this "Jesus is God" calliope before, William. Jesus wiped out all of mankind by flood? Jesus killed dozens of young men by bear for mocking a prophet? It's just a tad bit inconsistent with his message as man's savior, if you think about it for a moment.

      Delete
    5. 8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

      So, what you're saying is that Jesus believed that a man can divorce his wife without it being adultery, as long as he was having homosexual relations? "Except for sexual immorality", plain as day. Maybe that refers to lesbianism, but it seems very strange that if that was the intended meaning that he wouldn't make the reciprocal situation clear at all. Your interpretation seems a bit self-serving, to say the least.

      Delete
    6. Mr B, it is good that you believe Jesus is God. Because now that allows me to use the Old Testament for examples of proof that Jesus does IN FACT say homosexuality is immoral. Like I say, though, you liberals will take your morals and shift them as needed to allow whatever kind of debauchery you can think of. You have no standards to live by, yours change as needed to fit your chosen lifestyle.
      And this proves that Mr Ed is wrong about Jesus NOT denouncing homosexuality. He sure is wrong an awful lot. Is that common at this site? Does he always post wrong information and expect you people to simply believe him because he says it? Doesn't that make you some kind of weird lemming type person? I believe I used the word "sheeple". Is that what you are? A sheeple?

      As for your concern of my "interpretation". I didn't interpret that verse. I asked if homosexuality would be included in "sexual immorality" in that verse. Is that the best you can do when answering questions, Mr B?
      And mankind was not "all" wiped out. As much as you want to blame Jesus for so much bad, He never wiped out all of mankind. Not yet. You seem a lot like the devil who tempted Jesus for 40 days. You quote versus incorrectly, you bring wrong information and you deceive as needed. I don't think you can be trusted in any further conversation as being able to carry on an intelligent conversation with someone who isn't a sheeple.

      Delete
    7. First of all, Brab wins. JC was CLEARLY talking about the sexual immorality OF THE WIFE (adultery) in that passage. Amazing how you lot so habitually quote things out of context. Now, I'll answer your questions, if you'll answer mine...

      I do not believe "Jesus is God," in the sense that you describe, and I very likely do not believe in God in the same sense that you do. This is irrelevant however, because my philosophy on the matters at hand are not based on the Bible. Yours however, by your own declaration, ARE. So you will not convince me of anything by quoting bible verses. BUT, if you believe as you claim to, let's put YOUR belief system to a simple test...

      There are two ways we can look at this. Let's assume JESUS IS GOD, as you say, also that he is the same God of the Flood (etc...) and that the Old Testament (where Homosexuality is mentioned) IS, in fact, God's unerring word. (Again not something I believe, at all, but we'll assume it IS, for the sake of this discussion.) And further, since this is a POLITICAL blog, and not a RELIGIOUS one, let's go one step further and assume that the Laws of our Land should therefore be based on the Laws of the Bible. (Because if they SHOULDN'T then there's no reason to ban gay marriage, outlaw abortion, regulate porn, etc...) Yes?

      Do you therefore also think it should be LAW that we...

      Circumcise all offspring? (Gen. 17:12; Lev. 12:3)
      Put fringes on the corners of clothing? (Num. 15:38)
      Not gather single grapes that have fallen to the ground? (Lev. 19:10)
      Not allow a bastard [illegitimate son] to marry? (Deut.23:3)
      Only allow a widow whose husband died childless to be remarried to her deceased husband's brother? (Deut. 25:5)
      Not to have intercourse with a woman during menses?(Lev. 18:19)
      Not castrate the male of any species; neither a man, nor a domestic or wild beast, nor a fowl? (Lev. 22:24)
      Not do work on Sabbath? (Ex. 20:10)
      Not eat things that swarm in the water? (Lev. 11:43 and 46)
      Not to take part in any usurious transaction between borrower and lender, neither as a surety, nor as a witness, nor as a writer of the bond for them? (Ex. 22:24)
      Keep Canaanite slaves forever? (Lev. 25:46)
      Not cross-breed cattle of different species? (Lev. 19:19)
      Not sow different kinds of seed together in one field? (Lev.19:19)
      That women not wear men's clothing? (Like Pants?) (Deut. 22:5)
      Appoint a king? (Deut. 17:15)

      I could go on. There are, of course, 617 of these, in the Old Testament, which YOU, my friend, brought into play here, thus invalidating the standard reply of "Jesus = New Covenant = I can pick-and-choose what to believe with impunity."

      Now, when I ask you "Do you believe that each and every one of these should be the LAWS OF OUR LAND, enforced by our Government and punishable under Constitutional Law?" A word of advice...

      TRY not to look like it's YOU who's "pick[ing]-and-choos[ing] what to believe, like most [conservatives] choose to do, in order to justify your moral standards."

      And before you go on a tirade about my "lack of belief" (save me the trouble of reading you the First Amendment) allow me to point out that, for the same reason I believe that Evolution MUST be taught in every Science Classroom, I don't need to BELIEVE IT to understand WHAT IT SAYS. Belief is not required, but knowing what something says allows one to speak intelligently on the matter as opposed to just throwing out easily debunked talking points.

      So, please, I beg you, in your next post, just answer this simple question: If Jesus is GOD, and the Old testament (according to Jesus) is God's unerring Word, then do you believe that all 617 Laws from the Old Testament (including the examples above) should be the LAWS of our Land?

      Let's see can you answer that without looking like either a law-breaker(hypocrite) yourself, or one who picks-and-chooses (hypocrite).

      Lots of luck, my friend.

      Delete
    8. "Mr B, it is good that you believe Jesus is God."

      Where did you get that from? My point was clearly the opposite.

      "As for your concern of my "interpretation". I didn't interpret that verse. I asked if homosexuality would be included in "sexual immorality" in that verse. Is that the best you can do when answering questions, Mr B?"

      Why did you ask the question, if your point wasn't that Jesus was referring to homosexuality? I think the performance issue is with your question, since by your logic Jesus was condemning heterosexual relations as well. Apparently he thought the human race should die out.

      "And mankind was not "all" wiped out. As much as you want to blame Jesus for so much bad, He never wiped out all of mankind."

      So your point is that a handful of people weren't killed, or is it that Jesus wasn't responsible for the flood? The former seems just a little picky, seeing how my meaning was obvious.

      Delete
    9. "Jesus was condemning heterosexual relations as well."

      Yes, immoral heterosexual relations as well. Very good, Mr B.

      "JC was CLEARLY talking about the sexual immorality OF THE WIFE (adultery) in that passage."

      No, that is not clear. What IS clear is that He mentions "sexual immorality" during His explanations of what is allowed for divorce. Now, you tell me: what is sexual immorality? What IS clear is that He gives a reason to allow divorce and you pigeon-hole it into ONE circumstance ... to make it fit within your liberal moral standards. Very good, Mr Ed.

      "I do not believe "Jesus is God," in the sense that you describe, and I very likely do not believe in God in the same sense that you do."

      Then, clearly, I cannot discuss a topic with you where you pick and choose statements, made by a person you don't even believe in, and use them to defend your moral standards. And, again clearly, the rest of your statements carry no weight what-so-ever in your continued defense of homosexuality for that very same reason.
      Sorry, pal, I'm no hypocrite. I understand what the Bible says and don't misinterpret it to deceive others.

      Delete
    10. "Let's see can you answer [the question] without looking like either a law-breaker(hypocrite) yourself, or one who picks-and-chooses (hypocrite)."

      You didn't. You dodged. You can't.

      Point. Set. Game. Match.

      I accept your concession on all points. Thank you.

      Next time answer the fucking question, dipshit.

      Delete
    11. Oh? Demonstrate where I "pick and choose" or "law-breaking" of any type. When you resort to your type of discussion it isn't me who looks like the "dipshit".

      Delete
    12. The answer to your question is no. OUR land is not who God was speaking to during the Old Testament. OUR land is not even mentioned in the Old Testament. We are NOT to follow ALL 617 (made up number?) laws you cite "of our land".

      Delete
    13. "Yes, immoral heterosexual relations as well. Very good, Mr B."

      Then the immorality of the heterosexual relations is based on the infidelity. It can't possibly be taken as a commentary on homosexuality, as I've just demonstrated it can't be taken as one on heterosexuality. If that's your strongest example of Jesus (not God) denouncing gay people, you've just plain lost.

      Delete
    14. If you believe ANY words of Jesus, you must believe that He calls Himself God. If you are going to base all your arguements on pick-and-choose verse's (like Mr Ed) then there isn't any more we can really discuss.

      Why would you even try to make a religious arguement when you aren't even a believer?

      Delete
    15. You're the one making a religious argument, I'm just showing how it's not valid. Besides, your presumption is erroneous as well. It's very much possible to believe that Jesus was a philosopher and not "God". It's also possible to believe that he never claimed to be God, since the Bible was written afterwards and ultimately formed by a council.

      So, since you're falling back so heavily on "Jesus-IS-God", that means that Jesus himself never said anything against homosexuality, right? Because that was your claim earlier ("I know exactly what Jesus Christ says on homosexuality. And He does NOT approve of it as He states SEVERAL times.")

      Delete
    16. I "presume" nothing. I am stating as fact that Jesus calls Himself God and I believe Him. You, on the other hand, do not believe. Which accounts for your constantly changing moral standards. That is what I said at the beginning and you are doing your best to prove me correct. You are defending your lack of moral consistency with arguments that "Jesus isn't God" as your best defense. So, if you're done performing your standard sheeple commentary, we can conclude this exercise in futility.

      Obviously, you want to ignore the heart of the matter (inconsistent moral standards) and instead you want to defend all animals as being gay. Without any evidence, of course, but you make that defense just the same. You better defend your claims that being gay is NOT choice or harmful or, you can continue to make non-sequitur arguments on Jesus after I brought the ONE verse you asked me to.


      "Tell you what, I'll make you a deal: You provide me with so much as a single Bible Verse in which Jesus Christ, himself, speaks out against homosexuality, and I'll give you a write-up on Trangerism that's as well-cited as the example I did on Homosexuality."

      Are you now backing away from the promise you made? I provided the single verse, now you provide that write-up. Unless you're going to deny you said that too, Mr Ed (brabantio). Is that your game?

      Delete
    17. "If you believe ANY words of Jesus, you must believe that He calls Himself God."

      That's a presumption. I "must" believe it, according to you, and that goes beyond your personal belief.

      Are you sure you're talking to the right person? NiceGuyEddie is the one who talked about the write-up. Besides that, your Bible verse was blown out of the water for reasons already stated (and then unaddressed in the post I'm replying to).

      "Jesus isn't God" has nothing to do with my moral consistency, it has to do with your argument that Jesus Christ is on record as speaking out against homosexuality. Many people are perfectly capable of establishing a moral code without an old book or threats of a higher power's holy retribution. I know that's impossible for you to assimilate, but it's true.

      Did I say "all" animals were gay? No, I didn't. So much for your Noah's Ark criticism earlier.

      When you tell me the story of when and how you chose to be straight, we can talk about homosexuality as a choice. Otherwise, you negate your own argument. Also, you should look up "non sequitur". It obviously doesn't mean what you think it does.

      And "constantly changing moral standards" would actually require some sort of change. I've supported gay rights as long as I can remember knowing about them. You really have no idea of what you're talking about.

      Delete
    18. "Did I say "all" animals were gay? No, I didn't."

      Which animals did you say were NOT gay? Because I read and re-read your posts and you consistently say "animals". Does the plural use of animals mean only 2 are gay? Just how many animals are you talking about who are proven to be born gay? Where is your proof that they are gay and not acting on urges ... like the dog that will hump anything that is convenient.


      I didn't say you "MUST" believe Jesus is God, I said "IF" you believe some of His statements then you must believe He calls Himself God. Unless you want to pick-and-choose in order to defend your lack of moral consistency. Which is what I said at that time, also. So, if you're going to defend your stance on homosexuality using the words of Jesus then you must accept that Jesus does not support the homosexual lifestyle.

      Delete
    19. "Which animals did you say were NOT gay?"

      I never specified one way or the other. Assuming that "animals" meant "all animals" is bizarre in the extreme. FYI:http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

      And you're still not explaining what you could possibly consider to be "gay". Nor have you explained the alternative to "born" gay, since you have no logical construct of how an animal could be "turned" gay. Yet again, what the hell is the distinction between "gay" and "urges"? If homosexuality is supposedly unnatural, and has no purpose, then why does it occur ("urges" or not) in NATURE?

      "I didn't say you "MUST" believe Jesus is God, I said "IF" you believe some of His statements then you must believe He calls Himself God."

      Yes, which is what I quoted you as saying. It's a presumption, because one thing doesn't follow the other, as I explained. Just because you believe he said some things doesn't mean other things weren't attributed to him after his death.

      "So, if you're going to defend your stance on homosexuality using the words of Jesus then you must accept that Jesus does not support the homosexual lifestyle."

      Because Jesus condemned infidelity? Sorry, so do I, and that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with monogamous homosexual relationships.

      Delete
    20. "and that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with monogamous homosexual relationships." .... at what point did I say there is anything wrong with it? I said it is immoral and our nations lower moral standards are now leading to the approval of immoral behavior.


      "Nor have you explained the alternative to "born" gay, since you have no logical construct of how an animal could be "turned" gay." .... have you explained the alternative to being born a beastiologist? Because if you are born that way then I shouldn't stand in your way of fullfilling your first love. Is that why you keep talking about gay animals? Because you love them and they love you? How can you make a choice like homosexuality if the same possibilities aren't there for your choice of beastiology? If you haven't tried beastiology, then you can't say you don't like it and can't say you aren't one. How can you make such a decision without trying? At what age did you choose homosexuality? So, before that you were a beastiologist? Either way, both are immoral in my mind. You can do which ever one you prefer to choose to perform. Make sure you ask for all the civil rights that gay people get when you come out of the closet for being into beastiology.


      Delete
    21. ".... at what point did I say there is anything wrong with it? I said it is immoral and our nations lower moral standards are now leading to the approval of immoral behavior."

      But there's nothing wrong with it. That sure made sense.

      ".... have you explained the alternative to being born a beastiologist?"

      Spelling aside, who cares? It's animal abuse, so whether it's an orientation or not (and it isn't) isn't relevant.

      "How can you make a choice like homosexuality if the same possibilities aren't there for your choice of beastiology?"

      What the hell is that supposed to mean, exactly? Do you think you could choose to be attracted to animals?

      Please make an effort to weed through that word salad and explain what bestiality (an actual word) has to do with anything here.

      Delete
    22. " Do you think you could choose to be attracted to animals?" .... well, you're saying that some immoralities can happen with complete acceptance, by you, but not others? That seems like a choice of what your morality standards are. Which is what I commented about to from your first post. Why have you gone so far off topic that it leads to this?

      Delete
    23. You brought up bestiality, not me. So let's shoot down (again) any whining from you about "off topic". Your argument isn't very clear here. You don't "choose" your morality standards? I'm looking forward of your explanation of what's wrong with me saying that bestiality is wrong, since it's animal abuse, but homosexuality is not, because it involves two consenting adults. Yes, some things YOU consider immoral are accepted, because some people think for themselves instead of referencing an old book.

      Delete
    24. "You brought up bestiality, not me. So let's shoot down (again) any whining from you about "off topic"." .... fuck you, punk. I started my posts with 'I think the morality has declined' statement, and you and the rest take it everywhere else. You're a stupid little person with no sense of reality ... and you're trying to tell me how to act? FUCK YOU

      "Yes, some things YOU consider immoral are accepted, because some people think for themselves instead of referencing an old book." ... which is what I said in the beginning, you complete moron. You don't think for yourself. Anyone and everyone can see that from the posts you do. You're just a little boy who is a little sheeple. You have no thoughts of your own what-so-ever and you're trying to discuss morality as if you are God Himself. Stop posting ... you're an idiot and it shows.

      Delete
    25. ".... fuck you, punk. I started my posts with 'I think the morality has declined' statement, and you and the rest take it everywhere else. You're a stupid little person with no sense of reality ... and you're trying to tell me how to act? FUCK YOU"

      Poor baby, are you upset that your hypocrisy doesn't get past me? Try not being a flaming hypocrite, then. You bring up bestiality, making all sorts of sick suggestions about me simply because you can't hold up your end of a conversation, and then you go all Tarantino on me when I throw "off topic" back at you? Some Christian you are, you twisted cretin. I've been much more civil than you deserve, so don't you dare pretend that you have the sort of leverage to act like that.

      "... which is what I said in the beginning, you complete moron. You don't think for yourself. Anyone and everyone can see that from the posts you do. You're just a little boy who is a little sheeple."

      That isn't what you said, because I'm making the point that your views are just your views. It's not the decline of society just because you're behind the times. As for "sheeple", you seem to be following William's every footstep on these boards, so you really don't have room to talk about that. I can justify everything I post, with my own reasoning. Test me if you don't believe it.

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Oh? Demonstrate where I "pick and choose" or "law-breaking" of any type."

    You make William look like a fucking genius. I never said you did either of these things. (YET, anyway.) I pointed out that you avoided doing either by DODGING MY QUESTION:

    Do you believe that the 617 laws of the Old Testmament, including the examples I gave above, should be the COMMON LAW OF OUR LAND?

    You avoided the "hypocrite" label by going "coward" and not answering the question with a strait, clear, simple answer. Now either answer the question, and demonstrate your hypocrisy which will happen no matter which answer you give, or keep dodging, and tacitly admit your cowardice. (Again conceding my point as you do so.) There's no way out of this trap, and your God will not help you here. Now answer the fucking question or STFU.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I answered your question yesterday. Does your bigoted hate blind you so much that you won't even read what is posted?

      Delete
    2. Hey: It's easy to miss.

      All politics asaide, I'm not crazy about the limited embedding capability of blogger. Makes it very hard to keep comments organized.


      Now back to politics... I saw your answer. I've now replied to it. You chose hypocrisy. Well done.

      Delete
    3. Where is the hypocrisy in my answer? How could you possibly say that? Are you that ignorant of the Bible? I guess I shouldn't ask questions I don't know the answer to, huh? Maybe you ARE that ignorant ... well, not maybe.

      Delete
    4. Part 1/2

      Crap. I wrote out a lengthy response, but looks it got eaten by the spam-monster and now it’s gone. I don’t feel like writing it all out again, and hardly think it’s necessary. Here’s the short version:

      Points I don’t concede:

      1) That JC was condemning homosexuality in the NT passage you cited. Frankly, I don’t see how you can get that from that passage & Brabantio agrees with me.

      Points I concede, for the sake of argument:
      1) Jesus is God
      2) Jesus said the OT was God’s word
      3) Homosexuality is condemned in the OT
      4) Given 1,2&3: Jesus condemned homosexuality in the OT.

      Furthermore:
      5) “Liberals” are [bad] because “pick and choose” which parts to believe in order to “justify their morals”
      6) If you believe anything JC said, you must believe EVERYTHING JC said. (Including the OT, as God)

      So fine, accepting your points 4-6, I gave about a dozen examples of other things that also were condemned in the OT by God (Jesus) & asked you if you think these things should be Laws.

      You said you did not.

      So you're a hypocrite. You judged me for “picking and choosing,” and yet you do the same. You are keeping the OT Law against Homosexuality, yet ignoring many others. You “picked and chose” after judging me (and Liberals) for doing so. Ergo: Hypocrite.

      AND, if we don’t use the OT Laws as the basis for our Common Law, the why are you using it to justify taking away the legal rights of Gays?

      And you’d still be a hypocrite if you’d said yes, because I’d have an absurdly hard time believing that you actually live according to ALL of those laws. (Unless you really want to outlaw pants for women, neutering pets, mules, etc… And if you did? Fine. Then you’re not a hypocrite. Just a fanatic / zealot.)

      Couple of other points to clear up…

      I don’t give a shit what name you call me. You simply seemed confused as to how many people are involved in this debate, and I made fun of you for it. Suggesting that I’M the one that's bent out shape over being called the wrong name? That’s just idiotic. (I see a pattern forming.)

      (con't)

      Delete
    5. (Cont'd, part 2/2)

      And as for the “scientific proof?” First you read something that clealry says one thing and then you say it says the other. The you play the same old BS game by bringing up genetics. Who said that genetics is the only way you can be "born a certain way?" And how does it follow that because scientists haven't found the gene yet, that means that it's not there? That doesn’t follow at all! They haven’t found the Autism gene yet either. This is much to my frustration, as I have two sons with Autism. Thing is? I still know they were born that way. I know this because researchers are able to identify markers as early as six months after birth. (Just as they can find evidence in children that strongly coreleates to orientation later in life. Not to mention that EVERY SINGLE GAY PERSON says they were!)(Just like EVERY SINGLE STRAIT PERSON says they were!) And sure: there may be environmental factors. And there may be for either Autism, or homosexuality. That STILL invalidates the idea that one CHOOSES their orientation.

      You also say that “gender” is assigned by genetics (not true, but whatever) then how do you explain someone who’s trans? Or intersexed? I guess they all chose to be that way to, huh? (Don't bother answering, I know what you'll say, and I'm done arguing with you.)

      Finally, the Red-Heads example. YES, I DO want civil rights because of it! Namely those “inalienable” ones of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!” I didn’t CHOOSE to like Red heads. I chose to PURSUE them (ONE in particular.) And thankfully I have that right! But if someone wanted to take it away from me, simply because they can “prove” “scientifically” that blondes are better? (Or cherry pick Bible verses to say that “Jesus said so?”) Then YES, that would absolutely be a violation of my civil rights!

      But if you need “scientific proof” that one doesn’t choose preferences, but rather chooses whether or not to act upon them, then you’re right: There’s no point in discussion it further. Because that’s a completely idiotic thing to ask for. The truth of this is self-evident. It’s not a scientific discussion, it’s a philosophical one, and an idiotic one at that.

      We don’t choose what will make us happy. The only choice we have is whether or not we pursue it.

      You lot want to TAKE AWAY fundamental human rights simply because their path is different from yours, and they don’t CHOOSE to comply with your moral paradigm, and to hell with their happiness. Whatever. I’m done with you. Feel free to have the last word(s). I’m comfortable that between me and Brabantio, no one who’s not already brainwashed will agree with you.

      Delete
    6. "You said you did not." .... I said: "not all". Obviously, there are some that are just not directed at us (today ... NT era). Like growing sideburns 'just right' as an example. Those laws were to teach a different thing than what we are taught now. How does the length of your sideburns even remotely carry any "morality" weight? You can't seriously be using that as an indication that I am a hypocrite for not following God's law are you?

      "the why are you using it to justify taking away the legal rights of Gays?" .... I never indicated I wanted to refuse anyone any legal rights. I said it was immoral and the acceptance of it an indication of the decay of our moral standards as a people. How did you get I'm taking away anyone's rights out of that?

      "You simply seemed confused as to how many people are involved in this debate, and I made fun of you for it." .... so did you and I made fun of you for it, too.

      "Who said that genetics is the only way you can be "born a certain way?" " .... Um, science says that. Maybe (apparently) not the same science you believe in.

      "They haven’t found the Autism gene yet either." ... Autism is a dis-order, isn't it? If they find a "gene" for autism, will that make it a normal condition? I've heard it is caused by external influences (industrial/environmental chemicals for instance) would that be correct? Are you on record for saying that homosexuality is a dis-order? Because unless they are equal in cause then they cannot be equal in comparison. And if homosexuality is a dis-order how can you say it is a natural condition when it would be caused by an un-natural force?

      "But if someone wanted to take it away from me, simply because they can “prove” “scientifically” that blondes are better?" ... like brabantio, you're making the wrong assumptions. Nobody has compared discriminating against red-heads. The analogy was that YOU PREFER RED-HEADS and that would get YOU discriminated against because of THAT preference. So, if you want to re-answer that portion, go right ahead.

      "We don’t choose what will make us happy." .... I think you are wrong there. Most, if not all, will choose what will make us happy in any direct choice of happy/un-happy options. I would say it would be a rarity to find someone who WANTS to choose unhappiness over happiness. Either way, it would still be a choice.

      "You lot want to TAKE AWAY fundamental human rights simply because their path is different from yours," .... "MY LOT"?!? Again, I'm not seeking denial of any rights. I am claiming a downward trend of our moral standards, using the ACCEPTANCE of homosexuality as an example. Where did I say I wanted to restrict rights of ANYONE? Try to stay focused on what is being discussed before you assume things that are not.

      Thanks, I'll take that last word. I not seeking agreement from anyone but myself and my God. I'm not posting to change your minds. I'm posting because I can. You can choose to agree or dis-agree with me, it doesn't make any difference to me. But, you do look pretty silly making arguments that I never made in my concern over the degradation of our morals.

      Delete
    7. "Like growing sideburns 'just right' as an example. Those laws were to teach a different thing than what we are taught now"

      What's the modern application for opposing homosexuality? What two consenting adults do has no impact on you whatsoever, so opposing that is just as arbitrary as me saying people shouldn't have sideburns because I think they look ridiculous.

      "How did you get I'm taking away anyone's rights out of that?"

      If people don't accept homosexuality, what's the end result of that? I suppose you think that millions of people are going to throw up their hands and say "damn, you caught us. We were lying about not being attracted to the opposite sex the whole time!" Realistically, people will still be gay, because that's always been the case. So societal disapproval means...laws, or what, in your grand plan here?

      "... Autism is a dis-order, isn't it? If they find a "gene" for autism, will that make it a normal condition?"

      That doesn't even begin to make sense. Downs Syndrome is genetic, is that a "normal condition"?

      "Are you on record for saying that homosexuality is a dis-order? Because unless they are equal in cause then they cannot be equal in comparison."

      That's absurd. Being left-handed is a genetic deviation. Is that supposed to be "equal" to autism?

      Delete
    8. " .... I think you are wrong there. Most, if not all, will choose what will make us happy in any direct choice of happy/un-happy options. I would say it would be a rarity to find someone who WANTS to choose unhappiness over happiness."

      Which makes it very difficult for you to explain why so many people have been gay in the face of everything from simple mockery to being disowned by their parents to threats of death. Which is a big part of what makes this such a common-sense issue, as was my original point. Thanks for the support.

      And I mean that sincerely. Look at the lengths you have to go to to justify your views. Claiming Jesus spoke out agaist homosexuality specifically because infidelity could "include" homosexual acts. Acting as if dog can't tell the difference between a pillow and another dog. Making the mental leap, somehow, to bestiality. Claiming that a proportionately high occurrence of AIDS qualifies as "harm". Normal people don't have such impaired mental processes, William. They can look at the reality of the situation and conclude that this isn't a problem. People threw out the Bible when it came to women's rights as well, it had nothing to do with "morality" as you view it. It has to do with how we treat our fellow human beings, which is what true morality is all about. You would seemingly have the Boy Scouts discriminate against teenagers because of AIDS (?!) and adultery (?!!!!). It makes no sense, William, and it's a visibly-shrinking minority which even pretends that it does. Fortunately.

      Delete
    9. "Which makes it very difficult for you to explain why so many people have been gay in the face of everything from simple mockery to being disowned by their parents to threats of death." .... You explained it in your own post. They are doing it to make THEMSELVES happy, not to please the parents or anyone else. They understand there will be problems, but they are making that CHOICE for their own HAPPINESS.

      Delete
    10. "What's the modern application for opposing homosexuality?" ... morality

      Delete
    11. "They are doing it to make THEMSELVES happy, not to please the parents or anyone else. They understand there will be problems, but they are making that CHOICE for their own HAPPINESS."

      Problems? Let's take getting disowned, for instance. You're trying to tell me that someone who can make a "choice" as to who they're attracted to will choose to be gay even if it means losing their family? Why wouldn't they just choose to be straight, in this fantasy of yours? If they can't be happy with someone of the opposite sex, then how can you possibly say it's a "choice"?

      " ... morality"

      No, something practical, twit. You can claim morality for anything, let's hear something objective that you don't need a Bible to buy into.

      Delete
    12. "Problems?" ... yeah, problems. What do you think causes all those problems? Right ... morality. Now for you to say morality isn't an acceptable reason is simply wrong. Not all homosexuals have the problems you listed. Some enjoy the choices they make and revel in them.

      "No, something practical, twit. You can claim morality for anything, let's hear something objective that you don't need a Bible to buy into." .... follow this closely (if possible). I don't claim morality comes from the Bible. Do YOU need the Bible to set your morals? Hmmm, you don't need the Bible to set your morals? There's the proof I need to shoot another of your lame complaints down again.

      Delete
    13. "... yeah, problems. What do you think causes all those problems? Right ... morality. Now for you to say morality isn't an acceptable reason is simply wrong."

      No, your answer of "morality" is simply wrong, because it's circular. Here's your quote, for context:"Like growing sideburns 'just right' as an example. Those laws were to teach a different thing than what we are taught now. How does the length of your sideburns even remotely carry any "morality" weight?" So, when faced with the question of what the modern basis for opposing homosexuality is, similar to the "sideburns" issue, your reply is...(drum roll) "morality". Incredible.

      "Not all homosexuals have the problems you listed."

      Excellent takedown of that strawman. I never said "all" homosexuals. The fact that it ever happens makes your comments highly suspect, and difficult for you to justify.

      "I don't claim morality comes from the Bible."

      So your basis for concluding homosexuality is immoral is...?

      "Do YOU need the Bible to set your morals? Hmmm, you don't need the Bible to set your morals? There's the proof I need to shoot another of your lame complaints down again."

      That wasn't even in the same Zip code as sensible. The key word is "objective", meaning that much of what's in the Bible doesn't make sense today. You know, like the list that Eddie gave you earlier? Stuff like that. I also have no idea of what me not needing a Bible has to do with anyone else, since we would be talking about two different people. If I had said "everyone needs a Bible to set their morals", then your response would actually follow it instead of being more of your random ranting.

      Delete
    14. "Stuff like that. I also have no idea of what me not needing a Bible has to do with anyone else, since we would be talking about two different people." ... I take it you are embarrassed to admit you don't get your morals from the Bible? I have to assume because it makes you look pretty silly asking me to prove something you proved just being you.

      "Incredible." ... Yes, that is incredible. Incredible you can't read what you just wrote. Not so incredible you don't understand anything. That is expected.

      Delete
    15. I'm not embarrassed at all. Why would I be embarrassed when you just said you don't claim morality comes from the Bible?

      Was that nonsense really the only thing you could provide in response to my post? I accept your surrender on all the other points, then.

      Delete
    16. "Why would I be embarrassed when you just said you don't claim morality comes from the Bible?" ... becaue you declined to accept objective morality as a reason. Yet you use Bible-less objective morality daily.

      Delete
    17. What "objective morality" did you cite? Your vague "morality" comment was circular, as I noted, and didn't answer the question. Be more specific.

      Delete
    18. So let's recap a little here. This was your point:

      "It won't be accepted because people "realize it's not a choice", but because of the lax moral standards that those people possess."

      "Lax moral standards". Now we're trying to figure out where, exactly, you get your morality from.

      "I don't claim morality comes from the Bible."

      And yet, you twisted yourself into a pretzel trying to prove that Jesus himself spoke out against homosexuality. Why? If you don't get your morality from the Bible, then you don't need Jesus to support your cause. If it's just your concept of a god, then what have you attributed to that god that's not in the Bible?

      Thus far, all you've cited for harmfulness is AIDS and psychological hatred. If you don't think that other changes of societal values were immoral, such as civil rights or women's suffrage, then why now? There was hatred then as well. And if it's AIDS, then you were perfectly accepting of homosexuality up until 1980 or so? But there was no such disease in Biblical times, so that takes us back to the question of why you need to put words in the mouth of Jesus.

      If you're going to talk about morality, then let's get some sort of idea of what the hell you're talking about. The word doesn't mean "that's how I feel", which seems to be the way you're using it so far. And I also look forward to your explanation of why society is supposed to conform to a standard of behavior that exists only in your mind.

      This shouldn't be hard, so try not to cry too much over it.

      Delete
    19. "And I also look forward to your explanation of why society is supposed to conform to a standard of behavior that exists only in your mind." ... See? That's why you shouldn't be allowed to post. I NEVER SAID ANYONE MUST CONFORM TO MY MORAL STANDARD. I said the moral standards are dropping. I look forward to you fully explaining why you haven't been able to learn how to read, yet.

      Delete
    20. But if they don't conform to your moral standard, then morals are going down the drain, according to you. Yet, you give no basis for your morality. So, as I said, it's basically just code for "that's how I feel".

      "Morality" is your entire argument, but you can't even explain why homosexuality is supposedly immoral. Do better.

      Delete
    21. I am taught murder is a sin. I am taught sexual perversion is a sin. I am taught breaking the laws of the land is a sin. Do you get the picture here? I decide for myself which is moral or not. For instance I think murder is immoral. I don't think Jay-Walking is immoral, but it is against the law therefore illegal which makes it a sin. I don't think pot use is immoral but it is illegal. Moral sin? Immoral sin? I decide using my moral judgement. Which is what you asked me for.

      Delete
    22. So, yet again, what is your basis for declaring homosexuality immoral? It's not illegal.

      Delete
    23. It's a sexual perversion. Didn't I list that in the post you didn't read?

      Delete
    24. Oh, sorry, I thought you said you thought for yourself. Who "taught" you that sexual perversion is a sin?

      Delete
    25. And, of course, if you can decide that something can be a sin but not be "immoral", then what difference does it make if it's a sexual perversion? That's obviously not the standard you're using anyway.

      Delete
    26. Who "taught" you that sexual perversion is a sin?" ... God.

      I don't understand your second statement. Are you telling me that I should not consider sexual perversion a sin because you don't think it is? What standard do you think I'm using?

      Delete
    27. "... God."

      He spoke to you personally?

      "I don't understand your second statement."

      The question is about why you claim homosexuality is "immoral". You make a distinction between "sin" and "immoral". Ergo, you saying that homosexuality is a "sin" does not answer the question.

      Delete
    28. Ok, God's Word taught me that homosexuality is a sin. Was that really that difficult to understand?


      "You make a distinction between "sin" and "immoral". " ... very good. You're starting to pay attention. I did make that distinction, didn't I? So, what "standards" do you think I'm using? Or are you just putting words into my mouth AGAIN? (something you claim you never do).

      Delete
    29. "Was that really that difficult to understand?"

      Not at all, I simply wanted to clarify because of this particular exchange:

      Me:"No, something practical, twit. You can claim morality for anything, let's hear something objective that you don't need a Bible to buy into."

      You:".... follow this closely (if possible). I don't claim morality comes from the Bible."

      So, you don't claim morality comes from the Bible, but your only rationale for opposing homosexuality comes from...guess where? Color me surprised.

      "So, what "standards" do you think I'm using?"

      I don't know, hence me asking you that very question. If a "sin" isn't necessarily immoral, then what makes homosexuality immoral?

      Delete
    30. "So, you don't claim morality comes from the Bible, but your only rationale for opposing homosexuality comes from...guess where?" ... no, I don't. I claim my explanation of what is "sin" comes from the Bible. After that, I make my decision on morals. Do you have something that disagrees with that statement? No? "Color me surprised"

      " If a "sin" isn't necessarily immoral, then what makes homosexuality immoral?" ... my decision.

      Delete
    31. "... no, I don't. I claim my explanation of what is "sin" comes from the Bible."

      Which is your only explanation of what makes it "immoral". In this very post, when asked what else you're using to make that decision, you say "my decision". So don't act as if you're thinking freely until you explain how you're actually thinking.

      Delete

    32. "So don't act as if you're thinking freely until you explain how you're actually thinking." ... Are you telling me I cannot have my own personal opinion? Are you telling me that if I do, then it is wrong if it doesn't abide with yours? That's what it looks like you are saying. Please clarify your position on the importance of what I'm "actually thinking" while making my moral decisions. I can make any decision I feel like without having to explain to you anything. I've told you my concerns, you either accept them or don't.

      Delete
    33. "... Are you telling me I cannot have my own personal opinion?"

      No, I'm saying not to act as if you're thinking freely when all you're doing is nodding to the Bible. My wording was pretty clear. If you really don't get it, refer to my post that begins with:"So let's recap a little here. This was your point:'It won't be accepted because people 'realize it's not a choice', but because of the lax moral standards that those people possess.'"

      You can believe what you want, but don't act as if you're the arbiter of societal moral standards because of how you feel and nothing else. Is that too vague for you?

      Delete
    34. "No, I'm saying not to act as if you're thinking freely when all you're doing is nodding to the Bible." ... You have expressed no other way for you to decide your morals except by using the Bible also. Unless you give me the process you choose your morals, then all you are doing is "nodding to the Bible" too.

      "You can believe what you want, but don't act as if you're the arbiter of societal moral standards because of how you feel and nothing else." ... funny thing is that I am NOT doing that. All I am doing is telling you what my moral choices are. I am not telling you how to live your life ... I'm telling you how I live mine. If you can't see that difference, then you really are not worthy any honest conversation. I think I'll use your method of conversation and just make shit up, from now on, just to keep you hanging on every post ... to make sure you keep checking for updates every hour or so. You seem just the right intelligence to fall for that.

      Delete
    35. "... You have expressed no other way for you to decide your morals except by using the Bible also."

      Oh, please. I don't believe in the Bible, and the argument that it's needed for morals is just plain stupid. The Code of Hammurabi existed long before the Bible came around. How do you think it was determined back then that murder, theft, etc. were wrong? Psychic visions? And I hope you know that the Golden Rule has been conceived by multiple people throughout time, so it's not purely a Christian concept by any stretch of the imagination. Get over yourself.

      "... funny thing is that I am NOT doing that. All I am doing is telling you what my moral choices are."

      Funny thing is that your very first two sentences on this thread tells me you're lying. Would you like to review? "You are wrong. It won't be accepted because people "realize it's not a choice", but because of the lax moral standards that those people possess." So, you want to act as if it's just your opinion, while you're using that to determine what's wrong for everyone else to believe. You said it, you own it.

      Delete
    36. You can't make up your mind what is moral or not without "nodding to the" Code of Hammurabi? Interesting after you denounce my use of the Bible (to determine sin) as a guide you use the code of hammurabi and the "golden rule".

      "You said it, you own it." ... and you used that as an example of ... what? That I make my own choice? Or that you can't stand the choice I make?

      Delete
    37. "You can't make up your mind what is moral or not without "nodding to the" Code of Hammurabi?"

      It's not a religious book, so I'm not sure what you think your comparison is supposed to mean. The point is that the Bible is not needed to determine what is right and wrong in society, since that was done BEFORE the Bible. Your point was that I supposedly needed some religious reference to decide morality, and that's what I was addressing. And do you really have a problem with the Golden Rule? It's an excellent standard for behavior, no matter which version you go by.

      "... and you used that as an example of ... what?"

      An example? No, to say that you can't talk about the "lax moral standards" of people and then claim that you're just talking about your personal opinion afterwards. Obviously, you're using your opinion to assert morality for society, despite your backpedalling.

      Delete
    38. "Your point was that I supposedly needed some religious reference to decide morality, and that's what I was addressing." ... but you admit you NEED something to decide your morals for you. At the same time you are deriding me for using something to decide my morals.


      "Obviously, you're using your opinion to assert morality for society, despite your backpedalling." .... actually I'm using my morality to "assess" (not assert) morality of (not for) society.

      Delete
    39. "... but you admit you NEED something to decide your morals for you."

      I did no such thing. You make a wild assumption that I didn't figure out "don't do bad things to people because I don't want people to do bad things to me" on my own at an early age.

      "At the same time you are deriding me for using something to decide my morals."

      Even if your premise was true, "something" is a variable. If I believed in the Bible and you based your views off of "Mein Kampf", I could still criticize you for that. But as it is, I don't follow anything the way you do, so your false equivalence falls on its face.

      ".... actually I'm using my morality to "assess" (not assert) morality of (not for) society."

      I'm sure whatever difference you see there makes that somehow less egotistical. You're saying that if people don't believe what you do, then they have lax moral standards, and you can't(won't) even define your basis for morality.

      Delete
    40. "I did no such thing." ... you did too. When you used the 'code of hammurabi' as a better example of a book to draw morals from than the Bible (which you do not believe in). You also made a point to make sure everyone knows you do not believe in the Bible, but nowhere did you say you do not believe in the 'code of hammurabi'. So, logically, you use the 'code of hammurabi' to draw some of your morals from. Which means you DO follow something the way I do.

      "You're saying that if people don't believe what you do, then they have lax moral standards, and you can't(won't) even define your basis for morality." ... so are you by saying my standards are not based on logic. You are trying to force (assert) your beliefs onto me. I am not doing that, I am making a determination of where morals have gone over time (assess), not telling you to follow them (assert).

      Delete
    41. "When you used the 'code of hammurabi' as a better example of a book to draw morals from than the Bible (which you do not believe in)."

      Quote me saying that. I know you can't.

      "You also made a point to make sure everyone knows you do not believe in the Bible, but nowhere did you say you do not believe in the 'code of hammurabi'. So, logically, you use the 'code of hammurabi' to draw some of your morals from."

      So, if I don't specifically say I don't believe in the Code of Hammurabi, and I use that as an example of societal morality that predates the Bible, then I must "believe" in it. I don't think "logically" means what you think it does.

      " ... so are you by saying my standards are not based on logic. You are trying to force (assert) your beliefs onto me. I am not doing that, I am making a determination of where morals have gone over time (assess), not telling you to follow them (assert)."

      No, I'm saying you're a raging egomaniac. You're asserting that if people don't follow your blind allegience to God's word, then society is going down the drain. I'm not telling you what to believe, just don't act so arrogant and then give me the "just my opinion" garbage.

      Delete
    42. "So, if I don't specifically say I don't believe in the Code of Hammurabi, and I use that as an example of societal morality that predates the Bible, then I must "believe" in it." ... that's right. You gave NO other option for where you get your morals from. Since you deny "my decision" is a viable reason, your code that you follow so closely is very immoral too.
      One of the parameters you used for morality is "harm". Obviously, you do not think abortion is moral, since there is much harm being done to another human being.


      Did you know that the "code of hammurabi" does NOT allow homosexual marriage? Marriage is only listed as between a man and a woman (how immoral). And the "code of hammurabi" does not give equal rights to women (how immoral). And the "code of hammurabi" would separate society into 3 different class's: the elite family, the lower class family and the slaves (how immoral). Wow, the "code of hammurabi" allowed and promoted slavery. Yes, the "code of hammurabi" (that you said you prefer to follow instead of a religious book) sure is very immoral. According to your standards.
      Just saying that the choice of books you made to draw your morals from sure is immoral. That must mean that morals have changed over time ... like I said was happening.

      However, you DID admit that homosexuality is a choice and even explained why. Which was also my first concern. One that you vehemently denied possible, but later admitted that I was correct; homosexuality IS choice. thanks for that admission (I'll use it often) (http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/01/great.html?showComment=1360430771162#c5504538176403948087)

      Delete
    43. "... that's right. You gave NO other option for where you get your morals from."

      Does that mean you get your morals from the Bible, which you've denied? I don't see you providing another option. Again, your argument is idiotic. I get my morals from my own judgment, and your distraction isn't making you look any smarter.

      "Since you deny "my decision" is a viable reason, your code that you follow so closely is very immoral too."

      You didn't give a viable reason, no. You're not giving me a valid source for your morals when you say that something sinful isn't necessarily immoral, but then homosexuality is immoral simply because it's a sin. You leave that big gap out there, and won't explain it, while you expect your standard of morality to be taken seriously.

      "Obviously, you do not think abortion is moral, since there is much harm being done to another human being."

      No, because a fetus is potential life, not a "human being". In order to justify the anti-abortion view, I would have to believe that a fetus has a soul that is going to go to hell, and I would rather not believe your God is psychotic.

      "Did you know that the "code of hammurabi" does NOT allow homosexual marriage?"

      Really? Something established two thousand years before the Bible wasn't up-to-date with our current attitudes? I can't believe it!

      "Yes, the "code of hammurabi" (that you said you prefer to follow instead of a religious book) sure is very immoral."

      What does it say about lying? I know the Bible doesn't approve, yet you falsely claim, repeatedly, that I said I "follow" the Code of Hammurabi. You're going to hell, guy.

      "However, you DID admit that homosexuality is a choice and even explained why."

      Keep lying. You can have an orientation and exhibit behaviors at the same time. I'm not even sure why you bother to link to a post. Your claims are so pathetically desperate that you might as well make them up out of thin air. You're not far off as it is. And I really don't know what you think you're accomplishing, because you're not convincing anyone, and you're not stopping me from destroying your arguments. But, I suppose you get some childish thrill out of it, so that's all you can expect out of your life, realistically.

      Delete
    44. "Just saying that the choice of books you made to draw your morals from sure is immoral. That must mean that morals have changed over time ... like I said was happening."

      I have to add I find that especially hilarious after you highlight how slavery was once acceptable. So your point is that morals have changed, so we have rights for women and no slavery? How horrible!

      Delete
    45. "I get my morals from my own judgment, and your distraction isn't making you look any smarter." ... You told me that "my decision" (in determining my morals) was NOT an acceptable reason. Now, you say your own decision is where you get your morals. What a lying hypocrite you are.

      "I know the Bible doesn't approve, yet you falsely claim, repeatedly, that I said I "follow" the Code of Hammurabi. " ... I don't think you know anything about the Bible. You think it is contradictory. You have said you follow the code of hammurabi. You used that as an example of other sources to draw morals from that aren't religious books. If you didn't mean you use that code as a moral guide, why did you use it in your proof that morals are gained from other books besides the Bible?

      "Keep lying. " ... But, I didn't lie. I even provided the link to where you admitted behavior is learned. And that homosexuality is a behavior. Did you go to that link?


      I need you to do me a favor. Use your dictionary and look up the word "sin". Then look up the word "morals". Is the definition the same for both? Yet, when I use the word "sin" you say I am talking about "morals". Color me surprised that you don't know what is being said.

      Delete
    46. "... You told me that "my decision" (in determining my morals) was NOT an acceptable reason."

      Again, because you created a disparity that you couldn't explain. When you find a similar situation for me, you let me know.

      "You have said you follow the code of hammurabi."

      Post the quote.

      "If you didn't mean you use that code as a moral guide, why did you use it in your proof that morals are gained from other books besides the Bible?"

      Because (as if you didn't know) you made the moronic comment:"... You have expressed no other way for you to decide your morals except by using the Bible also." Since people found ways of determining morals BEFORE the Bible, your argument is dead. Also note my wording:"I don't believe in the Bible, and the argument that it's needed for morals is just plain stupid." Read it again:"...that IT'S needed". That's a general statement, not referring to me personally.

      "I even provided the link to where you admitted behavior is learned. And that homosexuality is a behavior."

      And you were told that we were talking about pedophilia, so I wasn't going to describe that as an orientation, and also that behaviors aren't necessarily chosen. We're talking about psychology here. Behaviors can be manifested by natural states.

      "Yet, when I use the word "sin" you say I am talking about "morals"."

      In truth, I specified that you made a distinction between the two, but when it comes to homosexuality, "sin" automatically becomes "immoral". Try reading it again:"You're not giving me a valid source for your morals when you say that something sinful isn't necessarily immoral, but then homosexuality is immoral simply because it's a sin."

      Delete
    47. "Behaviors can be manifested by natural states." ... give an example using the human race (since we are talking about human behavior). Of course, make sure those "manifestations" are examples of before humans are born. So that you can claim "born that way".

      "When you find a similar situation for me, you let me know." ... why try? You'll just lie again about saying it. Then you'll lie about how it's used. Then you'll lie about it's meaning. You're very good at lying. How about some truth for a change?

      Delete
    48. "Of course, make sure those "manifestations" are examples of before humans are born. So that you can claim "born that way"."

      So, you want examples of pre-birth behavior? Did you think about that at all before posting?

      "... why try? You'll just lie again about saying it."

      In other words, you're firing blanks. When you can address what I said, try again.

      Waiting for you to post that quote about the Code of Hammurabi so you can substantiate your claim. Funny how you missed that.

      Delete
    49. "The Code of Hammurabi existed long before the Bible came around. How do you think it was determined back then that murder, theft, etc. were wrong?" ... you are a real dumb-shit for even asking for stuff like this. You really must not know what you are saying. wow, I truly have never met someone like you.


      "So, you want examples of pre-birth behavior? Did you think about that at all before posting?" ... I thought about it a lot longer than you thought about saying "behavior" was a description for how homosexuals choose their orientation. Did you ever look those words up?
      But, in reality, I want you to provide examples of human behaviors that are manifested by natural states (as you put it). Specifically, you should bring some examples of homosexual behavior being "manifested by natural states". Since that is your big concern. Of course, if you bring examples of those "pre-birth" behaviors, then that would mean abortion is murder, since now (by your definition) the fetus would be fully human with behaviors already decided. It would be murdering a human (with behaviors and orientations intact), and you've already said that murder is immoral. That's how much I thought about it. Now, run along and find those examples so you can look like a complete nut-case for even trying.

      Delete
    50. "... you are a real dumb-shit for even asking for stuff like this."

      Was that supposed to demonstrate how I said I "followed" the Code of Hammurabi? No, it sure doesn't look that way.

      " ... I thought about it a lot longer than you thought about saying "behavior" was a description for how homosexuals choose their orientation."

      Shockingly, I did not say behavior "was a description for how homosexuals choose their orientation". Cue your wild extrapolation.

      "Specifically, you should bring some examples of homosexual behavior being "manifested by natural states"."

      Any homosexual act, since homosexuality is not a choice. That was easy.

      "Of course, if you bring examples of those "pre-birth" behaviors, then that would mean abortion is murder, since now (by your definition) the fetus would be fully human with behaviors already decided."

      And since I laughed off your request for "pre-birth behavior", I guess I don't have to worry about that. That worked out very well for me.

      Delete
    51. "And since I laughed off your request for "pre-birth behavior", I guess I don't have to worry about that." .... I guess you're right. Since you refuse to bring evidence or proof that homosexuals are born that way, you don't have to worry about answering how you make the claim homosexuals are born that way.

      "Any homosexual act, since homosexuality is not a choice. That was easy." ... that is interesting, since ALL scientists say homosexual ACTS are ALL purely choice. How do you justify your answer?

      Delete
  6. brabantio or eddie (whoever you call yourself today) if you're going to complain about ME not answering questions in a timely manner (I answered it 5 hours after it was asked) the least you could do is stay on topic. This article is about gays being admitted into the boy scouts (as leaders). You defend this opportunity as morally advanced and claim absolute scientific proof of the cause of homosexuality. I questioned it as being moral ineptness and that homosexuality is choice. You brought proof that defends MY stance.
    Do you have ANY evidence (true scientific) that you are born gay or not gay? Because the evidence you cite as scientific proof says that your sex is determined by genetics while your sexual behavior clearly IS choice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where did I claim "absolute scientific proof"?

      Yet again, how and when did you choose to be straight? Until you relay that story, including your mental list of pros and cons, then you yourself demonstrate that it's not a choice.

      I'm not sure how you can complain about staying on topic, since I wrote the first post and have since merely been responding to what YOU have posted. If you can dispute that, let's see it.

      Delete
    2. You went off topic the 3rd post where you made claims that animals are gay. What part of my post did I mention animals being gay that you were responding to?


      And, of course you have never claimed "absolute scientific proof" of being born homosexual. You know why? Because there IS NONE. The best you can do is change the subject to Jesus and animals are gay.

      Delete
    3. Doofus...

      There are two people here. Niceguy Eddie, who owns and authors the sites, and Brabantion who is among the regular commenters, at least when I am writing regualrly. It's not that hard. Try to keep up.

      As for your "scietific proof"... there's no such thing in ANY scientific field. The correct term is not "proof" it's "EVIDENCE " followed by "ACCPETED THEORY." Science Fail on your part (again). And if it's EVIDENCE you want go back to that link I gave you. Follow it though to the article I link to in my post. 200+ citations from published papers on the subject. And what do you have? Once again: Dick.

      And I'll reply above to your answer to my question.

      Delete
    4. Let me get this straight;I make the point that accepting homosexuality is common sense, and when you dispute that, I'm not allowed to bring up homosexuality in nature, which is clearly part of why it's common sense, because YOU didn't specifically mention it first? That's quite the standard you pulled out of your rectum there. By that logic, essentially everything is off-topic because very few specifics were mentioned in my initial post.

      "And, of course you have never claimed "absolute scientific proof" of being born homosexual. You know why? Because there IS NONE."

      Congratulations, you've beaten down a straw man. Since nobody but you claims it's necessary, you haven't proven anything.

      Delete
    5. Shut up, Mr Ed. You are continually calling me a name that isn't so. Stop your stupid whining about being called a name that isn't yours. You have got to be the dumbest blog poster I've ever seen post. You can't follow simple conversations and you act like a 5-year when you're beaten down in an argument and start vial name-calling and ignoring the subject. You claim intimate knowledge of something that you have no knowledge of and get pissed when you are called on it.
      I read your citation loaded article (wikipedia ... excellent source) however, your article denies that you are born gay and specifically states it IS choice. None of the scientists mentioned can definitively state homosexuality is determined during genetic make-up. ALL scientists agree that male/female sex IS determined within the genetic make-up of every human being in the world. I have scientific proof of sex being determined genetically, you have NO scientific proof that homosexuality is nothing more than choice determined by factors that occur during life. Even your own private collection of 200+ citations in a wikipedia article dispute what YOU claim is fact.

      So, back to the question that YOU keep running away from: where is your scientific proof that you are born homosexual? Don't bring your opinion laden 200+ citation article again. It clearly states homosexuality is CHOICE after sex is determined genetically. Why don't you try bringing real evidence?

      Delete