Position Briefs

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

Another Old Friend...

Guess what, guys? I heard from our old friend, William “The Autopsychic” Johnson yesterday!

And apparently he’s feeling butt-hurt about the new comment settings, claiming some civil rights violation, or something… Well, here... I’ll post his email (just as I told him I would) and then put my response below it:

Re: Freedom of Speech Denied ... Expectedly

Eddie,

I see you are restricting your site to only those who give opinions that equal your own. I would expect nothing less from someone who is such a heterophobic and hater. Otherwise you would have let me post this under my previously allowed web site name. Way to support freedom of speech ... as long as it agrees with your own tweaked ideals.

my response to your hateful article:

"Did you realize that in 29 States it remaines(SIC) perfectly legal to fire someone for no other reason that(SIC) being Gay? Add another 5 where it's legal to fire someone for being Transgenered (SIC)."
Well, let's test your hypocrisy on sexual perversions: do you think it should be legal to fire someone for being a polygamist? Oh? You don't? But, yet you don't support that deviated lifestyle choice, do you? Well, I don't support the gay lifestyle choice and I don't think you should be fired for being gay either, but that isn't what the SC decided on, is it? You seem to be comparing apples to oranges in your rant about rights you think gays should get that heteros don't have. Because I don't think I've seen anything that gives marriage "rights" to heterosexuals, yet you demand those "rights" for gays and other sexual deviances (except polygamy). But, not to worry, though. Knowing you are a "progressive" fully explains the hypocrisy and hatred you hold towards others.

I think all the reasons you support and defend gay equality have been fully explained in relation to their equal standings of being perverted lifestyle CHOICES. When you can defend your heterophobia as a good thing and then refer to homophobia as a bad thing, you are being the hypocrite that all liberals are.

BTW, you DO know that if the SC would actually decide according to LAW and not their FEELINGS then the decision would NOT have gone the way you think it should have. But that's just the hypocrisy of your phobias at work there.

William

Wow. What a fucking drama queen, huh?

William: You flatter yourself. I have absolutely nothing to fear from you posting your opinion here. There has yet to be a single instance in which I’ve been worried that any remotely sensible person will read what I’ve posted, read what you’ve posted and then side with you. With you (and Anonymous, assuming that wasn’t also you) representing the voices of conservatism here, you (two?) have only ever made my job easier. So it is in keeping with both my principles AND my self-interest that your opinion is welcome here.

Now… You mentioned hypocrisy in your email. I’ll get the issue at hand in a moment, but I find it ironic that you would go that route in considering how the last time I heard from you, you accused me of “whining” and yet here I haven’t from you in months (almost a year?) and yet you start in with the melodrama from line one! Just sayin’ man, get over yourself. We’re just talking here.

And now to the issue at hand: Polygamy.

Um… I hate to burst your bubble and pretty much destroy your hypocrisy argument, but I have always maintained that I’m OK with anything going on between consenting adults, and YES, that included plural marriage. Now I’m going to cut off several lines of argument right up front...

I don’t want ANYONE to tell me about how this leads to MINORS being COERCED into these arrangements. The words “CONSENTING ADULTS” are 100% incompatible with “COERCED MINORS.” The OPPOSITE, in fact. I'm opposed to that which is COERSION, and NOT opposed to that which ISN'T. It's not that hard! Also, Will, you needn't bother going next to Bestiality, because “Consenting Adults” implies that they are HUMAN. In fact… CONSENT, in a LEGAL SENSE, already implies not only humanity, but ADULTS as well. Under most tenant of business and contract law, minors are not able to GIVE consent (hence statutory rape laws) and can withdraw it after the fact regardless (hence the need for an adult to co-sign most contracts signed by a minor.) And animals, obviously, cannot give consent in any legal sense, nor enter into contracts. So… Don’t be an idiot.

The only thing… THE. ONLY. THING… I would restrict with regards to plural marriage is the number of spouses (SPOUSES, not CHILDREN) that can be claimed as dependants for tax purposes. I’d keep that at ONE. Not to discriminate, but only to prevent some jackass from abusing the loophole and have 67 wives for “tax purposes.” And I would certainly be willing to entertain alternatves, if that seems "oppressive" to you. Aside for that? I have no problem with Polygamy. It’s not MY THING… ONE wife, darling though she may be, is MORE THAN ENOUGH for me on most days. I need another one like I need a case of bleeding hemorrhoids. But neither I nor anyone else is being harmed by the people involved, just as none are with same-sex marriage, and I see no “crime” being committed here. Neither is my thing, but I see no reason to prevent it.

It’s called, “F-R-E-E-D-O-M.” Maybe you’ve heard of it?

Also, you called me “heterophobic.” (Which, according to spell-check, isn’t even a word!) That’s a really odd accusation to make against a married man, with two children. None of what I support takes ANY of your rights or legal protections away, and none of what I support gives anything to anyone beyond EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW. And that’s something this IS at the heart and soul of America, our Constitution, and everything we stand for and the Supreme Court recognized that and ruled accordingly. Also, I’m not sure if you know how things work in this country, but the SCOTUS is under no obligation to uphold legislation passed by Congress, State Governments or Popular Referendum. Their raison deter is to judge the Constitutionality of these very laws! They’re one of those CHECKS AND BALANCES that maybe you’ve heard of? And while I have personally disagreed with many of the decisions made by the Rehnquist and Roberts court, as is both our perrogotives, I would never be so idiotic as to suggest that it was beyond their authority to MAKE those rulings! (As you seem to have done.)

The differecne between YOU and ME is that I want the SAME rights for EVERYONE. You don't. That doesn't make either of us a hypocrite, in and of itself. It just makes you an asshole.
And with regards to being my “heterophobic…” (which, according to spell-checker, isn't even a WORD!) Dude, seriously, I LOVE heterosexuality! Especially the part abpout having SEX WITH WOMEN. Aside from a slight preference for Lesbian over Strait pornography, I don’t see where you get the idea that I am in any way AGAINST heterosexuality. Even in THAT case, it is only because the sight of HUGE COCKS doesn’t really DO anything for me. And hey: I don’t judge… If YOU’RE really into BIG DICKS? That’s OK. It’s just not my thing. But to each their own.

At this point, there’s not really anywhere for you to go from here. (So watch: You’ll probably change the subject.) You could have wasted a lot less of both our time if you bothered to google “polygamy” in the search box on the left. You’d have seen that I’ve argued my position before. But then… Research never HAS been your strong suit. Now I’m going to switch gears here a little bit, because I originally responded to William via email, explaining why I changed the comment settings, and promising to post his email and respond to it publicly. (As I have now done.) Here is the response I received from him:

I've got a google account, and it didn't work. I think you don't intend to allow opposing opinions. It has been made apparent throughout. You are hateful towards anyone who isn't fully in agreement with your "opinion", and to say you would allow it is simply silly. Thanks for the attempted explanation for you hatred, anyhow.

Oh, poor, poor William Johnson. Let’s all shed a tear for the death of liberty, and lament the passing of that time when men lived free.

BTW, Will… If I “hated” you, it would not be because of your opinions. It would mostly be because of this butt-hurt, melodramatic persecution complex you insist on wallowing in. (And it’s not “hate” so much as it’s just really pathetic and annoying.) Your opinions ARE, IMHO, ignorant, misinformed, mostly hateful, and both spiritually and scientifically misguided. But you remained entitled to both have and express them. And as I’ve said before and demonstrated with this post: I would not DREAM of suppressing them. Free speech is sacrosanct with me, and this includes even what some might label “hate speech.” (I’m not saying YOUR’S is necessarily, just saying how far I take that and how seriously I hold to that principle.) I have never, and will never, knowingly or intentionally deleted a comment from you or anyone else, with the exception of obvious SPAM. But just as you are entitled (and welcome) to speak (here), I and everyone else is entitled to our opinions and to respond in kind. So if you don’t wish to be treated like an idiot, stop posting stupid shit!

On a less histrionic note… I have noticed the lack of comments lately, possibly due to the lack of regular postings myself but also possibly due to the comment settings being overly restrictive (although to date Will is the only one who’s complained about that or let me know) or to the lack of disagreement without our favorite punching bags, William and/or Anonymous, [same person?] to kick around anymore. Well, whatever the case, I’m going to try and tweak the comment settings again. I’m going to allow anonymous posting (all posting, basically) but I’m going to require a Captcha phrase to prevent spam. I personally don’t like those, but Blogger doesn’t leave me many options. So I’m going to do that, and post a brief guideline above, just so people like William know what will get a comment deleted and what won’t. And I’ll say it right up front: If the Captcha requirement isn’t effective, I will go back to the current settings. We’ll just have to see how it goes.

And Will? you can test me all you want, but you will fail every single time. There is no political or opinion you could post here that would cause to go against my principles, and you have nowhere near the intellectual gravitas to catch me in a rhetorical trap that I can’t get out of with a trivial effort. But you are certainly welcome to try: I will continue to take on all comers.

734 comments:

  1. "And apparently he’s feeling butt-hurt about the new comment settings, claiming some civil rights violation, or something"

    As usual you get you shit totally wrong. But considering you're a liberal that is completely expected. When you have the balls to actually discuss like a human and not a stupid liberal .. I'm here. Otherwise, you're simply a dick.

    "William: You flatter yourself. I have absolutely nothing to fear from you posting your opinion here."

    Yes you do. Otherwise you would let people post without having to e-mail you first and ask permission. You claim that you won't let people post because of spammers. My god, man. You simply have no clue, do you?

    "but I find it ironic that you would go that route in considering how the last time I heard from you, you accused me of “whining” and yet here I haven’t from you in months (almost a year?) and yet you start in with the melodrama from line one! "

    Do you even know what ironic means? I accuse you of whining because that's what you and the rest of you liberal constantly do. Whine whine whine. Geez, what kind of cheese do you want to go with that? Oh, I'm sorry, you people in Michigan don't drink whine do you? You simply do it.

    "I don’t want ANYONE to tell me about how this leads to MINORS being COERCED into these arrangements. "

    Good job, liberal. At what point did I even MENTION MINORS? Way to take an argument and change it into something different that isn't even being discussed.

    "I would restrict with regards to plural marriage is the number of spouses (SPOUSES, not CHILDREN) that can be claimed as dependants for tax purposes."

    Yeah? Why?! You got a problem with consenting adults living their lives the way THEY want to? You claim you don't, but now you do. Which is it you hypocrite? How much do you think it would cost that makes that such a fear of yours? Do you honestly think everyone in the world will suddenly start becoming polygamists just for TAX purposes? Idiot.

    "It’s called, “F-R-E-E-D-O-M.” Maybe you’ve heard of it?"

    Yeah, I have. In fact I'm arguing FOR it, but you are arguing against it. What part of that do you NOT understand?

    "Also, you called me “heterophobic.” (Which, according to spell-check, isn’t even a word!)"

    And "homophobe" was never a word, either, until you morons made IT up. Do you have a problem with that too?

    "none of what I support gives anything to anyone beyond EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW."

    Well OBEY the law, then. Instead of whining about how your gay friends are somehow being excluded from some right you claim is present. I think the LAW said "ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN" before you you people started whining about "missing out on something" that NO ONE has a RIGHT TO. It is the LAW: ONE MAN/ ONE WOMAN. Stop your whining. Well, until the supreme court ruled with their FEELINGS instead of ruling on LAW. What part of the LAW is illegal? Why don't you post Ginsberg's opinion and we'll get more clarification. Did she rule according to LAW or her personal FEELINGS? Bring that, if you got the guts. Hell, I don't even know what she said, but I am completely confident that it wasn't according to law. She never does that. So bring it and shut me up or shut up yourself.

    "The differecne between YOU and ME is that I want the SAME rights for EVERYONE. "

    Yeah? What RIGHT is it you're after? I don't think I've EVER seen a RIGHT to marriage. So, the difference between you and me is that I follow LAW and you demand rights, for your kind, that aren't present for anyone else.

    "It just makes you an asshole. "

    Ah ha ha.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The idiocy of this reply is self-evident, so I'm not going to dignify it with either a well thought out response, or an angry rant. I'll simply let our words stand as they are.

      Delete
  2. "On a less histrionic note… I have noticed the lack of comments lately,"

    Your reason? Are you kidding me? The ONLY time people post is when I have something to say. You can't deny that. But, I'm sure your liberal ass will. I am good for your business, yet you do everything in your power to deny conservatives a voice in your blog. Whiner! Are you related to Michael Savage? Oh, wait, he's a Weiner, not a Whiner.
    A simple solution (obviously beyond your grasp) is to eliminate the Anonymous and allow the rest. Obviously, if someone wants to post, they will provide identification. And anonymous allows all the riff-raff. But that appears to be beyond your comprehension.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure you've EVER had something [of substance] to say. As for you're simple solution? Duh! I'm afraid that's hot an option that's available, dipshit. Goggle Blogger isn't that customizable. If you can fingure out how to make that happen, you're welcome to try and proove me wrong. I picked the least restrictive setting that didn't allow anonymous comments. UNless you can show me otherwise, STFU.

      Delete
    2. Let me tell something, when I have something to say it is of absolute substance. Just because you don't like me saying it doesn't discount it. When you bring your lies and false facts do you think everyone is just going to accept it as reality? Well, apparently, you do because all the sheeple that kindly respond to your lies seem to make your day. The facts are that you lie and you expect others to simply believe it because you say it. Why don't you try bringing facts instead of the made-up shit you currently bring concerning real-life situations you seem to pride yourself in discussing? Then you get pissed off when someone questions you statements. Bring facts to support your statements instead of the constant name-calling and rude behavior! I've brought (what I think are) facts and you haven't had the balls to respond. Instead you say you will not respond to me because I'm disagreeing with you. Good job liberal. Nothing new under the sun with that one. Grow some and actually comment on challenges to your so-called facts. Or, continue calling me names and whining that I dare say anything on your site. Your choice ...

      I ain't afraid of discussing your stances. But, you sure seem afraid to support yours. Especially when experiencing your behavior towards those who don't agree with you.

      Just sayiin'

      Delete
    3. Hey Eddie, Tesla is at $153 now. Do you even fathom what that means? No, I guess you don't.

      When you going to respond to my exposure of your lies in the gay post you have going? Never? That's what I thought. Good liberal

      Remember, it's all about "substance". Something you don't seem to know much about.

      Oh, I noticed you started calling me names in your original post. Like barbie has been doing since his 2nd post, you've admitted defeat before you even get started. Good liberal.

      Delete
  3. Hey, Eddie, remember when I told you to buy Tesla stock? Well, Tesla is at $120 a share now and you preferred the Fisker Karma. How is the Fisker Karma doing lately? Where's their stock price at? Listen, you fool, when you want real advise NEVER believe a conservative concerning global warming correcting ideas. Always trust your liberal beliefs. I bought 11 shares of Tesla (at $30) and enjoyed the fruits of my knowledge. How has Fisker stock treated you? Oh, you probably didn't actually follow through on your beliefs, did you, huh? Typical liberal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fucking liar. I NEVER said that anyone shoudl buy Fisker stock. I have NEVER endoresed ANY stock becuase I don't believe people should be taking investment advice from random strangers online.

      I'm glad you're investment worked out, but as I've said before: You don't get to speak for me. Go back a read the post(s) and comment(s). You'll find that:

      1) I was endorsing the PERFORMANCE on the Karma MODEL in a hypothetical RACE/RIDE dipshit. Not buying the FISKER stock.

      2) I believe I mentioned at some point that BOTH Fisker AND Telsa were very green when it came to mass producing vehicles. So, NO, I wasn't surprised that Fisker went bankrupt. I was a bit surprised that Tesla is doing so well, but it remains to be seen if they can maintian their success.

      Personally, I hope they do. I never had anything against them. (Once again, that was something YOU fabricated out of thin air.) Nor Fisker, nor the Leaf for that matter. In fact the whole point of the post in the first place was that the "Fires in the Volt" issue was BULLSHIT, and that FOX was basically "rooting against america" on the Volt, becuase of "political" (commercial) reasons.

      And IN FACT... I recentyl looked at the Leaf for my next car. (160K+ Miles on my PT Cruiser.) Unfortunately the technology is not QUITE there yet. It's close, but I've got a 26 mile commute (one way) and if you look at the 5 year battery life and take the cold Michigan Winters into account, even the salesman had to concede that there would be a very good chance I'd be standed 2-3 miles from home eventually. (He also couldn't clarify what they would consdier a valid warranty claim of the battery.) So unti they get ~10-20 more miles per charge, or my office installs more charging stations (we have two, but one is reserved for customers, and the other for our own company's Volt) I am forced to cosider other options. And ~45K for a Volt ain't going to happen.

      That's not a question of beliefs, merely priorites. I have two autistic boys, and I'm going to spend money on thier speech therapy before I spend it on a damned CAR. (So if you call me a hypocrite again over this, you can go fuck yourself!)

      Delete
    2. "(we have two, but one is reserved for customers, and the other for our own company's Volt) "

      A charging station for a Chevy Volt? What kind of cheap ass company you work for? That car gets 20 miles per charge, why does it even need a station? Just fill up the GAS TANK. It's good your work there, like minds think alike.

      I don't have to call you anything, and you will (and do) tell me to go fuck myself. That's just the kind of person you are. So progressive

      Delete
  4. You know I would find the irony of the conservtive anti-gay funny (and at times I do) if wasn't so sad. EVERY freaking conseravtive keeps saying the same old mantra: "keep the government out of our lives" and yet it is the same conservtives that want the governement in the one place it has very little business in our bedroom and abortion rights.

    Now for the record I'm straight and I don't know any gay people personally but I proudly support gay rights. Why? You ask because it's simply the right thing to do.

    If two people of the same sex want to get married and adpot children I don't have a problem with it as long as they law abiding and have good paying jobs.

    I don't want the governement telling people what kind of sex they can partipact in like that Republican moron running for Governor in Virgina (I agree with Lawrence O'Donnell Virgina's new slogan is bullshit) the only times I want the governemt involved in anyone's sex life, if a child is involved, someone is hurt or died. Outside of those areas the government has NO buisness in any consenting adults sex lives.

    Now that is what I call small governement.

    I'm sorry for my spelling my spell checker isn't working.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "and yet it is the same conservtives that want the governement in the one place it has very little business in our bedroom and abortion rights. "

      What part of forcing Churches to perform weddings they don't want to perform is the governments business? Sure all those gay people (you don't know) can get married all they want. but there is no place for the government to force a religious entity to do it. They can go to the City Hall like other people do. You want the government to force those marriages, then let THEM do the ceremonies. Religion is a CHOICE, just like homosexuality. What gives them the "right" to force their CHOICE onto ours?


      " the only times I want the governemt involved in anyone's sex life, if a child is involved, someone is hurt or died. "

      So, when two gay people have sex and one passes AIDS to the other and the other dies, you expect the government to step in and do something? Would you expect the same reaction (by the government) if a straight couple does the same thing (passing deadly diseases to the other partner)?

      Delete
    2. No one is "forcing churches" to do ANYTHING you dolt, and if anyone tried, the Churches would be protected by the same first ammendment principles that are the reason gay marriage has to be allowed in the first place: The SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE FOR THE PROTECTION OF BOTH. The minute churches are "forced" to do anything like that, I'll be the first one in line arguing against it. (Actually, I'd be second, right behind the ACLU.) The Government is not forcing "religious entities" to do ANYTHING. You're a liar.

      (And bfore you bring up military chapels/chaplains, let me remind you that, while religious, they are strictly non-denominational. And as there ARE some Christians Sects (Methodists, for example) that ARE willing to bless Gay Marriages, the military chapels must honor that request, just as they would do so for a Jew, Muslim or Hindu: They don't ddiscriminate.)

      So, even though being gay is NOT a choice (watch the video, fuck-head) and Religion IS, you remain free to practice yours as you wish, and so does your church. Doofus.

      As to your second point, no one expects the Gov't to do anything about the STD situation you describe.

      It could ONLY be a tort/crime if person A KNOWINGLY had sex with B, and DID NOT disclose that they were infected. Sounds great, but what a bear to enforce! How do prove that Person A KNEW? And if you did, how could person B PROVE that disclosed it? (Here, please sign this notorized document so we can have sex...) (Riiiiight. THAT wouldn't kill the mood, would it?)

      And, YES, this applies equally to gays and straits. (Why WOULDN'T it?)

      But there is absolutely no reason to do this anyway. Becasue it is up to the INDIVIDUAL to be responsible to protect themselves. It's called: WEAR A FUCKING CONDOM, ASSHOLE! And use a DENTAL DAM, if applicable! If you don't know 100%? PROTECT YOURSELF.

      And if you take your chances? Don't come drying to me, or to the governement.

      So you can stop it with these absurd STD scenarios are your evidence of "harm." Using condoms would prevent far more disease than banning homosexuality would.

      C.Back is right: "Small Government" is nothing but a bullshit RW talking point. The only thing the Right DOESN'T want to regulate are GUNS and INDUSTRY.

      Delete
    3. "No one is "forcing churches" to do ANYTHING you dolt, and if anyone tried, the Churches would be protected by the same first ammendment principles that are the reason gay marriage has to be allowed in the first place: The SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE FOR THE PROTECTION OF BOTH."

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/nj-rules-against-church-g_n_154128.html

      Maybe you can look up the result of that suit. Cause it seems to me that what you say will NOT happen has already happened. Get your facts straight. And WILL happen more:
      http://www.minnesotaformarriage.com/consequences-to-redefining-marriage/

      "So, even though being gay is NOT a choice (...) and Religion IS, you remain free to practice yours as you wish, and so does your church. "

      Yes, sexual orientation is choice. Religion is choice. You have nothing to prove otherwise except your opinion.

      Delete
    4. "C.Back is right: "Small Government" is nothing but a bullshit RW talking point. The only thing the Right DOESN'T want to regulate are GUNS and INDUSTRY."

      So, 2 aspects of a political spectrum make an entire ideal? Is that what you're saying. I would expect so from a liberal hard-ass like yourself. Bring something substantiative concerning that issue, and not some generic "he's right, you're not" shit.

      Delete
    5. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/nj-rules-against-church-g_n_154128.html

      Every example I've ever seen that "proves" that churches will be forced to perform weddings involved rented space. So, if someone Jewish refused to rent out property to a Catholic couple simply because of their faith, and then they were defeated in court, that must mean that synagogues will have to perform Catholic mass at some point, apparently.

      Obviously, one thing has nothing to do with the other. You can't discriminate in business matters, which is completely unrelated to the tenets of one's faith.

      Delete
  5. "Every example I've ever seen that "proves" that churches will be forced to perform weddings involved rented space."

    The link obviously says property OWNED by Church members. Which makes it private property. If I own a house and property, I don't HAVE to rent it to you just because you are gay. Yet that is what the ruling was. So, I am RIGHT that Churches will be forced (and already are) to perform functions they don't want to simply because the federal government is overstepping their bounds according to the "separation of Church and State" mandates. Again, Eddie is WRONG and I am RIGHT.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that's how they rent out the space. If they didn't OWN it, they couldn't RENT it. And that makes it a business matter, not a religious one.

      See, by your logic, businesses could get out of safety and environmental regulations just by claiming they're part of a faith that doesn't believe in regulations. If churches don't want to rent out the space to anyone and everyone, then they can't run the rental property.

      Interestingly enough, we rent our house from a religious group. They didn't ask my wife what her faith was, or what mine was. Do you wonder why that is?

      Delete
    2. "And that makes it a business matter, not a religious one."

      If a you own a property and you want to rent it to people 'like you' then you can. If you decide you don't want to rent it to 'right-wingers' you don't have to and you shouldn't be forced to rent your PRIVATE PROPERTY to them. If I had property that I chose to rent, I would never rent it to racist skin-head groups. That would be MY decision and no one should force me to rent to those kind of people. You may feel differently about skin-heads, but I personally do not like their ideals and would not rent to them. Racist skin-heads may have a 'right' to public property, but they do NOT have a 'right' to my PRIVATE PROPERTY.

      " Do you wonder why that is?"

      No. But I'm sure you have some benign story to tell that no one is interested in and has no relation to this conversation.

      Which still makes Eddie WRONG and me RIGHT.

      Delete
    3. I'm not sure that hate groups are protected quite the same way that, say, Catholics are. You don't have the right to discriminate against someone because of their faith. Hence the example of my landlord, who didn't ask about my faith because she could not legally do so.

      Did you notice that you didn't address the ramifications of your logic, which involved businesses never conforming to regulations? I did.

      Delete
    4. "I'm not sure that hate groups are protected quite the same way that, say, Catholics are."

      Perhaps homosexuality is considered hateful by some religions. It certainly is considered a sexual perversion. Hate groups could be considered human perversions. Either way, the analogy fits and you refused to address the consequences of OWNERS of land choosing not to rent to groups with ideals they don't approve of. Did you notice that? I did.

      "You don't have the right to discriminate against someone because of their faith."

      As an owner of private property I should not be FORCED to do business with groups that have ideals that I don't agree with. That is why racist groups are allowed to have parades down PUBLIC streets, but do NOT have a right to force their way onto PRIVATE property. How is that different than this subject?

      Delete
    5. "Perhaps homosexuality is considered hateful by some religions."

      Who cares? That's not objective. And even if you put homosexuality on a par with skinheads, society doesn't. Your views don't win that battle.

      "Either way, the analogy fits and you refused to address the consequences of OWNERS of land choosing not to rent to groups with ideals they don't approve of. Did you notice that? I did."

      Moron, my first post included the phrase "rent out", in italics no less. That means ownership of property, unless you're in the habit of signing legal contracts which earn you money for other people's land. I'd love to know how you get away with that. Ownership is inherent to the discussion, so I addressed what you said.

      "As an owner of private property I should not be FORCED to do business with groups that have ideals that I don't agree with."

      Then you think people should be allowed to discriminate against people of faith.

      "That is why racist groups are allowed to have parades down PUBLIC streets, but do NOT have a right to force their way onto PRIVATE property."

      When you run a business, you can't legally discriminate against people because of their faith. The same concept applies to sexual orientation. Like it or not, that's how it has to be. It has nothing to do with trespassing.

      Delete
    6. First off the link you've provided says it's a Chrcuh GROUP not a Chruch. Now IMHO I, Christopher Back, and NOT Eddie, feels it's the same. You lost.


      You have not provided any thing that proves your claims: "that homosexuality is a choice".

      Now the people I have met online and claimed that they were gay over 10 years all of them say that is a load of bullshit. One of them said it best "Why would any sane person choose to be gay and have your family, job, and your life constantly threatened in any number of ways."

      If you think this a game, and that winning is how many posts you can make, then you're bigger loser than I already thought you were.

      Delete
    7. "One of them said it best "Why would any sane person choose to be gay and have your family, job, and your life constantly threatened in any number of ways." "

      Well, I gotta admit there is no better argument than that. Why would they make that choice when so much ridicule would be expected? I guess, it would be the same reason someone chooses to rape or murder or steal ... because they WANT to (no, I'm not saying those are equal to homosexuality, only the CHOICE involved). I have never heard of an argument by any on those other people saying they were "born that way" so you must accept their actions. Perhaps you have and now you want to use their idea.

      So, you want me to bring proof that you are born that way? Do I really need to provide a link or just advise you to go to any knowledgable medical/scientific research group? I'm sure you can find some fringe doctor who will support your stance just to make a name for himself, but if you go to ANY real scientist or doctor, they can and will tell you that your sex is determined as you are created within the womb. What sex you like to please yourself with is determined by your own CHOICE. Not unlike the choice you have to what car brand you like better... a choice.

      "First off the link you've provided says it's a Chrcuh GROUP not a Chruch. Now IMHO I, Christopher Back, and NOT Eddie, feels it's the same. You lost. "

      Yes, Church group. Are you saying that it is part of the Church, then? Which further proves what I say is going to be (and already IS true) that gay people will sue to force Churches to marry them. Eddie said that will NOT happen. But I said it is already happening and brought an example.
      I WIN. But, you get to have the government un-separate themselves from the Church and will get the government to force religion to do what the government tells them to do without regard to their own beliefs. I AM RIGHT and EDDIE IS WRONG. If Eddie wants to bring LIES, that's his own business and his own choice. I proved he lied and he cannot back his own words up. Or he is afraid to.
      Getting you and others to do it for him is pretty weak, but from what I've seen him post in the past, I would expect no better from him than LIES and MIS-INFORMATION. He IS a liberal, after all.

      Delete
    8. "Why would they make that choice when so much ridicule would be expected? I guess, it would be the same reason someone chooses to rape or murder or steal ... because they WANT to (no, I'm not saying those are equal to homosexuality, only the CHOICE involved)."

      So what benefit are you resisting by not being gay, exactly? Because you gain money, power, freedom, etc through the various crimes you mention. Do you think gay sex is better than straight sex? Also, crimes tend to be objectively wrong. Homosexuality is not.

      "I'm sure you can find some fringe doctor who will support your stance just to make a name for himself, but if you go to ANY real scientist or doctor, they can and will tell you that your sex is determined as you are created within the womb. What sex you like to please yourself with is determined by your own CHOICE."

      What an odd disconnect. Doctors say that gender is determined in the womb, therefore (?) orientation is a choice? Or are you just tacking your opinion on to facts proclaimed by others? I doubt that you have any evidence that doctors assert that orientation is a choice.

      "Not unlike the choice you have to what car brand you like better... a choice."

      So you're bisexual.

      "Are you saying that it is part of the Church, then? Which further proves what I say is going to be (and already IS true) that gay people will sue to force Churches to marry them. Eddie said that will NOT happen. But I said it is already happening and brought an example."

      You didn't bring an example, because you're talking about a business enterprise. A church is not the same thing. Any business, run by church or otherwise, is obligated to follow the laws. That has no bearing on churches performing whatever weddings conform to their beliefs.

      You lose.

      Delete
    9. "You didn't bring an example, because you're talking about a business enterprise."

      The sad thing is that I did bring an example of what has happened and what you gay people will demand in the future. Separation of Church and State. You whine about that all your life, then when it favors the Church, you demand the State do something about it.
      If I am a Church member and selling lemonade on my front yard and you walk up wearing all your rainbow outfits, I don't HAVE to sell my lemonade to you just because you are gay. I would because Christians do not hate the sinner, they hate the sin. But, the FACT remains, I do NOT HAVE to sell you lemonade if I choose not to. I don't even have to give you a reason.
      I win again.

      " Because you gain money, power, freedom, etc through the various crimes you mention."

      Wow, you think being a criminal gives you power and freedoms? Ok, whatever floats your boat. From all your other ideals, I guess I should have seen that one coming.

      "Or are you just tacking your opinion on to facts proclaimed by others?"

      Obviously, I am tacking my opinion onto FACTS. Have you got facts that show your gayness is determined during conception and/or creation? Because if you have some of those facts to bring, it would be interesting for you to actually bring them.

      "So you're bisexual."

      I take it you are assuming I have chosen different brands of vehicles. Typical liberal ... always assuming. Got an actual argument on that subject or is that the best you got. But, if I had chosen several different vehicle brands that would make me bi-vehicle, not bi-sexual. I have chosen one sex preference, not more than one, so there's no "bi" involved.

      Delete
    10. "The sad thing is that I did bring an example of what has happened and what you gay people will demand in the future."

      No, because business matters are separate from religious matters. Also, look up "ad hominem". I'm not gay.

      "If I am a Church member and selling lemonade on my front yard and you walk up wearing all your rainbow outfits, I don't HAVE to sell my lemonade to you just because you are gay."

      Your lemonade stand is licensed and regulated? Like property rental? That's quite an enterprise.

      "Wow, you think being a criminal gives you power and freedoms?"

      You don't? Rape is a crime of power. Murder is very often committed for some version of freedom or another. Apparently you're unfamiliar with the very basic concept of "motive". Idiot.

      "Have you got facts that show your gayness is determined during conception and/or creation? Because if you have some of those facts to bring, it would be interesting for you to actually bring them."

      Dodging the question? You seemed to claim that doctors will assert that homosexuality is a choice. Let's see YOU back up your claim before you demand evidence from others.

      "I take it you are assuming I have chosen different brands of vehicles."

      You're probably not bright enough to see the irony of that quote so closely followed with a lecture about "assuming". No, the point is that if you chose to be straight, then you're attracted to both genders. Because otherwise, it's not a choice. The same way I don't "choose" not to buy a Rolls Royce, because I can't afford one. It's not an option, therefore not a choice. And obviously, "bi" refers to attraction, not behavior. The same way you can be ambidextrous even if you use your right hand almost exclusively.

      Delete
    11. "You seemed to claim that doctors will assert that homosexuality is a choice. Let's see YOU back up your claim before you demand evidence from others."

      I've already explained that is my opinion. As soon as you asked for a clarification I explained that. You are the one who seems to be insisting you are born gay. Bring the proof. Or is that just your "opinion" also because you have no proof of being born gay? That's what I thought ... it is your opinion.

      "No, the point is that if you chose to be straight, then you're attracted to both genders. Because otherwise, it's not a choice. "

      No, the "point" is that there IS more than one choice and I have made my choice. Are you attracted to Volvo's? How about Yugo's or Hyundai's or Scion's? Are you attracted to 18-wheelers? So, obviously, you don't understand the analogy and I'll let you flounder in your own confined world on that subject.

      "Your lemonade stand is licensed and regulated? Like property rental? That's quite an enterprise."

      I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. I am not required to give a reason. And, legally, I would be advised not to. So, obviously, you know nothing about legal business practices. I am not required to give a reason why I will refuse you service, I simply can say 'I do not want to serve you'. Without a reason, you have no case.

      "Also, look up "ad hominem". I'm not gay."

      I looked that up and 'ad hominem' is just above name-calling. Are you offended I think you are gay, but you are not offended by calling me names? Besides, that was an obvious "example". But understanding "examples" seems to get lost in your responses. I guess if you want to start whining about me not keeping my arguments related to the subject, then, we should go back to your response about being forced to rent property to hate groups and others who you don't agree with politically/religiously/sexually: "I'm not sure..." is what you said. At which point you took this conversation everywhere but on that subject.
      So, answer this question: If you have property for rent, and a group of Neo-Nazis want to hold their annual meeting at your location, and suppose you are Jewish, are you going to rent to them? If you answer No, then you agree with my position. If you answer Yes, then you are probably a liar.

      Delete
    12. "I've already explained that is my opinion."

      But you felt the need to make it sound factual, it would seem. Why?

      "You are the one who seems to be insisting you are born gay. Bring the proof. Or is that just your "opinion" also because you have no proof of being born gay? That's what I thought ... it is your opinion."

      I didn't say "born gay". It's not a choice. And my opinion makes sense, while yours does not. That's a big part of the reason the tide has turned so sharply against people like you. Also explain why I have to bring facts, but you don't.

      "No, the "point" is that there IS more than one choice and I have made my choice."

      No, moron, you asserted my meaning. I'm telling you what the point is, to correct you. If you chose to be straight, then you are attracted to both genders. You can't have it both ways.

      "Are you attracted to Volvo's? How about Yugo's or Hyundai's or Scion's? Are you attracted to 18-wheelers?"

      I'm not "attracted" to vehicles. I get what works and is affordable. If you consider multiple vehicles and are comparing that to sexuality, then obviously you've considered being gay.

      "So, obviously, you know nothing about legal business practices."

      Obviously, the courts don't believe you can discriminate based on things such as sexual orientation or religion. You may not like it, but not being a bigot myself, I don't see the problem.

      "I am not required to give a reason why I will refuse you service, I simply can say 'I do not want to serve you'."

      Right, just turn away everyone who looks like they might be Jewish, and see if people don't figure out the pattern. Good luck with that.

      "Are you offended I think you are gay, but you are not offended by calling me names?"

      I don't care what you think. You consider it an insult, therefore it's ad hominem. Me calling you a moron in addition to an explanation as to why you are a moron is not the same as you substituting a valid argument with an insult.

      "I guess if you want to start whining about me not keeping my arguments related to the subject, then, we should go back to your response about being forced to rent property to hate groups and others who you don't agree with politically/religiously/sexually: "I'm not sure..." is what you said. At which point you took this conversation everywhere but on that subject."

      Liar. The quote is "I'm not sure that hate groups are protected quite the same way that, say, Catholics are." You didn't show how they are protected the same way, so you're whining about what would seem to be a valid point on my part. As to where I supposedly changed the subject, you can't demonstrate that. I won't even ask, because I know you're full of shit.

      "So, answer this question: If you have property for rent, and a group of Neo-Nazis want to hold their annual meeting at your location, and suppose you are Jewish, are you going to rent to them?"

      Why the hell would you imagine that neo-nazis would want to give money to anyone Jewish? And in order for me to answer that question, you have to address the point that you so dishonestly cropped above. Are hate groups protected the same way as religions are? If you don't know, then you shouldn't be asking the question.

      Delete
    13. " Are hate groups protected the same way as religions are?"

      Yes, they are. And, you know it. That is why you avoided answering the question. Don't worry I expected no less from you.

      As far as the rest of your statements ... none of it makes sense. You are avoiding the issue with diversions. Again, no less is expected of you. You must have some intelligence before you can discuss intelligently.

      Delete
    14. "Yes, they are. And, you know it."

      Then I would be prohibited from discriminating against them. By law. I'm not sure that's the case, because you didn't bring any evidence, but that's how it would work.

      "As far as the rest of your statements ... none of it makes sense. You are avoiding the issue with diversions."

      It makes perfect sense. You also can't label something a "diversion" when it's a direct response to what you said. Idiot.

      Delete
    15. "You also can't label something a "diversion" when it's a direct response to what you said."

      "You consider it an insult, therefore it's ad hominem" ... "But you felt the need to make it sound factual, it would seem." ... "No, moron, you asserted my meaning. I'm telling you what the point is, to correct you." ... blah blah blah.

      " By law. I'm not sure that's the case, because you didn't bring any evidence, but that's how it would work."

      I didn't think I'd need to bring evidence, since you are so self-proclaimed smart. Otherwise here is just one of many that are out there:
      http://eastatlanta.patch.com/groups/jeremy-k-galloways-blog/p/bp--nazis-and-kkk-protest-atlanta-free-speech-protect1153a449b5

      Delete
    16. A lot of quotes with no rebuttals. Did you forget them, or are you that lazy?

      http://eastatlanta.patch.com/groups/jeremy-k-galloways-blog/p/bp--nazis-and-kkk-protest-atlanta-free-speech-protect1153a449b5

      What the hell does free speech have to do with renting land? And you're not even addressing the proper point, idiot. If it's the case, as I said, then I would have to cater to them by law. You said that answer would mean I was probably lying, but you're not making a case to show it. I do wonder why not.

      Delete
    17. "If it's the case, as I said, then I would have to cater to them by law."

      No you don't. And you don't even understand why or how. Why are you even having this discussion if you don't know what you're talking about?

      BTW, I've noticed you started calling me names real early in our discussions. Have you admitted defeat that quickly? You DO realize that name-calling is the first sign of defeat in a conversation, right? Way to go, liberal. Nothing new under the sun on that one!

      And, yet, nothing to say on my comment on your "diversion" tactics. I must have been spot-on on that one. Ah aha ha haha ha ... way to go, liberal.

      Another BTW ... You ARE a liberal, aren't you? I suspect so. But, I'm sure you'll deny it now that I"m asking. That's the way you people work. And, believe me, you people are so predictable it's almost uncanny.

      Delete
    18. "No you don't."

      Sure I would, because you can't discriminate in business practices against people due to things such as religion. If hate groups are the same, as you claim, then it's not legal to discriminate against them, either. What the hell are you talking about?

      "BTW, I've noticed you started calling me names real early in our discussions."

      Because you began your idiotic arguments early in our discussions. Besides, you said "I think all the reasons you support and defend gay equality have been fully explained in relation to their equal standings of being perverted lifestyle CHOICES. When you can defend your heterophobia as a good thing and then refer to homophobia as a bad thing, you are being the hypocrite that all liberals are." So cry me a river about me calling you out for your demonstrated stupidity while you paint everyone who disagrees with you with a broad brush. You are a hypocrite. Apparently, by your standard, you admitted defeat before this thread even began. Good job, moron.

      "And, yet, nothing to say on my comment on your "diversion" tactics."

      You didn't make another comment of the sort. You made the accusation, I pointed out that you can't call it a diversion when I'm responding directly to what you said, and you pasted that quote without any rebuttal. Scroll up and see for yourself. Am I supposed to respond to what you meant to type, or did you think that "blah blah blah" warranted a reply on my part?

      That was the dumbest victory dance ever. You spiked an imaginary ball, idiot.

      Delete
    19. But, it got spiked in victory, just the same. You couldn't even come up with a name I called people, beyond 'liberal'. And that isn't even derogatory. Unlike: idiot, moron, ect. Thanks for playing. When you can get back on topic let me know.

      Delete
    20. "But, it got spiked in victory, just the same."

      Moron, you didn't respond, then you crowed about me not saying anything about your non-response. Your labeling of all liberals as "hypocrites" is separate.

      "When you can get back on topic let me know."

      I asked how you thought you could discriminate against religious groups in business practices. I asked you how free speech was the same as renting property. You failed to answer those questions. Since you feel the need to wander into some discussion about how all liberals supposedly behave, instead, it's obvious you're the one who can't stay on topic.

      Delete
    21. I am the topic. This post is about ME. I can talk about what I want in the post about ME. And I notice that I was right about people posting on Eddie's blog ... they just don't do it if it doesn't involve ME. Thanks for fully supporting MY statement of FACT with your continued statements. No matter how hateful they are. BTW, Eddie appreciates your posting, it helps his business. But you don't care about his business, do you? Since you never post unless you are posting because of ME.

      Delete
    22. YOU are the topic? No, what you said is the topic, and that's what I addressed. If you can't defend your arguments, go away. Don't whine about me being off-topic because you can't keep up.

      "But you don't care about his business, do you? Since you never post unless you are posting because of ME."

      Thanks for admitting you are "anonymous". As if I didn't know already.

      Delete
    23. "Thanks for admitting you are "anonymous". As if I didn't know already."

      My name is william. If you have a problem with others ... whine to them, not me. Obviously you try to excuse your behavior by blaming others. Which is a typical liberal tactic.

      Delete
    24. I'm not "blaming" anyone. You said I only post because of you, but I've had lengthy exchanges with "anonymous". Ergo, you are "anonymous".

      Delete
    25. You've made some very stupid comments. Ergo, you are very stupid. Is that how your logic works?

      Delete
    26. You haven't demonstrated any stupid comments. The logic, again, is that since your claim is that I post only because of you, then you must be "anonymous" since I've had lengthy exchanges with him.

      Unless you were speaking from ignorance, and all you have to do is say so.

      Delete
    27. "Sure I would, because you can't discriminate in business practices against people due to things such as religion."

      But, we're not talking about religion. We're talking about sexual CHOICES and the demands that are made regarding those choices. Somebody CHOOSES to be sexually deviant and then uses that choice to force Churches to cater to them, knowing that the Church does not approve of that deviant lifestyle. And, you haven't been able to demonstrate why a chosen deviant lifestyle should be given the ability to do that. You haven't even been able to demonstrate how that sexual deviance is NOT a choice.
      In essence what you are saying is that a normal person can be denied use of Church property with no recourse. But, if that normal person suddenly CHOOSES to become gay they can now force the Church to allow them use of that property. Based solely on the CHOICE of being gay. How does that logic work?

      Delete
    28. "We're talking about sexual CHOICES and the demands that are made regarding those choices."

      Are you saying religion is innate? What contrast are you trying to present here?

      "Somebody CHOOSES to be sexually deviant and then uses that choice to force Churches to cater to them, knowing that the Church does not approve of that deviant lifestyle."

      Who's forcing churches to run businesses for profit? If they don't want to comply with the law, then don't start up the enterprise.

      "And, you haven't been able to demonstrate why a chosen deviant lifestyle should be given the ability to do that."

      Actual churches shouldn't, and won't, have to approve of anything they don't want to. Business matters are not the same thing.

      "You haven't even been able to demonstrate how that sexual deviance is NOT a choice."

      You haven't been able to demonstrate that it is. My argument makes sense, yours does not.

      "In essence what you are saying is that a normal person can be denied use of Church property with no recourse. But, if that normal person suddenly CHOOSES to become gay they can now force the Church to allow them use of that property."

      Why would the "normal" person be denied the opportunity to pay money for rental fees, exactly? It's not exactly clear what your scenario is supposed to entail. Besides, nobody chooses to be gay, so your premise is idiotic through and through.

      Delete
    29. "Who's forcing churches to run businesses for profit?"

      They don't run them "for profit". Straw-man argument by you. The money goes back into the community in some way or another. That's why they are given tax-free status by the US government. If they were "for profit" organizations then it would be different. But they are not.

      "Besides, nobody chooses to be gay, so your premise is idiotic through and through."

      Oh? Prove that. Until you do, then my premise is completely logical. And, your refusal to address that aspect of this discussion makes you look like you are avoiding the issue by creating un-necassary diversions into unrelated areas. But, you are a liberal, and that is how they do things.

      Delete
    30. "They don't run them "for profit"."

      Ah, no. You're making assumptions. Churches that run commercial enterprises pay taxes on any profits they keep, and nobody forces them to do anything of the sort. Either way, it has no bearing. It's not as if they're allowed to discriminate because the money goes into the community "one way or another". What the hell does that even mean? If they support local businesses, then the money's going back into the community. Incidentally, you're misusing the term "straw-man".

      "Prove that. Until you do, then my premise is completely logical."

      No, I don't have to prove anything to show that your premise is illogical. Again, why is the "normal" person being denied? And also again, you can't "choose" to be gay unless you're attracted to both genders.

      If you want me to address your scenario, you have to make sense of it. That's perfectly rational for me to assert.

      Delete
    31. "You haven't been able to demonstrate that it is. My argument makes sense, yours does not."

      You mean your argument that people don't choose to be gay because they would face ridicule? Or your premise that if you are straight then you are gay? I don't see how either one of those reasons is logical to someone with a brain.
      Example: I asked you what brand of vehicle you prefer and you answered: not rolls royce because they are too expensive and therefore it is not a choice.
      That is the kind of illogical logic you use to avoid answering questions.

      Now, how does my argument not make sense? Especially when compared to your illogical reasonings.

      Delete
    32. "Churches that run commercial enterprises pay taxes on any profits they keep, and nobody forces them to do anything of the sort."

      Ah, you're making assumptions too. How is money made from renting Church property for weddings not considered the same as tithes accepted during service? They must file tax forms just like everyone else, if there is money not accounted for it will have to be justified. They can't just have a bake sale and determine that the money brought in is "profit".

      "No"

      I didn't think you would feel an obligation to prove your assertions. That is how liberals usually do things. I gave a perfectly logical analogy that covers the "choices" we make during our lives. And the "choice" of car we like is a very good analogy. I DO NOT have to be attracted to every brand of car in order to decide which one I like. Your stance in illogical and unexplainable other than through 'opinion' with nothing to back it up. And since you have the opinions that are typical liberal, that would make your opinions null and void in a reality based conversation.

      Delete
    33. "You mean your argument that people don't choose to be gay because they would face ridicule?"

      Or other minor things such as being dragged to death behind a truck, yes. Being disowned by family, kicked out of the military and facing career suicide, etc.

      "Or your premise that if you are straight then you are gay?"

      I never claimed that.

      "That is the kind of illogical logic you use to avoid answering questions."

      Explain why it's illogical. If there's only one option, there's no choice. It's quite simple.

      "Now, how does my argument not make sense?"

      Because it's not bloody likely that people have chosen to be gay since the times where it was legal to stone them to death for it. For thousands of years there was no benefit and all risk, yet somehow, throughout history and the reaches of civilizations, people still made that "choice". You can't explain how that theory is supposed to make sense.

      "How is money made from renting Church property for weddings not considered the same as tithes accepted during service?"

      Because it goes outside of the scope of religious practice, moron.

      "They must file tax forms just like everyone else, if there is money not accounted for it will have to be justified. They can't just have a bake sale and determine that the money brought in is "profit"."

      That sounds like you're making my point. They pay taxes on commercial enterprises.

      "I didn't think you would feel an obligation to prove your assertions. That is how liberals usually do things."

      While you haven't proven your assertions.

      "And the "choice" of car we like is a very good analogy."

      Yes, because if people were stoned to death for driving mini-vans, surely sales would have continued at an even keel. Idiot.

      Delete
    34. Who has been "stoned to death", in the US, in the last century for being gay? Name ONE person who has been "stoned to death" in the US in the last 2 centuries. You are making stuff up just to avoid the issue.
      I don't know of any rapist who was born that way in spite of the danger he/she would put themselves in for "choosing" that lifestyle. Same with murderers and thieves. Don't all of them face persecution of some type for choosing their lifestyle ("Being disowned by family, kicked out of the military and facing career suicide, etc.")? Your reasonings are illogical and out of context.

      "Because it goes outside of the scope of religious practice"

      How so? How does money coming into the Church get get separated into different categories? Are you saying if you have a yard sale then that money is declared separately from your normal income?

      "I never claimed that."

      Yes you did and I've already used your quote in the other thread. Which you promptly denied saying. Even though I used your exact words. Bi-sexual is the same as gay.

      "Yes, because if people were stoned to death for driving mini-vans, surely sales would have continued at an even keel. Idiot."

      And since no one is stoned to death for being gay, then your refusal to accept the analogy or even properly recognize it is mysteriously liberal of you. Well, not so mysteriously. Actually quite expected.

      Delete
    35. "Who has been "stoned to death", in the US, in the last century for being gay?"

      Strawman. I didn't claim anyone was stoned to death in the last century. Note the phrase "for thousands of years", moron.

      "I don't know of any rapist who was born that way in spite of the danger he/she would put themselves in for "choosing" that lifestyle."

      Rape isn't an orientation. If you think really, really hard, maybe you can figure out the difference between a solitary act of violence and attraction that lasts for a lifetime.

      "Your reasonings are illogical and out of context."

      Out of context? What the hell is that supposed to mean, specifically?

      "How does money coming into the Church get get separated into different categories?"

      How does renting land fit into religious doctrine? And I don't think it's too complicated to separate tithing from business income in a ledger book.

      "Are you saying if you have a yard sale then that money is declared separately from your normal income?"

      Are you saying that renting land is as minor and unnoticeable as a yard sale?

      "Yes you did and I've already used your quote in the other thread."

      You can misrepresent my words in a dozen threads, it's still a lie.

      "Bi-sexual is the same as gay."

      No, "bisexual" is actually "bisexual". "Gay" or "lesbian" would be attracted to someone of the same sex.

      "And since no one is stoned to death for being gay, then your refusal to accept the analogy or even properly recognize it is mysteriously liberal of you."

      People used to be stoned to death for being gay. Hence the point that if people were murdered for owning minivans, people would stop buying them. Get it? If it were a choice, people would have stopped being gay before the Bible was even written.

      Delete
    36. "Rape isn't an orientation."

      Neither is sex. And if you think rapists only seek to rape one time you are pretty clueless. It is their chosen behavior.

      "Note the phrase "for thousands of years", moron"

      Interesting. For thousands of years religious folk were stoned if they believed the wrong religion. Does that make religion a "chosen" lifestyle or is someone "born" a certain religion? Because who would want to become something that has such a stigma attached to it? Your logic is very illogical.

      "You can misrepresent my words in a dozen threads, it's still a lie."

      In what way is it a lie to use your words that you said? Are you denying you said them? What do you want to change your meaning to?

      "Hence the point that if people were murdered for owning minivans, people would stop buying them. Get it? If it were a choice, people would have stopped being gay before the Bible was even written."

      People were stoned for being Christian. Does that mean they are born that way, too? Since no one would want to be something that could get them murdered. Again, your logic is illogical.

      "No, "bisexual" is actually "bisexual"."

      Didn't you say being straight means you are attracted to both genders? Being attracted to both genders means you are bi-sexual. So, using YOUR logic being straight equals being bi-sexual. Hey, don't blame ME that YOU said it.

      Delete
    37. "Neither is sex."

      Sexual attraction is.

      "And if you think rapists only seek to rape one time you are pretty clueless."

      It's still not an orientation. It's not as if rapists don't have consensual sex the vast majority of the time.

      "For thousands of years religious folk were stoned if they believed the wrong religion."

      Wow. People are typically raised to be a certain religion, idiot. Nobody's raised to be gay. Even people who have homophobic environments turn out to be gay. Someone who isn't affiliated with a specific faith isn't going to choose one that's likely to get him killed. And what I find really hilarious is that someone religious would make that comparison. What's the principle that someone is standing for by being gay? You think that's on the same level as your connection with your God?

      "In what way is it a lie to use your words that you said?"

      By taking it out of context and making wild extrapolations from it.

      I don't need to change my meaning. You just need to quit lying.

      "Didn't you say being straight means you are attracted to both genders?"

      No, I didn't.

      Delete
    38. "Sexual attraction is."

      So, you are admitting that is choice?

      "It's not as if rapists don't have consensual sex the vast majority of the time."

      If you have an insight on rapists, then you have an upper hand on me. I know nothing of their personal lives. Perhaps you know more about their personal lives than I do.

      "By taking it out of context and making wild extrapolations from it."

      How was it out of context?

      Delete
    39. "So, you are admitting that is choice?"

      We were talking about orientation. Sexual attraction is an orientation, as opposed to rape.

      "If you have an insight on rapists, then you have an upper hand on me. I know nothing of their personal lives. Perhaps you know more about their personal lives than I do."

      I'm sure you did speak from ignorance.

      "How was it out of context?"

      Because the obvious meaning was that nobody "chooses" to be gay, as in someone waking up one morning and saying "I found women attractive yesterday, but today I think I'll think about men instead". The only people who can reasonably be said to have a choice are people who find both genders attractive, meaning bisexuals.

      Here's the quote:"No, the point is that if you chose to be straight, then you're attracted to both genders. Because otherwise, it's not a choice. The same way I don't "choose" not to buy a Rolls Royce, because I can't afford one. It's not an option, therefore not a choice. And obviously, "bi" refers to attraction, not behavior."

      That does not say, nor does it imply, that being straight is the same as being gay, or whatever bizarre claim you make from one post to the next.

      Delete
    40. "We were talking about orientation"

      And orientation is who you are "attracted" to. So attraction and orientation are directly linked by CHOICE. Thanks for admitting that.

      "I'm sure you did speak from ignorance."

      And, are you speaking from experience?

      Delete
    41. "And orientation is who you are "attracted" to. So attraction and orientation are directly linked by CHOICE. Thanks for admitting that."

      I didn't say anything about "CHOICE" there. How you inserted that word is up to you to explain.

      "And, are you speaking from experience?"

      No, it's called "knowledge";http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-offenders. Your idea that rapists are typically serial rapists is ignorant in the extreme. Yet again, it's not similar to an orientation, and in no way comparable to being gay.

      Delete
    42. "I didn't say anything about "CHOICE" there. "

      You said you choose to be straight. That is a fact. Do you want me to produce the quote yet again? Obviously, if you choose to be straight, you choose to be gay. How can you deny that?

      "No, it's called "knowledge" "

      I think it's your experience. You bring a link that shows rapists do not rape just once. They create a habit of it because they choose to do it. When you find a link that shows rapists rape just once then I will admit you are right on that point. But, you never will because all you can find are reasons why rapist rape. You will never find a link that show rapists only rape once. Therefor rape is a CHOICE, not an isolated instance. As you are inferring.

      The choice of being straight is just like the choice of being gay ... a CHOICE. If I was to use the word "moron" to describe you, now would be the time. You are a moron to think being gay is not a choice but being straight is. I've already quoted you saying that being straight is a choice. I'd like to see you defend that statement instead of bringing diversions that have no bearing on this conversation.

      "Yet again, it's not similar to an orientation"

      Really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation
      This site says differently. They say orientation is based on ATTRACTION. What do you have to say about that? Then, once you read that site, go to this one: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/attraction


      I find it amusing that you act the way you do. But, considering you are a liberal, I would expect nothing less from you.


      Delete
    43. "You said you choose to be straight. That is a fact."

      No, I did not say that. Besides that, it would be separate from the context specified. I didn't say anything about "CHOICE" when talking about orientation, but you added that word, somehow.

      "I think it's your experience."

      No, it's knowledge, as demonstrated. Grow up.

      "You bring a link that shows rapists do not rape just once."

      It showed that, generally? Prove it.

      "When you find a link that shows rapists rape just once then I will admit you are right on that point."

      You're suffering from binary thinking. It's not either way all the time. Since the majority of rapes are at the very least known to the victim, obviously serial rapists are not the norm. It's not as if people rape entire circles of friends without someone comparing notes and getting support from people they know.

      "Therefor rape is a CHOICE, not an isolated instance."

      I didn't say rape wasn't a choice. There's also no contrast between "CHOICE" and an isolated instance. It can obviously be both.

      "You are a moron to think being gay is not a choice but being straight is."

      I didn't say being straight was a choice, moron.

      "They say orientation is based on ATTRACTION."

      Rape is a behavior, idiot. It's not merely "ATTRACTION".

      Delete
    44. "Since the majority of rapes are at the very least known to the victim, obviously serial rapists are not the norm" + " It can obviously be both."

      Oh? Show that is true from the link your brought. I see that rapists rape because of convenience. You have something that shows otherwise? Then bring THAT link. I have not heard of rapists who rape once and done. Have you? After all, you seem to be an expert on how rapists think. I may have "binary thinking", but it is fact that rapists do not rape just once. Whether they know the person or not, that is true. Prove me wrong.

      "I didn't say being straight was a choice, moron."

      Yes you did. You even quoted your own link. Try to argue against that one.

      "Rape is a behavior, idiot. It's not merely "ATTRACTION"."

      So is homosexuality. Are you going to bring some proof that you are born that way or stick with what you said? Or are you saying that you are born with behaviors that will never change? In which case we can eliminate most criminal "behaviors" before they become dangerous. Support YOUR claims or get lost.

      Delete
    45. "Oh? Show that is true from the link your brought. I see that rapists rape because of convenience."

      So you can't see the numbers regarding acquaintance rape, but you see something about "convenience"?

      "I have not heard of rapists who rape once and done. Have you?"

      Sure, why not? And even if you want to claim that all of them rape at least twice, it's still not an orientation.

      "I may have "binary thinking", but it is fact that rapists do not rape just once."

      Your opinion is not fact.

      "Prove me wrong."

      Prove yourself right. All you're doing is making blind, baseless assertions.

      "Yes you did. You even quoted your own link. Try to argue against that one."

      I have argued against that. You made wild extrapolations, and you have not defended yourself since I demonstrated that.

      "So is homosexuality."

      No, you're dead wrong. Orientation is a continuous state of attraction. You're always attracted to women. It's not an action, like rape is.

      "Or are you saying that you are born with behaviors that will never change? In which case we can eliminate most criminal "behaviors" before they become dangerous."

      Do you think you could have gay sex? If not, then obviously your behaviors (which follow your orientation, in this case), aren't going to change. Some criminals are sociopaths who can't alter their behavior, but that's not the norm.

      "Support YOUR claims or get lost."

      No, hypocrite. You bring no evidence to support your bizarre article of faith, then you demand proof from me. It doesn't work like that.

      Delete
    46. "Your opinion is not fact."

      The link YOU brought shows it is fact. Sorry you can't bring better links. You should think before you type.

      "I have argued against that."

      Classic liberalism. You make a statement and then deny the validity of that statement. Very expected.

      "No, you're dead wrong"

      Prove it!

      "No"

      Totally expected answer.

      Delete
    47. "The link YOU brought shows it is fact."

      No, it didn't, as I pointed out.

      "You make a statement and then deny the validity of that statement."

      I argued against your insane interpretation. Do you really think your interpretation is the "validity" of the statement? That's quite the ego you have there. Note again that you haven't defended yourself since I pointed out your dishonesty. All you do is stomp your feet as you say it louder, like a child.

      "Prove it!"

      Easy. Your sexual orientation is a continuous state of attraction. Do you call yourself "straight" but waver towards your own gender from time to time? No? Then it's continuous. Yet again, not like rape.

      "Totally expected answer."

      And completely fair, until you explain otherwise. I know you won't.

      Delete
    48. "Your sexual orientation is a continuous state of attraction."

      So, you're saying they (gays/straights/bi-sexuals) are NOT BORN THAT WAY? Only that it is a continuous state of attraction? Nice for you to admit that one.

      Delete
    49. I never said "BORN THAT WAY". I said it wasn't a choice. It's not clear why that and "continuous state of attraction" are supposed to be mutually exclusive, either.

      Your manufactured standard that I have to repeat "it's not a choice" in every single post, or else I'm supposedly admitting something completely unstated, is utterly absurd.

      Delete
    50. "I said it wasn't a choice. It's not clear why that and "continuous state of attraction" are supposed to be mutually exclusive, either."

      Not a choice? What other options are there? Look, just because you're a stupid ass don't expect me to believe what you say. You can't make up your mind on what gay people are. Are they born that way or is it choice? There are no other options ... as far as I know. Perhaps you are right and they have "continuous state of attraction", but THAT IS CHOICE. Say what you mean or STFU. You argue like a liberal ... without purpose, only opinion. You are afraid to bring proof for your stances and demand proof from others. Another typical liberal action. When you grow a pair and actually show your convictions on a subject I will be completely surprised. Because so far all you've done is whine. You are the consummate liberal: whine about anything anyone thinking differently than you says. Whether they are right or wrong. Hell, you couldn't even follow the conversation in the other thread we are discussing in. As Eddie would say: quit being a dick and stand up for what you say.

      Or continue acting like a liberal.

      Delete
    51. "Not a choice? What other options are there?"

      If there's no difference between "born that way" and "not a choice", then there's no need for you to insist on your wording. Which prompts the question:why do you keep saying "born that way", even though I haven't?

      "You can't make up your mind on what gay people are."

      I haven't changed my mind, and you can't demonstrate where I have.

      "Perhaps you are right and they have "continuous state of attraction", but THAT IS CHOICE."

      So you could choose to be continuously attracted to men. Interesting.

      "Say what you mean or STFU."

      I've said what I meant. That's hilarious coming from someone who made a straightforward claim of fact and then turned around to claim you were just playing games.

      "You are afraid to bring proof for your stances and demand proof from others. Another typical liberal action."

      Your fantasy that sexual orientation is just your opinion. You don't bring proof, then you demand proof from me. Are you a liberal, by your definition?

      "When you grow a pair and actually show your convictions on a subject I will be completely surprised."

      I've shown conviction consistently. Homosexuality is obviously not a choice. I don't know how much straightforward that can get.

      "You are the consummate liberal: whine about anything anyone thinking differently than you says."

      All you've done is whine that I don't blindly accept your claim that sexual orientation is a choice. You don't even try to support it, you just insist it's true and criticize me for not buying that.

      Delete
    52. "Which prompts the question:why do you keep saying "born that way", even though I haven't?"

      Because of you lack of conviction. Tell me what you believe. Are gays born that way or is it choice? Or, do you have another explanation that doesn't fit within those two parameters?

      "So you could choose to be continuously attracted to men. Interesting."

      Why? Which do you choose to be attracted to ... men or women?

      "That's hilarious coming from someone who made a straightforward claim of fact and then turned around to claim you were just playing games."

      I schooled you. And when you had to go to the chalk-board you cried.

      "Homosexuality is obviously not a choice." +"I never said "BORN THAT WAY". I said it wasn't a choice."

      Not a choice? But not born that way? How do they become homosexuals?

      You must be very short. Because you have a major case of "little man complex". Grow a pair and decide which it is: born/choose
      State your case, little man, because you appear to be a spine-less little boy who won't make up his mind unless you get your own way. Is that who I'm dealing with?

      At least Eddie has the balls to lay it all out on the table for everyone to read. You show nothing. Are you afraid? Little man

      Delete
    53. "Because of you lack of conviction."

      Your confusion is not my problem. I don't say "born that way" because it's probably more complicated than that, and it's still not a choice. It's not that difficult to grasp.

      "Why? Which do you choose to be attracted to ... men or women?"

      I never chose, because I don't have some mental switch to become attracted to men. Why is it an option for you?

      "I schooled you."

      No, you got caught lying. Even if I believed your ludicrous story, you would still have no credibility since I would have to think that any claim you make is just another childish game. That's not a great scenario for you, either.

      "Grow a pair and decide which it is: born/choose"

      Sorry, you're presenting a false choice. I'm not obligated to pick one or the other.

      "Are you afraid? Little man"

      You're the one who seems to be falling apart, while I'm perfectly composed. That says it all.

      Delete
    54. "I never chose, because I don't have some mental switch to become attracted to men. "

      Oh? Bring proof of that claim Being a liberal, I doubt you can or will.

      "No, you got caught lying."

      Fully explained.

      " I'm not obligated to pick one or the other"

      Of course you're not. You are a liberal. When you grow a pair, like right-wingers, you'll be able to actually answer that question. But, .... you are a liberal ... so no answer is expected.

      Delete
    55. "Bring proof of that claim"

      You want proof that there's no mental switch for sexual orientation? What, exactly, do you imagine you're asking for? What would a non-liberal present to you as evidence of that? One way to answer that is to address the question posed to you:"Why is it an option for you?" If you want to counter what I said, it would make more sense for you to explain how you do feel able to switch over to men than for me to try to prove a negative. That really should be obvious, even to you.

      "Fully explained."

      No, it wasn't. You didn't even explain how it was supposed to make sense.

      "Of course you're not. You are a liberal."

      Yes, and as a liberal I don't suffer from binary thinking. I know it's not one or the other, so I know I don't have to comply to your irrational demand.

      "When you grow a pair, like right-wingers, you'll be able to actually answer that question."

      I answered the question. It's not a choice. Your third-grade taunts aren't going to compel me to give your false dichotomy any further consideration.

      Delete
    56. "You want proof that there's no mental switch for sexual orientation?"

      If that's how you say it works, then yes. Give me a viable explanation of how they choose to be gay. Not some generic "environmental" factors. Give me plausible reasons. Since the key "environmental" factor that you keep referring to is the one that would keep them FROM being gay: abuse from others. So if you're going to claim there is some inherent reason for them to choose to be gay, then you need to fully explain that (those) reasons. Not just give generic brand words.

      "Yes, and as a liberal I don't suffer from binary thinking."

      Yes, you do. You said people should be allowed to fire others because of their religious choices. That seems like binary thinking to me. And you still haven't explained why you have such harsh views.

      "Your third-grade taunts aren't going to compel me"

      They work better than your first-grade name-calling. Are we in a discussion or elementary school? Because I've seen you and Eddie call me many, many names as if you were still in first-grade. When you can discuss like an adult, you will get adult treatment back. When you act like a child, I'll treat you like a child.

      Delete
    57. "If that's how you say it works, then yes."

      No. If you want to claim you can switch to men, you explain how it's supposed to work.

      "Give me a viable explanation of how they choose to be gay."

      No, that's what you need to do. You're the one who thinks it's a choice.

      "Not some generic "environmental" factors."

      Do you think all environments are identical?

      "Since the key "environmental" factor that you keep referring to is the one that would keep them FROM being gay: abuse from others."

      A combination of factors would be influenced by all the ones involved. If abuse was the only notable factor, then we wouldn't have gay people. I also never said that abuse was an environmental factor.

      "So if you're going to claim there is some inherent reason for them to choose to be gay, then you need to fully explain that (those) reasons."

      They don't choose to be gay.

      "You said people should be allowed to fire others because of their religious choices."

      No, I didn't.

      "That seems like binary thinking to me."

      You don't know the meaning of the term, obviously.

      "They work better than your first-grade name-calling."

      If you don't like being called "moron", make better arguments. I explain in full detail how what you say is idiotic, so quit your whining. When you're able to go a day without vomiting your bigoted bullshit about liberals, then you can talk about adult behavior.

      Delete
    58. "No. If you want to claim you can switch to men, you explain how it's supposed to work."

      Ok, so you say men switch at any given time because of environmental factors. But, then, you deny saying that. Ok, I got it."

      You want me to explain how they are not born that way. Ok, done that .... been there. What more do you want me to bring than what is already known?!!? You got proof of ANYTHING ELSE, let me know. Otherwise, you got noting.

      "Do you think all environments are identical?"

      No. Is that a factor in your "choice" option?

      "A combination of factors would be influenced by all the ones involved."

      Yes. And "choice" would be the deciding factor, huh? Everybody has "environmental" decisions to make. But, the key is that those are DECISIONS that YOU make

      "They don't choose to be gay."

      Show otherwise. Oh, you can't do that. So .... never mind. I don't need you trying to prove they are born that way or otherwise, obviously you cannot answer that question. So don't bother answering.

      "No, I didn't."

      Yes, you most certainly did. Are you going to deny you said that? Fully explain your liberal backtracking.

      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-radical-gay-agenda.html?showComment=1374378651397#c7604860410503642401

      "You don't know the meaning of the term, obviously."

      Maybe I don't. But, you certainly don't either.

      "If you don't like being called "moron", make better arguments."

      I've beat everyone of yours, so what's the point you're trying to make.

      "When you're able to go a day without vomiting your bigoted bullshit about liberals, then you can talk about adult behavior."

      Unfortunately, I prove that point every time you post. You cuss and call names ... while I do nothing but call you a liberal. Is being called a liberal so hard to take that you think it is offensive?
      I'll bet that is another question you refuse to answer.

      Delete
    59. "Ok, so you say men switch at any given time because of environmental factors."

      No, I don't say people can switch at all, unless they're bisexual. Again, why do you think you can switch to men?

      "Ok, done that .... been there."

      No, you haven't "done that". You assert it's a choice without explaining how that works. If it's not possible, then obviously you're in no position to demand proof from anyone else.

      "No. Is that a factor in your "choice" option?"

      Why is "choice" being attributed to me? That's your opinion, not mine.

      "Yes. And "choice" would be the deciding factor, huh?"

      No, "choice" is not a factor. If all of the factors led to someone being bisexual, then choice would be the result. Otherwise, people don't choose what gender to have sex with.

      "Everybody has "environmental" decisions to make."

      What in the name of Christ is an environmental decision supposed to be?

      "Show otherwise. Oh, you can't do that."

      No, show that there's a choice. Oh, you can't do that.

      "Are you going to deny you said that?"

      Adamantly. It was a question to you about your views. Moreover, it was a criticism of you. Look that word up if you need. Obviously, if I'm criticizing what you say because you're suggesting that people should be able to be fired due to their faith, then obviously I don't think people should be fired for that. That's why it's a criticism, moron.

      "Maybe I don't. But, you certainly don't either."

      If you don't know the meaning of the term, then you're not able to judge if someone else does.

      "I've beat everyone of yours, so what's the point you're trying to make."

      That you're delusional. Your baseless assertions and generalizations aren't even valid arguments, so they don't even compete.

      "You cuss and call names ... while I do nothing but call you a liberal."

      You lose again. Because I talk about your own behavior, while you make insane generalizations about everyone who disagrees with you. I demonstrate how what you say is stupid, while your argument is that I fit in to a category that you say is wrong in general. Intellectually, you get zero points for that.

      "Is being called a liberal so hard to take that you think it is offensive?"

      It's not hard at all. You condemn liberals as a group. I don't consider "liberal" an insult, I'm pointing out that you're a bigot. You're not bright enough to figure even that much out, apparently.

      Delete
    60. "No, show that there's a choice. Oh, you can't do that."

      Ahh, yes I can. Here is the choice options for all humans: who should I have sex with today- a man or a woman? There, you have it. CHOICES that are made by everyone who lives. Even in the animal world it is the same .... CHOICES. Now, can you show they (gays) are born that way? I've brought proof of CHOICES, now you bring proof of your environmental factors that cause gayness. Because if environmental factors do cause gayness, then everyone who is exposed to the same environmental factors would be gay. Without exception, according to your theory on what causes gayness. Do you have even ONE example of those environmental factors causing gayness?

      "Adamantly. It was a question to you about your views."

      It is a statement about your beliefs. Pure and simple, since no one was talking about religion. Obviously, when you have such a hatred of others, you will vent every chance you get. Is it really healthy to hold onto such hatred? Why do you do it, then?

      "if I'm criticizing what you say because you're suggesting that people should be able to be fired due to their faith, then obviously I don't think people should be fired for that. "

      In what way did I suggest "religion" in my statement?

      "If you don't know the meaning of the term, then you're not able to judge if someone else does."

      I am able to make judgements all day long. I can (and am expected) to judge people and what they stand for. In fact I am told to judge people. Do you have a problem with having morals?

      "You condemn liberals as a group."

      Do you know a liberal who doesn't act like you? From all the posts (of Eddies) that I've read, he is just like you. So are the people that post on his sites. Well, the ones who blindly agree with everything he says simply because he said it. There are a few posters who actually don't agree with what Eddie says. And they are quickly cussed at and lied to. Yes, you liberals are all alike. I'm sorry but if the shoe fits. And, as long as you keep providing factual proof of what I say about liberals, then my opinion will remain as it is. You simply make my opinion into fact by acting the way you do.

      Here's another one; the moment you started using the word "bigot" I knew you had given up. That is the key word that liberals use when they have no viable argument for their stance on gayness.

      Delete
    61. "Ahh, yes I can. Here is the choice options for all humans: who should I have sex with today- a man or a woman? There, you have it."

      So you ask yourself that question every morning?

      "Even in the animal world it is the same .... CHOICES."

      You think animals make conscious choices? Interesting. Any zoologists to back that up?

      "Now, can you show they (gays) are born that way?"

      I never said "born that way". You're very slow on that.

      "Because if environmental factors do cause gayness, then everyone who is exposed to the same environmental factors would be gay."

      No, moron. A combination of factors are involved, not one factor.

      "It is a statement about your beliefs."

      Not with a question mark at the end, no. A question is not a statement. By definition.

      "Pure and simple, since no one was talking about religion."

      That makes no sense, as I pointed out, because you wouldn't have responded the way you did if you didn't grasp the point of my question.

      "Obviously, when you have such a hatred of others, you will vent every chance you get."

      That's hilarious coming from you. And who do I supposedly hate in this fantasy of yours?

      "In what way did I suggest "religion" in my statement?"

      Because religion is a choice, so what you said would apply to religion as well. It would be like (in your dreams) if I said "conservatives shouldn't have freedom of speech because all they do is push their politics on others", you would ask about liberals. Because the same principle would apply. But according to you, you wouldn't be able to ask that question, because I never said anything about "liberals" in my comment. That would be dumb, don't you think? Maybe now you know how you look.

      "I can (and am expected) to judge people and what they stand for."

      We're not talking about judging people, idiot. You can't determine what "binary thinking" is if you don't know what the term means. You even included "term" in the quote, then you veer off into talking about judging people and having morals.

      "And, as long as you keep providing factual proof of what I say about liberals, then my opinion will remain as it is."

      I don't think your opinion is malleable for any reason whatsoever. I don't blindly agree with anyone in the world. You either don't have the knowledge of my posting history to make that determination, or you're lying. As for people who "act like me", you haven't even shown where I've done or said anything questionable.

      "Here's another one; the moment you started using the word "bigot" I knew you had given up."

      That's a predictable excuse that bigots use when they're called out on their homophobia and implied racism. And if you condemn an entire group of people, without making accommodations in your mind for individual behavior or character, you are a bigot. Again, by definition. So don't whine to me about what you are. Become a better person, then you won't have to hear it any more.

      Delete
    62. "Any zoologists to back that up?"

      Who said anything about "conscious choices"? Is that another of your deflections? Otherwise, any one of them would agree they make choices.

      "No, moron. A combination of factors are involved, not one factor."

      Ok, then everyone exposed to that same combination would be gay. Is that your stance?

      "Because the same principle would apply."

      Exactly. So, it is ok for you to push your gay beliefs onto others, while it is not ok for others to push their religious beliefs onto you? Or, as you would insist: it is OK for the government to force homosexuality onto others, but not ok for the government to force religion onto others? What happened to your principles? I guess you must have them before you can lose them.

      "That's a predictable excuse that bigots use when they're called out on their homophobia and implied racism."

      What implied racism? See? You're just making shit up now. Just like Eddie does. Just like all liberals do.

      "And if you condemn an entire group of people, without making accommodations in your mind for individual behavior or character, you are a bigot."

      I condemn a LIFESTYLE. That does not make me a bigot. It makes me true to my convictions and my belief in the way of life as taught by my God concerning what is good and what is evil in the society we live in today. If you have no ability to distinguish good from evil, then you become and atheist or liberal or both. And use religion as an excuse for causing your behavior. The thing about you people, is that you always refuse to accept accountability for your own actions. You always have someone or something else to blame, besides yourself. Gayness is a perfect example. When you can't answer one simple question on the subject you blame a multitude of other factors.

      "So you ask yourself that question every morning?"

      Don't need to. I made that choice many decades ago. How about you? Are you exposed to those multitude of environmental factors? Are you gay? Why not? If you are exposed to the same environmental factors as gay people are? I guess your theory only works sometimes? And other times it doesn't? Good theory you have there.

      Delete
    63. "Who said anything about "conscious choices"?"

      What other kind of choice are you talking about?

      "Ok, then everyone exposed to that same combination would be gay."

      Sure. That includes genetic factors as well, though, so I'm not sure what you think your point is.

      "So, it is ok for you to push your gay beliefs onto others, while it is not ok for others to push their religious beliefs onto you?"

      Who's pushing you to be gay?

      "What implied racism?"

      This:"Because your "environmental factors" doesn't explain why there are murderers and rapists. They simply CHOOSE to do those evil things. Fully understanding the consequences of their choices."

      "I condemn a LIFESTYLE."

      No, you condemn liberals and atheists as well. As groups. That makes you a bigot. Do try to keep up.

      "If you have no ability to distinguish good from evil, then you become and atheist or liberal or both."

      Note my immediately previous comment.

      "The thing about you people, is that you always refuse to accept accountability for your own actions."

      And again.

      "Don't need to. I made that choice many decades ago."

      If your "explanation" didn't apply to you, why did you use it? It's clearly not relevant to what you imagine the truth to be.

      "Are you gay? Why not? If you are exposed to the same environmental factors as gay people are? I guess your theory only works sometimes? And other times it doesn't? Good theory you have there."

      You are wildly confused. Genetics and development are factors as well. Stop flailing about and try to concentrate for a minute or two.

      Delete
    64. "Sure. That includes genetic factors as well, though, so I'm not sure what you think your point is."

      And you have examples of those genetic factors and the group of people who are all genetically related because those factors helped cause their gayness? Of course that would imply they are "born that way" if you use genetics as the factor involved in choosing to be gay. But, you've denied that in the past. Now you are using that as a reason? Hmmm

      "Who's pushing you to be gay?"

      Who's pushing you to be religious?

      "Note my immediately previous comment."

      And??? Are you an atheist or liberal or both? How does pointing out facts make me a bigot?

      Delete
    65. "And you have examples of those genetic factors and the group of people who are all genetically related because those factors helped cause their gayness?"

      A genetic deviation has nothing to do with everyone in a family displaying it. That's not how the concept works.

      "Of course that would imply they are "born that way" if you use genetics as the factor involved in choosing to be gay."

      No, because environmental factors would apply after birth, moron.

      "Who's pushing you to be religious?"

      People like you are. When you act as if this is a Christian nation, when you have mandated prayer in public schools, when the court system recognizes the Ten Commandments as in any way legitimate and worthy of display, that's a message that everyone is supposed to be religious. That is authority making a statement. Now, who's pushing you to be gay? It's not a difficult question.

      "And??? Are you an atheist or liberal or both? How does pointing out facts make me a bigot?"

      I'm both. Pointing that out isn't the problem, your inflammatory generalizations are.

      Delete
    66. "when the court system recognizes the Ten Commandments as in any way legitimate and worthy of display,"

      Right, so when the government sends you to jail for lying in court, that should be stopped since it is in the 10 Commandments? And stealing should be legalized now, too? Same reason. Wow, you sure have an compelling argument going there.

      "Pointing that out isn't the problem, your inflammatory generalizations are."

      Awww, you poor thing. I guess when everyone in that group acts the same way and I point that out, it makes me a bigot for pointing out how you people act?

      "No, because environmental factors would apply after birth, moron."

      Genetics are before birth. Are you flip-flopping on your reasons for choosing to be gay? Or are you denying you said genetics play a part? Where are your examples of groups of humans that experience the same environmental factors and genetic factors and 'become gay' that prove your THEORY?

      Delete
    67. "Right, so when the government sends you to jail for lying in court, that should be stopped since it is in the 10 Commandments?"

      That law exists for an objective reason. Like laws against theft. Just because the Ten Commandments have 20.00001% in common with the law doesn't validate it, moron. When we send people to jail for coveting, then you'll have a point. The thing dictates worshiping God. You knew that, right? Do you think that worshiping the Christian God should be mandated law?

      "Awww, you poor thing. I guess when everyone in that group acts the same way and I point that out, it makes me a bigot for pointing out how you people act?"

      No large group is homogeneous. Your premise isn't even possible.

      "Genetics are before birth."

      Yes, and environmental factors are after birth.

      "Are you flip-flopping on your reasons for choosing to be gay?"

      No, because it's not a choice, for one thing. I also used the word "combination" earlier, if you didn't notice.

      "Or are you denying you said genetics play a part?"

      No, I've said environmental and genetic factors apply. Again, "combination".

      "Where are your examples of groups of humans that experience the same environmental factors and genetic factors and 'become gay' that prove your THEORY?"

      It's not clear what you're really expecting. But try reading a little:http://io9.com/5967426/scientists-confirm-that-homosexuality-is-not-genetic--but-it-arises-in-the-womb

      Of course, after reading that, I'm deeply curious why you're so brave about challenging with the phrase "born that way". What evidence were you planning to use to disprove the idea that people are born gay? Assuming you had any.

      Delete
    68. "No large group is homogeneous. Your premise isn't even possible."

      I know. Because homosexuality is purely CHOICE. Otherwise, you could be able to bring proof of another reason. But, you cannot, so the proof IS that it is CHOICE.

      "Yes, and environmental factors are after birth."

      Yes, and CHOICE is after birth also.

      "No, I've said environmental and genetic factors apply. Again, "combination"."

      I asked for proof of the genetic part and you said it "isn't even possible". So, how can you say it is genetic? You said only after birth factors effect the CHOICE of homosexuality because it isn't possible to bring evidence of before birth effect.

      "It's not clear what you're really expecting. But try reading a little:"

      Sorry, that's a flawed study. First they only used "models" of their biological/mathematical expectations. Second, if their premise was true then you would HAVE the generational gays 'in the family'. I've already asked you to provide that proof and you said it is impossible to bring that proof. So, they can't actually prove their conclusion with any evidence other than their predicted results from a mathematical equation they made up.

      "What evidence were you planning to use to disprove the idea that people are born gay?"

      Doesn't matter, I will never have to bring that evidence, since it will never be found that you are born that way. Even the doctors in your "study" admitted that much.

      "Do you think that worshiping the Christian God should be mandated law?"

      It already is. Do you know the punishment for breaking His laws is? Yes, I guess you do. That is why you chose atheism, because you don't want to be bound by laws and you want to do things as you please. Typical liberal action, there.

      Delete
    69. "I know. Because homosexuality is purely CHOICE. Otherwise, you could be able to bring proof of another reason. But, you cannot, so the proof IS that it is CHOICE."

      What the hell did that have to do with what I said?

      "Yes, and CHOICE is after birth also."

      That doesn't address my point, either.

      "I asked for proof of the genetic part and you said it "isn't even possible"."

      You're mixing up sections of the conversation. You said:" I guess when everyone in that group acts the same way..." And I said "No large group is homogeneous." It had nothing to do with genetics or homosexuality.

      "You said only after birth factors effect the CHOICE of homosexuality because it isn't possible to bring evidence of before birth effect."

      I never said there was a CHOICE of homosexuality, so obviously I didn't say only after birth factors or anything of the sort. I said "combination". Look up the word, since you're having trouble with the meaning.

      "First they only used "models" of their biological/mathematical expectations."

      How so?

      "Second, if their premise was true then you would HAVE the generational gays 'in the family'."

      That's not consistent with what was in the article at all.

      "So, they can't actually prove their conclusion with any evidence other than their predicted results from a mathematical equation they made up."

      What's the alternative to a "made up" equation? You find mathematical equations growing off of trees, or what? All math is a construct of our intellect, idiot.

      "Even the doctors in your "study" admitted that much."

      Really? Cite the quote.

      "Do you know the punishment for breaking His laws is?"

      We're talking about actual law, moron. As in recognized in courts, which is what we were talking about.

      "That is why you chose atheism, because you don't want to be bound by laws and you want to do things as you please."

      No, because I don't need to be threatened by an invisible father figure to do the right thing. That's actually a higher echelon of morality than yours.

      Delete
    70. "That's not consistent with what was in the article at all."

      It would be consistent with their research study if they were to be honest with their results. I guess you didn't actually read the article? They say that is why homosexuality "runs in the family". Now, go out and find that proof and bring it. You are the one making the claim, prove it Bring that proof of generational gayness. Does homosexuality run in your family? Is your brother/sister gay? Maybe an uncle? Wow, you must be gay too. You can use your own family tree to prove that you are born gay. Here's your chance to finally win this argument. Because you are losing sloppily, right now.

      "Really? Cite the quote."

      "A team of international researchers has completed a study that suggests we will probably never find a ‘gay gene.' ". You really didn't read the article did you?

      "We're talking about actual law, moron. "

      Oh ... actual law, like the law you will be "harmed" if a religion has a display on public land. Or the law that you will be "harmed" if a copy of the 10 Commandments hangs on a wall in a court house? Those kind of laws?

      "No, because I don't need to be threatened by an invisible father figure to do the right thing. "

      That's basically what I just said. You don't want to be bound by morals and want to do as you please without having anyone telling what is or what isn't moral because you can do as you please as long as it pleases you. BTW, I don't feel threatened by Him, either. I am grateful for the peace-of-mind He gives me knowing that when I screw up I will be forgiven. You, on the other hand, probably live in denial and refuse to accept responsibility for your actions. Like name-calling. You don't seem to think calling people names is wrong. And from your posts, you don't seem to think lying is wrong either. But, that's ok. I fully understand your reasoning since you chose atheism and it's implied and inherent lack of morals. Which you are able to prove with more and more posts.

      Delete
    71. "It would be consistent with their research study if they were to be honest with their results."

      So, essentially, scientists are wrong because you disagree with their conclusions.

      "They say that is why homosexuality "runs in the family"."

      So what was your point, then? You seem to think that if it's in any way genetic, then everyone in the family is gay. If you're simply saying that some people in families become gay through genetics, so what? What is there to suggest otherwise?

      "Now, go out and find that proof and bring it."

      If the study says that homosexuality is determined before birth, then that's evidence.

      "You really didn't read the article did you?"

      You don't read your own posts:"Doesn't matter, I will never have to bring that evidence, since it will never be found that you are born that way. Even the doctors in your "study" admitted that much." The study said it was determined in the womb, which would be "born that way". Just saying there's no gay gene fails to meet the standard you've incessantly stated.

      "Oh ... actual law, like the law you will be "harmed" if a religion has a display on public land."

      Like actual law. Do you or do you not think that worshiping God should be part of our actual law?

      "That's basically what I just said."

      No, you said "do things as you please", which implies not caring about rules or morals at all. You were wrong.

      "You don't want to be bound by morals and want to do as you please without having anyone telling what is or what isn't moral because you can do as you please as long as it pleases you."

      As I said. "Do the right thing" is not consistent with that.

      "BTW, I don't feel threatened by Him, either."

      Really?:"Do you know the punishment for breaking His laws is?" I guess there is no punishment, then.

      "Like name-calling."

      Yes, I live in constant fear that God will smite me for calling you a moron.

      "And from your posts, you don't seem to think lying is wrong either."

      You haven't demonstrated any lies.

      "I fully understand your reasoning since you chose atheism and it's implied and inherent lack of morals."

      There is no implied or inherent lack of morals. I just don't need to be threatened by an invisible father figure in order to do the right thing. As humans with the capability to reason and philosophize, we can figure out morality just fine without a "for dummies" book.

      Delete
    72. "So, essentially, scientists are wrong because you disagree with their conclusions."

      No, because they can't bring evidence of their conclusions. Only theory of what MAY happen. Nothing on historical support of their theory. Obviously, if homosexuality is caused by what they claim, then there would be evidence of that through the thousands of years humans have been around. Bring some of that evidence. They sure couldn't. Perhaps you are smarter than them.

      "Do you or do you not think that worshiping God should be part of our actual law?"

      Which God? How does individual worshipping HARM you?

      "Yes, I live in constant fear that God will smite me for calling you a moron."

      And rightly so. Your behavior dictates you should have that fear. In spite of how you say you are moral, you still have no problem calling people names. How is that "doing the right thing"? I can understand when you point out my failures. But, to do them yourself and say you are doing "the right thing" seems just a little hypocritical.

      "I just don't need to be threatened by an invisible father figure in order to do the right thing."

      And calling people names is doing "the right thing" in what way? So cussing at people is moral in your world, while praying is immoral? I guess I was correct in my statement about your religion (inherent lack of morals).

      Delete
    73. "No, because they can't bring evidence of their conclusions."

      What's lacking in their evidence, specifically?

      "Obviously, if homosexuality is caused by what they claim, then there would be evidence of that through the thousands of years humans have been around."

      Like people remaining gay even under threat of death?

      "Which God? How does individual worshipping HARM you?"

      The God listed in the Ten Commandments. If it's mandated by law to worship that God, it would obviously be an infringement on my rights. Is that what you support?

      "And rightly so."

      I don't see name-calling in the Ten Commandments. It must not be that important. If there's room for "coveting", then name-calling must be very low on the list of wrongdoings.

      "In spite of how you say you are moral, you still have no problem calling people names. How is that "doing the right thing"?"

      What's immoral about calling a moron a moron? Especially when I demonstrate how it's true?

      "I can understand when you point out my failures."

      What failures have you admitted?

      "But, to do them yourself and say you are doing "the right thing" seems just a little hypocritical."

      I haven't said anything about "name-calling". I'm cited ad hominem, because that's insult in lieu of an argument. So it's not clear what the hypocrisy is supposed to be, exactly.

      "And calling people names is doing "the right thing" in what way?"

      Again? You know, when all you have is whining about me calling you out on the egregiously stupid things you post, you really don't have much to complain about.

      "So cussing at people is moral in your world, while praying is immoral?"

      What cussing? "Bullshit"? That's pretty light. And who said praying is immoral? I don't have a problem with individual prayer.

      Delete
    74. "If it's mandated by law to worship that God, it would obviously be an infringement on my rights. "

      How is that a "mandate"? What "law" mandates you to adhere to them? How is simply hanging a copy of the 10 Commandments forcing you to adhere to them? Are you being forced to look and read them and to adhere to them? Or is your mind so weak that you can't refuse to accept everything you read? That must be the answer, since you have no invisible father figure to help strengthen yourself against the evil of this world. Gosh it must be terrible being so weak minded that you can't even fend off a piece of paper hanging on a wall in a building you never enter. Maybe all you atheists are that weak minded? Or should I say thin-skinned. Either way ... you poor baby, having to whine about other people's happiness. I reckon that should just irk the hell out of you, since you miss that invisible father figure.

      "Like people remaining gay even under threat of death?"

      Well, we can go back to your racist comparison that you used in the other article. Why would anyone choose to be black "even under the threat of death"? I guess if you're going to use the race card you may as well complete the analogy. Oh, wait, let me answer that one for you: because they are BORN that way. Have you got any generational proof of gayness being handed down from generation to generation or family to family? So far, the ONLY evidence you can bring is choice. Albeit an un-happy choice.

      Delete
    75. "How is that a "mandate"? What "law" mandates you to adhere to them? How is simply hanging a copy of the 10 Commandments forcing you to adhere to them?"

      If the Ten Commandments aren't supposed to be followed, why would they be on the courthouse wall? Decoration? Remember your own words:"Right, so when the government sends you to jail for lying in court, that should be stopped since it is in the 10 Commandments? And stealing should be legalized now, too? Same reason. Wow, you sure have an compelling argument going there." So, you want to argue that not recognizing the Ten Commandments as legitimate means that theft has to be legal, but at the same time that the rest of it has no bearing on our law? How does that work, exactly? God only meant a few of them, and the rest were just jokes?

      "Either way ... you poor baby, having to whine about other people's happiness."

      Why is having the Ten Commandments on a courthouse wall necessary for your happiness, exactly?

      "Well, we can go back to your racist comparison that you used in the other article. Why would anyone choose to be black "even under the threat of death"?"

      What was "racist" about citing Loving v. Virginia specifically to disprove your claim that straight people don't have the right to get married? Any court case that established this would have to involve some minority, since white people have never needed to petition the courts for the right to marry each other.

      "I guess if you're going to use the race card you may as well complete the analogy. Oh, wait, let me answer that one for you: because they are BORN that way."

      Neither is a choice, but close enough. I'm almost surprised you don't think that race is a choice as well, and people just endured the suffering of slavery because...well, that part's not really explained, much like the reason people remain gay even when disowned from families and ostracized from friends. If you argued that you chose to be white, that you just thought about it and made that happen, it would be just as believable as claiming you flipped some mental switch to be straight.

      "So far, the ONLY evidence you can bring is choice."

      The article said it happens in the womb. You made choices in the womb?

      "Albeit an un-happy [sic] choice."

      So why would anyone make a lifelong, unhappy choice? Be specific.

      Delete
    76. "What was "racist" about citing Loving v. Virginia specifically to disprove your claim that straight people don't have the right to get married?"

      Because you didn't prove they were straight. When you prove they were a straight couple and not a gay couple involved in a sham marriage, then you aren't as much a racist. Until then, you are a racist for trying to equate CIVIL RIGHTS to gays seeking rights to marriage that don't exist for anyone else. You are a hateful racist for trying to do that.

      "I'm almost surprised you don't think that race is a choice as well,"

      That's because you aren't very smart. And, you're a racist. Are you bald? Or do they allow skin-heads to have hair now?

      "The article said it happens in the womb. "

      According to their "mathematical" model. Did they ever bring any actual evidence of that happening? No, I don't think they did.

      "So why would anyone make a lifelong, unhappy choice?"

      I don't know. You tell me, you're the liberal. Besides, do you think being gay makes you so un-happy that it becomes an argument for 'born that way'? Perhaps ... and this is a stretch for your binary thinking ... they LIKE each other's company and chose to be together to advance their own happiness. Just like you chose the car you drive ... because it makes you happy. Well, you're a liberal, you've chosen a lifetime of un-happiness.

      Delete
    77. "Because you didn't prove they were straight."

      This is easily one of the most convoluted, otherworldly arguments I've ever seen. I don't have to prove they were straight. It's accepted as fact. If you want to show that they weren't, and it's not even relevant anyway, make an effort. That burden of proof is on you.

      "When you prove they were a straight couple and not a gay couple involved in a sham marriage, then you aren't as much a racist."

      Well, try to actually think about what you're saying. I know it's hard for you, but try. Why...the hell...would a gay couple go through the hurdles of fighting for interracial marriage if their goal was to have a "sham" marriage? Why wouldn't they just find people of their own respective races, which would be so much faster and, just as importantly, low profile? Why on Earth would they draw attention to themselves if their motives were underhanded? Your theory makes no sense whatsoever. Further, you still haven't explained what's "racist" about anything I've said, even if what you're arguing wasn't utterly psychotic.

      "Until then, you are a racist for trying to equate CIVIL RIGHTS to gays seeking rights to marriage that don't exist for anyone else."

      How is that racist, even if it were true? And, again, straight people have the right to marry. See Loving v. Virginia. Also realize that even if...and this is the biggest goddamn "if" in the history of language...IF you were somehow able to show that it was a "sham" marriage, it still wouldn't invalidate my argument, because they are universally accepted as a straight couple. Because they were of different genders and there's no evidence whatsoever to believe they weren't genuinely in love, and therefore no reason to give that theory any credence. And on top of that, it's not as if it has any impact on legality, because the ruling was made in good faith that the marriage was genuine. It was made with the intent of applying to straight couples, no matter what bizarre theories are rattling around in your warped skull. I think I covered every aspect of your rabid stupidity, but I may add on later.

      "That's because you aren't very smart. And, you're a racist. Are you bald? Or do they allow skin-heads to have hair now?"

      No, it's because you're insane. If you believe animals make choices, you could believe anything. And I'm not a racist. Look up the term and get back to me.

      "According to their "mathematical" model."

      And you dispute that on what basis?

      "I don't know."

      So you're determined to believe it's a choice, even though it makes no sense, you can't explain how you made this "choice", and you can't explain how you think people make "un-happy" choices that last a lifetime. That's not compelling, to understate the case.

      "Besides, do you think being gay makes you so un-happy that it becomes an argument for 'born that way'?"

      Not at all. I quoted you.

      "Perhaps ... and this is a stretch for your binary thinking ... they LIKE each other's company and chose to be together to advance their own happiness."

      What "binary thinking"? Be specific in your explanation. And of course gay people enjoy each other's company. So why did you assert "an un-happy [sic] choice", if you want to say they're happy in your next post?

      Delete
    78. "I don't have to prove they were straight. It's accepted as fact."

      Yes you do. You say they are straight. Where, in the case transcripts, was that pointed out as FACT? The burden of proof is on YOU, not me. You claim that fact, not me. I questioned your statement.

      "And, again, straight people have the right to marry. See Loving v. Virginia."

      Proof it. You say it is true, but you bring NO evidence to support YOUR claim. Do it or admit you could be wrong.

      "And you dispute that on what basis?"

      Lack of verifiable evidence and proof to support their THEORY.

      "Not at all. I quoted you."

      You're the one who said they make that CHOICE in spite of all the dangers involved. What quote of mine are you talking about?


      Delete
    79. "Yes you do. You say they are straight. Where, in the case transcripts, was that pointed out as FACT?"

      It was a man and a woman trying to get married. How would they not be recognized as straight? Explain, exactly, how this distinction would have come up at all.

      "The burden of proof is on YOU, not me. You claim that fact, not me. I questioned your statement."

      Your question is ludicrous. If you want to show it has either merit or relevance, you need to prove it. So far you've shown neither. Even if you had a basis for this bullshit, it doesn't change the fact that since only straight people could get married, and Loving v. Virginia established equal protection, all straight couples that otherwise fit state standards (like age) have the right to get married.

      "Proof it. You say it is true, but you bring NO evidence to support YOUR claim."

      You mean "prove" it? I've explained the argument multiple times. Gay people couldn't get married. The case involved two people...of different genders...who ultimately won the right to get married. Look it up. It was established that they could not be prevented based off of their race. That's a right.

      "Lack of verifiable evidence and proof to support their THEORY."

      Most science is "THEORY", moron. Absolute proof is not the standard.

      "You're the one who said they make that CHOICE in spite of all the dangers involved."

      Really? Show me where I said that.

      "What quote of mine are you talking about?"

      This one:"So far, the ONLY evidence you can bring is choice. Albeit an un-happy choice." You said choosing to be gay is an "un-happy" [sic] choice. So I asked you why anyone would make that choice, and you admitted ignorance.

      Delete
    80. "Really? Show me where I said that."

      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/07/another-old-friend.html?showComment=1376843251050#c4339139222210782647: "Like people remaining gay even under threat of death?"

      "Neither is a choice, but close enough."

      And then you admitted that being gay is choice ... at least close enough to be called choice.

      "Look it up. It was established that they could not be prevented based off of their race. That's a right."

      I did look it up. And, until you can prove the case was about gender relationships, you are a racist for bringing a CIVIL RIGHTS case into a gay marriage issue. That's like comparing apples to oranges. But, being the skin-head racist you are, I don't expect you to understand that.

      "Your question is ludicrous."

      Just because you're afraid to answer it, doesn't make it "ludicrous". Now answer the question.

      Delete
    81. "And then you admitted that being gay is choice ... at least close enough to be called choice."

      Context, moron. First, "Like people remaining gay" was preceded by:"Obviously, if homosexuality is caused by what they claim, then there would be evidence of that through the thousands of years humans have been around." In other words, the fact that people didn't "choose" to be straight instead is evidence that it's not a choice. Second:"Neither is a choice, but close enough." was preceded by:"I guess if you're going to use the race card you may as well complete the analogy. Oh, wait, let me answer that one for you: because they are BORN that way." I haven't promoted the phrase "born that way". That's you who keeps doing that. I said that neither race nor sexual orientation was a choice, but your phrasing was "close enough". You were making my argument, just with the wrong wording. Glad I could help you out with your confusion. In the future, it's useful for you to read the preceding sentence for comprehension.

      "And, until you can prove the case was about gender relationships, you are a racist for bringing a CIVIL RIGHTS case into a gay marriage issue."

      No, jackass. You still haven't explained what's "racist" about anything I've said. You just repeating the word as if you hope I'm going to give up and accept it. You said straight people don't have the right to get married. I demonstrated how your argument is idiotic. That's it. That has nothing to do with gay rights. It's not a comparison, because I was addressing - quite specifically - your claim about straight marriage. Not only did I not claim that it was about "gender relationships", it does not goddamn matter one iota. If you want me to address your bullshit demands, you explain how your question has any validity or relevance at all. Answer the questions already posed to you as to how your theory makes an ounce of sense, because you're not going to bully me into giving it any credence. So either pony up and start justifying it or shut the hell up. It's just that simple. If you haven't figured out that you can't intimidate me by now, you are three IQ points away from being a vegetable.

      I suspect you're just hurling bullshit because I destroyed one of your sacred talking points. Go have a good cry and move on.

      Delete
    82. Should be "You just repeat". Under-edit.

      Delete
    83. "So either pony up and start justifying it or shut the hell up."

      Wow, listen to the skin-head make threats. I'll tell you what. When you can bring transcripts of the case (you referred to) that show it was ABOUT gender issues then I will "shut the hell up". Until you do that, then you are a skin-head racist for using an un-related CIVIL RIGHTS case to support your gay rights issues.
      You seem to be the one crying, now. So, have mommy wipe your nose and then answer the question.

      Delete
    84. "Wow, listen to the skin-head make threats."

      I'm not a skinhead, and it's not a threat. It's a fair standard for you to meet.

      "I'll tell you what. When you can bring transcripts of the case (you referred to) that show it was ABOUT gender issues then I will "shut the hell up"."

      No. I've explained how and why your demands are irrational and irrelevant. Justify your question. Until then, you get nothing, which is exactly what you deserve.

      "Until you do that, then you are a skin-head racist for using an un-related CIVIL RIGHTS case to support your gay rights issues."

      Feel free to explain how CIVIL RIGHTS are not relevant to the right for straight people to get married. That was your claim, moron, and that's what I addressed.

      Delete
    85. "It's a fair standard for you to meet."

      You mean like your standard here: "I said that neither race nor sexual orientation was a choice, but your phrasing was "close enough".". You are saying that people are born a certain race? Is that what you are saying? Then you lump gayness into that statement giving them the same criteria for how they got that way, but refuse to say "born that way". Well, are blacks born black or is there a combination of factors involved that caused them to become black?

      "Feel free to explain how CIVIL RIGHTS are not relevant to the right for straight people to get married. "

      That can be explained by saying there is NO RIGHT to marriage by any group, other than inter-racial. They have the right to marriage, whether it be gay or straight. But, since you can't find anything in the transcripts saying it ONLY applies to straight, then you cannot use that case to support your theory that straights have a "right" to marriage.

      "I'm not a skinhead"

      The way you are denigrating race relations earned through years and years of hard fought racial battles, it's hard to tell.

      Delete
    86. "You mean like your standard here: "I said that neither race nor sexual orientation was a choice, but your phrasing was "close enough".". You are saying that people are born a certain race?"

      Deflecting? What does this have to do with proving that the Lovings were a straight couple? And what would be the alternative to "born a certain race", in your mind?

      "Then you lump gayness into that statement giving them the same criteria for how they got that way, but refuse to say "born that way"."

      I didn't lump anything. I specifically addressed your claim that straight people don't have the right to marry.

      "That can be explained by saying there is NO RIGHT to marriage by any group, other than inter-racial."

      Then how is it that people are allowed to marry in general? Can you define "right", as you're using it?

      "But, since you can't find anything in the transcripts saying it ONLY applies to straight, then you cannot use that case to support your theory that straights have a "right" to marriage."

      They were a man and a woman trying to get married. Sexual orientation didn't need to be specified.

      "The way you are denigrating race relations earned through years and years of hard fought racial battles, it's hard to tell."

      I didn't denigrate anything. Prove otherwise.

      Delete
    87. "What does this have to do with proving that the Lovings were a straight couple?"

      For the zillionth time .... because that was a case about RACE. There was no inference or conditions for their marriage based on sexual preference. Therefore, you cannot use a case about RACE as an example of a case of sexual preference.

      "Then how is it that people are allowed to marry in general?"

      Because, they are "allowed". There is no "right" only demands made by gays. They demand the right to marriage, when there is no right for anyone else.

      "I didn't lump anything."

      Here you did: "I said that neither race nor sexual orientation was a choice". You are lumping race and sexual orientation into the "born that way" category, yet deny saying sexual orientation is a "born that way" condition. Make up your mind.

      Delete
    88. "For the zillionth time .... because that was a case about RACE. There was no inference or conditions for their marriage based on sexual preference."

      So what? There was no option for gay people to get married, so it would have to be relevant to straight couples. There was no distinction to be made at that time whatsoever.

      "Because, they are "allowed". There is no "right" only demands made by gays."

      You say that interracial couples have a "right", though. What's the difference between interracial and same-race couples? What makes one status a "right" and the other "allowed"?

      "Here you did: "I said that neither race nor sexual orientation was a choice"."

      Because you mentioned both, moron.

      Delete
    89. "There was no option for gay people to get married, so it would have to be relevant to straight couples."

      Irrelevant. Your case example does not fit the criteria for your argument. That was a case based on RACE ONLY.

      "What's the difference between interracial and same-race couples?"

      The SC has said inter-racial couples have a 'right' to get married. Have they said the same thing concerning same-race/non gay couples?

      "Because you mentioned both,"

      You've had no problem differentiating before. What has changed this time? Explain

      Delete
    90. "Irrelevant. Your case example does not fit the criteria for your argument. That was a case based on RACE ONLY."

      Who were straight. Hence, straight people have the right to marry. Interracial couples were granted the same rights as same-race couples.

      "The SC has said inter-racial couples have a 'right' to get married. Have they said the same thing concerning same-race/non gay couples?"

      Why would they have to? Again, what's the difference? What advantage do mixed-race couples have - in practice - over same race couples?

      "You've had no problem differentiating before. What has changed this time? Explain"

      Explain what? You made the comparison. I addressed it. That is not me lumping anyone together. What is confusing about that for you?

      Delete
    91. "Who were straight."

      Your assumptions don't make it fact. Bring the transcripts that notes their sexual preference. If you can't then all you have is opinion.

      "What advantage do mixed-race couples have - in practice - over same race couples?"

      Apparently enough for the SC to make a SPECIFIC ruling on marriage rights for inter-racial couples. Has there been a SC ruling on the rights to marriage on same race couples? If so, bring that example.

      Delete
    92. "Your assumptions don't make it fact."

      Your psychotic ramblings don't put anything into question in the first place. There has to be some reasonable grounds in order to make it something other than established fact. You've avoided every opportunity to explain how your theory is reasonable, for a very clear reason.

      "Bring the transcripts that notes their sexual preference."

      You have to explain how that would even come up. Seriously, how do you think that would even be asked or approached, and for what possible reason?

      "If you can't then all you have is opinion."

      No, that's what you have. An opinion which makes no sense, and which you have given no reason to consider at all.

      "Apparently enough for the SC to make a SPECIFIC ruling on marriage rights for inter-racial couples."

      Again, why would there be a ruling on same-race couples? When were those rights ever denied? Since you can't demonstrate any actual difference between the rights of same-race and interracial couples, it's clear there is none. They both have the right to marry.

      Delete
    93. "Your psychotic ramblings don't put anything into question in the first place."

      You mean ramblings such as this: "bring proof of claims that you make"? Are those the kind of "psychotic ramblings" you don't understand?

      "No, that's what you have."

      What FACTS do you have to support what YOU say is TRUE? I know what kind of facts you have: assumed kind. Typical liberal because they don't have the intelligence to bring REAL FACTS.

      "Again, why would there be a ruling on same-race couples?"

      There wouldn't be. Because there are no specified rights for straight couples to get married. Do you have some paper that says straight couples have a "right to marriage" while everyone else has to seek court injunctions to get those "rights"? Well, do you??

      "They both have the right to marry."

      Obviously, there is a screw loose up in your noggin. They have the FREEDOM to marry, no right.

      Delete
    94. "You mean ramblings such as this: "bring proof of claims that you make"? Are those the kind of "psychotic ramblings" you don't understand?"

      No, I mean psychotic ramblings such as claiming that two gay people would commit to some fake marriage in a state where it was illegal. For what benefit, getting fined and imprisoned up to five years? Brilliant plan, there. You're asking me to prove a negative which has no basis in reality, no credibility, and no relevance. It would be as if you said "Reagan was a great American" and I challenged you to prove he wasn't a space alien.

      "What FACTS do you have to support what YOU say is TRUE?"

      Everything that's known within the realm of objective reality.

      "I know what kind of facts you have: assumed kind."

      The same way you would assume Reagan wasn't a space alien. Right, nothing is absolutely 100% proven if you really want to push it. That doesn't change the fact that you need some reasonable basis in order to question what's clearly established.

      "There wouldn't be."

      You, earlier:"Has there been a SC ruling on the rights to marriage on same race couples? If so, bring that example." Why did you ask for evidence you know doesn't exist?

      "Because there are no specified rights for straight couples to get married."

      They aren't needed. See, government set up legal marriage. Who do you think was expected to take advantage of that?

      "Obviously, there is a screw loose up in your noggin. They have the FREEDOM to marry, no right."

      First off, you still haven't explained what you imagine a "right" to be, so your distinction isn't even clear. Secondly, you're simply replacing one disparity for another. Third:"These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men...Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." Apparently the SCOTUS isn't buying your phony distinction, either.

      Delete
    95. "The same way you would assume Reagan wasn't a space alien. Right, nothing is absolutely 100% proven if you really want to push it."

      Which fully explains your thought process. So, you think Reagan was a space alien? And will never change your mind until proven otherwise? Yeah, your thought process's are fully explained with that one.

      "Apparently the SCOTUS isn't buying your phony distinction, either."

      Are these quotes or rulings you brought?
      1) The FREEDOM to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men
      2) To deny this fundamental FREEDOM on so unsupportable a basis as the RACIAL classifications embodied in these statutes,
      3) The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the FREEDOM of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious RACIAL discriminations.
      4) Under our Constitution, the FREEDOM to marry, or not marry, a person of another RACE resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

      Apparently, you can't read. Because the SC calls it a "freedom" not a "right" for inter-racial couples to marry. They didn't make the distinction for heterosexual couples. They did, however, make that distinction for race. Not sexual preference.
      Please tell that you have more than that?

      Delete
    96. "Which fully explains your thought process. So, you think Reagan was a space alien?"

      Which fully explains your inability to make a cogent argument. You aren't familiar with the word "if"?

      "And will never change your mind until proven otherwise?"

      Isn't that what you're demanding, since you keep asking for me to prove a negative? Your self-awareness is nonexistent.

      "Apparently, you can't read. Because the SC calls it a "freedom" not a "right" for inter-racial couples to marry."

      No, the word "rights" was in there as well:"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men...Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival." So, what do you think a "right" is? You even included the word in your quote, stupidly, but want to pretend it wasn't there.

      "They didn't make the distinction for heterosexual couples."

      There was no alternative, so no distinction is needed. Both categories of same-race and interracial couples in comparison were heterosexual.

      Delete
    97. "You aren't familiar with the word "if"?"

      Wow, "if" wasn't even IN your first sentence. And, not in your second until you had already made your statement. Are you sure you meant to highlight "if"?

      "So, what do you think a "right" is?"

      Depends on how it's used. I have a "right" to cross that road. But, not if the law forbids it. I have a "right" to wear red on Sundays. I have a "right" to vote. Which way are you using the word? As in "Constitutional" or another way? Because I just don't see it in the Constitution.

      "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men..."

      That's twice you've used that quote. What part are you leaving out? And, being such a stickler for exact wording. You did realize that the "right" to marry you claim is there is ONLY present for "free men". Nothing about women or gays. But, you still haven't separated the distinction of race from the "context" of all the quotes you brought. You DO know what "context" means, right? Bring the full context of those quotes you brought and see if they are talking about race or sexual preference.

      "There was no alternative, so no distinction is needed."

      According to you, homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time. What do you mean there was no "alternative" ? Seems to me they made no distinction because the case was about RACE RELATIONS and not sexual preference. Because there are many distinctions made relating to the racial aspect, but NOTHING mentioned about your claimed fact that the case was about sexual preference rights to marriage.

      Delete
    98. "Wow, "if" wasn't even IN your first sentence."

      Wow, you can't read:"It would be as if you said "Reagan was a great American" and I challenged you to prove he wasn't a space alien." "I" followed by "f" spells "if".

      "Depends on how it's used. I have a "right" to cross that road. But, not if the law forbids it."

      A law can't forbid a right. That's why it's a right.

      "Which way are you using the word? As in "Constitutional" or another way?"

      How about you actually answer the question, without leaving it as "depends". Try a dictionary.

      "That's twice you've used that quote. What part are you leaving out?"

      I'm not leaving out anything. The word "rights" is vital to the meaning.

      "You did realize that the "right" to marry you claim is there is ONLY present for "free men"."

      What the hell? So, only men can marry, but women can't marry and gay people can't marry. That doesn't leave any possible couples, moron. Yet, the Lovings brought a lawsuit which established that no law can prevent them from getting married based on race alone. That's a right.

      "But, you still haven't separated the distinction of race from the "context" of all the quotes you brought."

      The case was about race. It still established that both same-race and interracial couples have the right to marry. Both of those groups were exclusively heterosexual.

      "According to you, homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time."

      People weren't allowed to enter gay marriage, so any discussion of marriage didn't need to be specified as "straight".

      "Because there are many distinctions made relating to the racial aspect, but NOTHING mentioned about your claimed fact that the case was about sexual preference rights to marriage."

      I said no such thing. I said it proves that straight couples have the right to marry, not that the case was about that.

      Delete
    99. "I'm not leaving out anything."

      Why the "..." afterward? Bring the full quote and reference, so I can check your accuracy. I think you're taking it out of context.

      "What the hell? So, only men can marry, but women can't marry and gay people can't marry."

      That's what the quote YOU brought says. I'm not the one who is such a stickler for exact wording and every word means something ... YOU ARE. So explain that or quit using it.

      Delete
    100. "Why the "..." afterward?"

      Because there was a gap between paragraphs, moron. I thought you said you looked up the case. Why would I assume you were lying and had not read the decision after all?

      "That's what the quote YOU brought says."

      No, it doesn't. You're reading into it to reach a conclusion that doesn't even make sense. If that was really the ruling, then nobody would be allowed to get married, so whatever point you imagine you're making is null and void.

      Delete
    101. "Why would I assume you were lying and had not read the decision after all?"

      Yeah, why would you assume that. I've never said I read the decision. Why would you leave stuff out of quotes you bring? Hiding something?

      "No, it doesn't. You're reading into it to reach a conclusion that doesn't even make sense."

      I'm doing no different than you have been doing. Just commenting on what was brought. The quote YOU brought says "free men". Please expound.

      Delete
    102. "Yeah, why would you assume that. I've never said I read the decision."

      You said:"I did look it up." What did you look up, if not the decision? It was only fair to you to assume that you weren't intellectually lazy, but I appreciate your correction.

      "Why would you leave stuff out of quotes you bring? Hiding something?"

      I wouldn't, and I didn't.

      "Just commenting on what was brought."

      Well, your comment would actually mean that only gay marriages are allowed. Since women can't get married, as you said, and it doesn't specify "no gay marriage". Do you really want to continue along that line?

      Delete
    103. "What did you look up, if not the decision?"

      The case. Ever hear of wikipedia? But, that shows how capable you are of grasping the simple english language. I say "I did look it up" and you determine that I've read the entire case history and all of the thousands of thousands of notes each lawyer and judge made. Quite an imagination you have going there. Keep it up ... liberal

      "Well, your comment would actually mean that only gay marriages are allowed."

      You're the one who brought the quote. Perhaps you would like to change the wording to make it fit what you meant to say? Or, since you brought it, perhaps it IS what you meant to say. Either way, you brought the link, not me.

      Delete
    104. "I say "I did look it up" and you determine that I've read the entire case history and all of the thousands of thousands of notes each lawyer and judge made."

      No, I expect that you would have read the most relevant information available. If you really wanted to know the meaning of the ruling, the actual decision would be an obvious place to go. So sorry I expected better from you.

      So, you're now down to whining about me thinking you did some substantial reading when you claimed you looked up the case, and pretending that a phrase has to be taken with the strictest interpretation imaginable, even if it makes zero sense to do so. That is really rather pathetic.

      "You're the one who brought the quote. Perhaps you would like to change the wording to make it fit what you meant to say?"

      No, I'm not changing someone else's wording. That's something you would do, not me. And it's not necessary. Poetic license isn't relevant to my point, or anything as far as you're demonstrating.

      Delete
    105. " If you really wanted to know the meaning of the ruling, the actual decision would be an obvious place to go."

      And, since YOU brought the case into the discussion, in the first place, I would have expected you to actually read the pertinent rulings and bring some evidence to support your theory that the Loving v. Virginia ruling was based on rights for heterosexual couples to get married. You still haven't brought any evidence that shows that is what the case was about. Since you used it as evidence of your claims, you should, at least, bring the part of the ruling that says what you insinuate it says.
      Trust me, I expected what I got from you.

      Delete
    106. "You still haven't brought any evidence that shows that is what the case was about."

      I never said that's "what the case was about". I said the ruling proves that straight people have the right to marriage.

      "Since you used it as evidence of your claims, you should, at least, bring the part of the ruling that says what you insinuate it says."

      I never claimed it said anything about sexual orientation. You can't even explain how that specification would come about, so you can't justify your demands in the first place.

      Delete
    107. " I said the ruling proves that straight people have the right to marriage."

      Well, bring the part of the ruling that actually says that. This isn't rocket science, you know: you make the claim and should support it with facts or verifiable evidence.

      "I never claimed it said anything about sexual orientation."

      Yet you say it is the basis for the ruling that gives straight people the "right" to marriage. And "straight" is a sexual orientation. So, what is it you are saying: IS about sexual orientation or ISN'T? Make up your mind.

      Delete
    108. "Well, bring the part of the ruling that actually says that."

      I did. You quoted it yourself, with the word "rights" clear as day.

      "Yet you say it is the basis for the ruling that gives straight people the "right" to marriage."

      I say it proves that straight people have the right to marriage. I didn't say it "gives" anything of the sort, because it was already there.

      "So, what is it you are saying: IS about sexual orientation or ISN'T?"

      I never claimed it was "about" sexual orientation, moron.

      Delete
    109. "I did."

      Not yet you haven't. Bring it.

      Delete
    110. "Not yet you haven't. Bring it."

      Read your own quotes. It lists "rights" regarding marriage. You haven't denied this, so it's not clear what your current excuse for not grasping this would be.

      Delete
    111. Stop your whining, just: Bring it. Don't be scared, just do it. Unless I'm asking too much of an atheist. I would hate to think that you can't bring evidence to support what you claim is fact. But ... the facts are ... I don't expect you to support your own claim with facts. That's the way you liberals roll.

      Delete
    112. You're the one whining about not getting what you want, when you can't even explain why you need it.

      I made my case. You just can't handle it.

      Delete
    113. "You're the one whining about not getting what you want, when you can't even explain why you need it."

      Yes, you're right. I'm whining because I want you to prove what you say is true. I'm sorry, but I require proof that what you brought as quotes are actually related to the discussion. So, while it is quite cute that you make shit up (constantly), this time the shit you make up needs to be verified. And, again I'm sorry, but that verification is on you. Since you brought the quotes without any proof of who/what/when it was said and what it was said about.

      Just making shit up doesn't count as "I made my case". But, I can understand that you liberals usually expect people to fall for that crap. And, as evident by your behavior, you people seem to get really pissed off if someone dares question your statements. But it is happening now. So prove your shit and quit claiming you made your case until AFTER you actually do it.

      Delete
    114. "I'm whining because I want you to prove what you say is true."

      Which I have. You coming up with ludicrous scenarios doesn't affect the validity of my argument.

      "So, while it is quite cute that you make shit up (constantly), this time the shit you make up needs to be verified."

      I haven't made anything up. The SCOTUS decision quite plainly listed marriage as a right.

      "Since you brought the quotes without any proof of who/what/when it was said and what it was said about."

      It was the decision in Loving v. Virginia, moron. Are you really that far behind?

      "And, as evident by your behavior, you people seem to get really pissed off if someone dares question your statements."

      Excuse me, aren't you the one who said you couldn't have an intelligent conversation with someone who doesn't refer to Jesus as "God"? Are you one of "you people"? Your hypocrisy is as hilarious as your moronic arguments.

      Delete
    115. "It was the decision in Loving v. Virginia, "

      Really? Are you going to document that with a link or two? It sure would be nice to be able to see exactly where you quoted that from. Instead I'm left thinking you just made that shit up like you usually do.

      "The SCOTUS decision quite plainly listed marriage as a right."

      They called it a "freedom", not a "right". Slight difference from what you claim.

      "Excuse me, aren't you the one who said you couldn't have an intelligent conversation with someone who doesn't refer to Jesus as "God"?"

      Where/when did I ever say that? I'm pretty sure I used "adult" not "intelligent" and I also sure I used "believe" not "refer to". Will you ever provide an accurate quote? I don't want to expect too much of your capabilities, but honesty would be nice. Ooops, I'm talking to a liberal ... that will never happen.

      Delete
    116. "Really? Are you going to document that with a link or two?"

      Yes, really. Are you so lazy that you can't google it? And why the hell do you need two links to one decision?

      "They called it a "freedom", not a "right". Slight difference from what you claim."

      No, they called it a right. You quoted it yourself.

      "I'm pretty sure I used "adult" not "intelligent" and I also sure I used "believe" not "refer to"."

      Are these supposed to be significant differences? The sentiment is the same, so that still applies to your comment about people questioning my statements. Besides, your belief that Jesus is God isn't the issue, it's your conflation of the two names. If you thought your belief was what was important, you were confused, since I was clearly saying that "Jesus" didn't say anything in Leviticus because he wasn't in that book at all.

      Delete
    117. "Yes, really. Are you so lazy that you can't google it? And why the hell do you need two links to one decision?"

      So, the standard procedure is that if I was to make a claim, then I would expect you to look for the proof that proves me right? That makes sense. Especially considering that liberals generally want everyone to do things for them, I would expect you to have me look up the proof for what you claim is fact.

      "No, they called it a right. You quoted it yourself."

      Yes, I quoted them myself. Each one called it a "FREEDOM". You can't even make simple arguments, now. http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/07/another-old-friend.html?showComment=1377347828738#c7680664449293413291

      The funny thing is that the SCOTUS is basing all their statements on the FACT that the case is being decided on and relating to racial rights. So every statement they make refers to the FREEDOM of different races to participate in varying events. There is NO sexual orientation/preference being decided on. So you have NOT been able to prove that marriage is a "right" for anyone.

      "Are these supposed to be significant differences?"

      Yes.

      Delete
    118. "So, the standard procedure is that if I was to make a claim, then I would expect you to look for the proof that proves me right?"

      Moron, I'm not citing obscure statistics. You said you'd looked up the case, you can't find the decision that I quoted? Here's your introduction to google:https://www.google.com/#q=loving+v+virgina+decision

      "Yes, I quoted them myself. Each one called it a "FREEDOM"."

      Your claim was that it wasn't called a "right", not that it wasn't also called a freedom. Read the decision, "rights" comes up twice.

      "The funny thing is that the SCOTUS is basing all their statements on the FACT that the case is being decided on and relating to racial rights."

      So, if they're talking about racial rights, then they decided that interracial couples have the same right as same-race couples. To get married.

      "There is NO sexual orientation/preference being decided on."

      I never claimed there was, for the umpteenth time.

      "So you have NOT been able to prove that marriage is a "right" for anyone."

      I have, because straight people were established as having the right to marriage, regardless of race.

      "Yes."

      Then you could explain why. Yet, you can't.

      Delete
    119. "Your claim was that it wasn't called a "right", not that it wasn't also called a freedom."

      No, YOUR claim is that it IS called a RIGHT. But, it isn't, it is called a FREEDOM based on racial status. There is NO use of the word "right" in any statement made by the SCOTUS (during their decision) that makes the case giving "rights" to heterosexuals to marry.

      "I have, because straight people were established as having the right to marriage, regardless of race."

      You have not. Because the case decided on FREEDOM to marry, not RIGHT to marry. And the SCOTUS said just that during their decision.

      "Then you could explain why. Yet, you can't."

      Why would that be needed? Anyone who isn't stupid can figure it out. Are you included in "anyone"?

      Delete
    120. "No, YOUR claim is that it IS called a RIGHT. But, it isn't, it is called a FREEDOM based on racial status."

      It is called a right. The word "rights" is plain as day.

      "There is NO use of the word "right" in any statement made by the SCOTUS (during their decision) that makes the case giving "rights" to heterosexuals to marry."

      Are you still stupidly expecting to see the word "heterosexual" in the decision?

      "Because the case decided on FREEDOM to marry, not RIGHT to marry."

      Considering you still haven't explained what a "right" is (your asinine street-crossing if it's not illegal example didn't work), you can't very well act as if there's a difference. And, again, you're just substituting one disparity for another anyway. It's about equality. If you want to say that straight people have the freedom to marry, then gay people want that same freedom. Your semantic game gets you nowhere.

      "Why would that be needed?"

      To justify your claim of dishonesty, moron.

      Delete
    121. "Are you still stupidly expecting to see the word "heterosexual" in the decision?"

      No, I am stupidly expecting you to show the case as about "rights" and not "freedoms".

      "If you want to say that straight people have the freedom to marry, then gay people want that same freedom. Your semantic game gets you nowhere."

      Well then, let them make that claim. As long as they claim they want the "right" to marry, then they will be getting rights that NO ONE else has.

      "To justify your claim of dishonesty, moron."

      Explain why I need to justify anything? There was nothing dishonest being said, expect your incorrect quote of my statement. Usual antics from a liberal, though.

      Delete
    122. "No, I am stupidly expecting you to show the case as about "rights" and not "freedoms"."

      That is stupid, because there's nothing to say they aren't using the terms interchangeably. Note that I'm not saying that the court didn't use the word "freedom". It doesn't change the fact that it declared marriage a "right".

      "Well then, let them make that claim. As long as they claim they want the "right" to marry, then they will be getting rights that NO ONE else has."

      No, moron, the point is that you're making a distinction without a difference. Are you claiming now that you support equal freedom for gay people to get married? You think that should be federal law?

      "Explain why I need to justify anything?"

      Because adults explain their accusations.

      Delete
    123. "It doesn't change the fact that it declared marriage a "right"."

      It didn't declare marriage a "right" for heterosexuals, only inter-racial couples. Since you have nothing that proves or says otherwise, I take it you are finished with this subject.

      "Are you claiming now that you support equal freedom for gay people to get married?"

      I have always felt that way. Is there a problem with being able to support a valid demand as opposed to an unreasonable demand?

      "Because adults explain their accusations."

      So, I've got to explain why you are a liar for misquoting me and taking my statements out of context? I thought I did that at least once: you're a liberal ... that's the way you people roll.

      Delete
    124. "It didn't declare marriage a "right" for heterosexuals, only inter-racial couples."

      Who were heterosexual by default. There was no legal alternative scenario.

      "Since you have nothing that proves or says otherwise, I take it you are finished with this subject."

      Since I've said multiple times that the court didn't explicitly say anything about sexual orientation, no, I'm not finished until you shut up or grow a conscience.

      "I have always felt that way."

      So you support gay marriage. Is that right?

      "So, I've got to explain why you are a liar for misquoting me and taking my statements out of context?"

      No, you have to explain how you can legitimately claim that. I didn't take anything you said out of context, for instance. You didn't even claim that previously, so obviously you're just pulling phrases out of your nether regions at random now.

      "I thought I did that at least once: you're a liberal ... that's the way you people roll."

      Your bigoted views aren't a valid explanation of anything. It would be just as fair to say I know you're a child molester because that's how conservatives are. Note the phrase "would be". Look up those words if you need help comprehending the importance of the phrase.

      Delete
    125. "So you support gay marriage. Is that right?"

      No. I said they have the "freedom" to do what they want. It is still immoral and an abomination.

      " It would be just as fair to say I know you're a child molester because that's how conservatives are."

      You probably do say that. Which makes us different in what way, bigot?

      Delete
    126. "No. I said they have the "freedom" to do what they want. It is still immoral and an abomination."

      What "freedom" do they have to get married, when the law prevents it?

      "You probably do say that."

      No, I don't. And I pointed out the distinction of "would be" beforehand just to make that clear to anyone who can read.

      Note the distinct lack of any broad-brush comments about conservatives in my posts. I don't attribute anything to you based off of any preconceptions, nor do I judge conservatives based off of your insane ramblings. Meanwhile, you used "probably" to assert that I am like you, while calling me a "bigot" for supposedly being like you. So you admitted to being a bigot, while failing to bring any evidence of the same against me.

      Good job, moron.

      Delete
    127. "What "freedom" do they have to get married, when the law prevents it?"

      They can go to any number of countries that allow it and now they can go to any number of states that allow it. They could always get on a boat and have the captain marry them. Freedom doesn't mean "free" or "easy". It just means you are free to do as you please. Just because the government doesn't recognize it doesn't mean they aren't free to get married ANY MOMENT THEY DESIRE.
      Remember though, God gives us all "free will" to CHOOSE to do as we please, that free will doesn't come without penalty if you CHOOSE to do something against His laws.

      "Note the distinct lack of any broad-brush comments about conservatives in my posts."

      Is that because you don't have the knowledge to be able to get beyond attacking one person? You sure are a moral person since you only attack one person at a time. You must certainly be going to Heaven when you finally give up the ghost. Gosh, you're all righteous now, after completely cleaning my clock when it comes to verbally attacking people. You only attacking one person is SOOO much more moral than my accurate depiction of liberals, as a whole. You people are all alike, act all alike and think all alike. And you get all smug for the same reasons as each other.

      "No, I don't."

      You just DID say that. Now you are saying you don't say it? Stupid does as stupid is

      Delete
    128. "They can go to any number of countries that allow it and now they can go to any number of states that allow it."

      So part of your idea of American freedom is to go to another country. Wow. And if you really think that everyone can travel to get married and have it recognized in their own state, then why wouldn't you favor it being legal on a national level?

      "Just because the government doesn't recognize it doesn't mean they aren't free to get married ANY MOMENT THEY DESIRE."

      Government recognition is part of legal marriage, moron. Nobody's talking about symbolic ceremony here.

      "Remember though, God gives us all "free will" to CHOOSE to do as we please, that free will doesn't come without penalty if you CHOOSE to do something against His laws."

      You can believe that God will send whoever to hell for whatever reason. That has nothing to do with the rights people have in this country.

      "Is that because you don't have the knowledge to be able to get beyond attacking one person?"

      HA! So now you're criticizing me for not generalizing? You call me a "bigot" for supposedly acting like you, but then I'm ignorant if I don't act like you? You get dumber by the post.

      "You sure are a moral person since you only attack one person at a time."

      Certainly more moral than someone who attacks large groups of people for no justifiable reason.

      "You just DID say that."

      No, liar, I did not. I quite specifically noted that I was not saying that, because I was criticizing your behavior by demonstrating what would be fair for me to say in return. Shall I refer you to your "Did I say that? Or are you saying that for me" line?

      Delete
    129. "Government recognition is part of legal marriage, moron. Nobody's talking about symbolic ceremony here."

      Oh? When did that become important? How does that change the FACT they have the FREEDOM to marry? Now, you want them to have "rights" that no one else has.

      "That has nothing to do with the rights people have in this country."

      You are changing the subject to "rights" now? Well, what "right" do heterosexuals have to marriage that gays do not? Try to keep racial rights separate from your diatribe, this time.

      "Certainly more moral than someone who attacks large groups of people for no justifiable reason."

      Well, then you aren't more moral than me (lol). Since I have "justifiable reason" to lump all you people into one large grimy group.

      "No, liar, I did not."

      Yes, you did. You do know it is printed just a couple posts ago, right? Does your computer delete previous messages and you cannot keep track of what you say? Well, mine does not. And I can see, plain as day, what you wrote. And you DID just say that.
      BTW, I did look up those words and your statement didn't change by using any other version of the meanings you think those words have.
      More "justifiable reason" why liberals are the way they are. Which is the way I've explained they are. And, they keep proving to be that way in all their posts.

      Delete
    130. "Oh? When did that become important?"

      When marriage was sanctioned by the government. It's legal recognition of a union, not just a wedding.

      "Now, you want them to have "rights" that no one else has."

      No, straight people have the right to marry. In most states, gay people are prohibited from doing so.

      "Well, what "right" do heterosexuals have to marriage that gays do not?"

      On a federal level, they can get married, while gay people can't. Did you even think about that before typing it?

      "Since I have "justifiable reason" to lump all you people into one large grimy group."

      Obviously you're not the proper judge of that.

      "Yes, you did. You do know it is printed just a couple posts ago, right?"

      Yes, and I eagerly invite you to quote what I said.

      "BTW, I did look up those words and your statement didn't change by using any other version of the meanings you think those words have."

      Then you can't read. "Would be" is different from "is". It's hypothetical.

      "More "justifiable reason" why liberals are the way they are."

      A perfect demonstration of how you aren't the proper judge. You read what feeds your bigoted stereotypes, not what is actually there.

      Delete
    131. "It would be just as fair to say I know you're a child molester because that's how conservatives are."

      You are saying it is just as fair to say what you want about conservatives since I say what I want about liberals. I've brought your quote, you gonna deny you said it now?

      Delete
    132. "You are saying it is just as fair to say what you want about conservatives since I say what I want about liberals."

      No, I said it would be fair to do that, because I don't actually engage in that behavior. Note the preceding comment:"Your bigoted views aren't a valid explanation of anything." Now, as any moderately-intelligent child could figure out, I'm saying that your bigoted views aren't a valid explanation. So, when I say it would be just as fair, I've already established that it would not be valid. It's pointing out that the behavior would be unacceptable, but you couldn't complain about it without being a raging hypocrite.

      I'll also stress the importance of the word "would", since you failed to grasp what you read. If you're talking about, say, Kate Upton, and you talked about what you would do to her, you're not admitting to cheating on your wife. It's not the same as "I did..." That would be legitimate grounds for divorce, the hypothetical situation would not. Look, I just used "would" again, because you didn't actually have that conversation. See how that works?

      So, given all that, feel free to explain how a hypothetical scenario that I've quite clearly spelled out as being wrong is what I'm supposedly actually doing. It's a pretty obvious distinction between the two concepts, but I'll gladly help you work through your difficulty.

      Delete
    133. It would be just as fair to point out how illogical you are with your excuses for what you write.

      Delete
    134. Feel free to try to point out any lack of logic on my part. I invite your efforts wholeheartedly.

      Delete
    135. You support homosexuality despite the familial roles that are conflated, yet denounce incest because of familial roles that are conflated. Explain the logic in that.

      You say heterosexuals have marriage "rights" but only bring court cases that call them "freedoms" to the table in support of your claims.

      Delete
    136. "You support homosexuality despite the familial roles that are conflated, yet denounce incest because of familial roles that are conflated."

      There is no such conflation in homosexual relationships. You've failed at this argument already, when you made the slippery slope argument that gay couples could want to have incest as well.

      "You say heterosexuals have marriage "rights" but only bring court cases that call them "freedoms" to the table in support of your claims."

      Liar. The decision stated marriage was one of our rights. Twice, at that. The use of the word "freedoms" does not magically erase nor negate that.

      Anything you haven't been smacked down on multiple times? Seriously, you are stuck on stupid.

      Delete
    137. "There is no such conflation in homosexual relationships."

      Father on father sex or mother on mother sex isn't conflation of familial roles? How is that logical?

      "Liar. The decision stated marriage was one of our rights."

      Sorry, I'm not a liar. The SC (as you brought the evidence) said marriage is a "freedom", they did not say it is a "right". You illogically read something into what the SC wrote and defend it as real. Sorry, it is real and they didn't decide it as you claim they did.

      So, I immediately bring evidence of lack of logic on your part and you illogically continue to hold fast to your illogical explanations of your logic. Very good demonstration of the logic used by liberals.

      Delete
    138. "Father on father sex or mother on mother sex isn't conflation of familial roles?"

      No. What would sexual activity have to do with familial roles?

      "The SC (as you brought the evidence) said marriage is a "freedom", they did not say it is a "right"."

      No, it said "rights" twice. Do you deny that?

      Delete
    139. "No. What would sexual activity have to do with familial roles?"

      Wow, I can't believe you said that after saying incest creates familial role concerns that should keep it illegal and immoral. So, answer this: what would sexual activity have to do with familial roles in incest? How would that be different than having a home with 2 mothers or 2 fathers? I think you have NO explanation as to why you support homosexuality but don't support incest. I think the only reason you differentiate between the 2 is because you are a hypocritical bigot. At least I can morally say (without pause and with good reason) why both scenarios are immoral. You, on the other hand, have no logical explanation for your stance.

      "No, it said "rights" twice. Do you deny that?"

      It did not say there were "rights" involved for the heterosexual to get married. If it did you would have pointed that out. But all you pointed out was that they said mixed race relations had a right to get married. Then you tried to inflect your opinion into what they "meant", but you have nothing to back that up since you refuse to bring the full written decision as offered by the SC. All you brought were little (out of context) snippets of what they wrote. Man up and bring the facts that you claim are present. Either that or continue being a liberal and don't man up. I expect you'll continue being the liberal and refuse to man up. That's what you liberals do when you are challenged ... refuse to man up.

      Delete
    140. "Wow, I can't believe you said that after saying incest creates familial role concerns that should keep it illegal and immoral."

      Moron, you were talking about "father on father sex", not incest.

      "How would that be different than having a home with 2 mothers or 2 fathers?"

      Because those two mothers or two fathers aren't related.

      "It did not say there were "rights" involved for the heterosexual to get married."

      Did it use the word "rights" or not?

      "But all you pointed out was that they said mixed race relations had a right to get married."

      So do you think same-race couples have a right to get married?

      "All you brought were little (out of context) snippets of what they wrote."

      If you haven't read the full decision, then you couldn't possibly know what the context was. Feel free to demonstrate how the context contradicts what I posted. Further, I gave you the google search. Are you too lazy to click on one of the links and read? How is not giving you the search for the decision not giving you the full written decision, moron?

      Delete
    141. "Because those two mothers or two fathers aren't related."

      How do you know that? And, what difference would it make? If they were related, then you would object to the homosexual relationship? Is that what you are saying?

      "Did it use the word "rights" or not?"

      You mean in the out of context and non-verified quotes you used? Nothing can be verified until you bring the full decision that you think says what you think it says. But, still, out of context snippets don't count as verifiable in-context quotations.

      I didn't think you'd man up. Typical liberal, run when it gets too hot in the kitchen.


      Delete
    142. Because we're talking about groups of people, moron. Did you think we were talking about two specific people, with an address and everything? You wanted to compare incest to homosexuality. Those are two different groups. Now, apparently, you want to compare incest to incest.

      "And, what difference would it make? If they were related, then you would object to the homosexual relationship? Is that what you are saying?"

      Yes, because it would be incest. Are you somehow surprised by that?

      "You mean in the out of context and non-verified quotes you used?"

      Again, if you haven't read the whole decision, then how can you possibly claim "out of context"?

      "Nothing can be verified until you bring the full decision that you think says what you think it says. But, still, out of context snippets don't count as verifiable in-context quotations."

      I gave you the google search. Use it. Since you obviously refuse to admit to reading something that destroys your argument, you are the one who's running here.

      Read the decision and tell me how "rights" is out of context. You have no excuse not to.

      Delete
    143. First sentence should be preceded by "How do you know that?"

      Delete
    144. "I gave you the google search. Use it."

      Bring the link. I don't do your work for you. You lazy liberal.

      "Read the decision and tell me how "rights" is out of context. "

      You bring the whole decision and I'll read it. After all, it was YOU who decided to claim that decision to support your stance. The least you can do is actually bring it. Instead of expecting everyone to do YOUR work for you .... like a typical liberal would do. Oh wait, I forgot who I'm talking to.

      You have no intention of bringing the whole decision, do you? Since the entire decision actually does not support your claims. That's why you are afraid to bring it.

      So much for "manning up". We see what kind of person you are.

      Delete
    145. "Bring the link. I don't do your work for you. You lazy liberal."

      Says the jackass who is too lazy to scroll up: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/07/another-old-friend.html?showComment=1377865024550#c387910000643240711

      Further, I'll ask again:"How is not giving you the search for the decision not giving you the full written decision, moron?"

      "The least you can do is actually bring it."

      I've really never seen anyone bellyache so much about the idea of typing "Loving v. Virginia decision" into a search engine. You're too ignorant to be familiar with the case and too lazy to do any significant reading. I'm willing to bet you won't even open up the search, finding some other reason to whine, instead.

      Delete
    146. "Further, I'll ask again:"How is not giving you the search for the decision not giving you the full written decision, moron?""

      Because you supposedly used quotes from the decision. If those quotes (in their entirety) are in the search field you could have a point. If they are not then you have not provided any quotes from any decision that has been verified as from the decision you claim you are using to make your argument. I'm not the one using quotes supposedly FROM the decision to make my argument ... YOU ARE. That means YOU must bring proof that the quotes you used are actually from the decision you say they are from. Because NO ONE actually believes a liberal on face value. You claim the quotes are "in context", yet you provide NOTHING to prove that. There MUST be some verification of what you people say before anyone will actually believe what you say. You people are historical liars and so far you haven't changed that well earned general opinion of liberals yet.

      "I'm willing to bet you won't even open up the search, finding some other reason to whine, instead."

      No, I'm using the same reason. The same old reason that you continue to ignore. Even though it is your responsibility to provide proof of what you claim to be true, not mine. It isn't my responsibility to provide you with a copy of a RACE RELATIONS court decision while claiming marriage rights for a group of people that don't have those rights .... it is yours

      Man up or don't ... your choice. So far I see what you have decided ... not to man up. Typical liberal

      Delete
    147. "Because you supposedly used quotes from the decision. If those quotes (in their entirety) are in the search field you could have a point. If they are not then you have not provided any quotes from any decision that has been verified as from the decision you claim you are using to make your argument."

      I searched for the decision. Those quotes are from the decision. So, if you open the search and click on one of the links, you will see...again...the decision.

      "No, I'm using the same reason. The same old reason that you continue to ignore. Even though it is your responsibility to provide proof of what you claim to be true, not mine."

      The decision is the proof. Open the search and read it. Again, you have no excuse.

      "It isn't my responsibility to provide you with a copy of a RACE RELATIONS court decision while claiming marriage rights for a group of people that don't have those rights .... it is yours"

      Moron, the interracial marriage rights applied to straight couples, which is exactly what I'm claiming. You're the one who says there is no right to marriage.

      Delete
    148. "Those quotes are from the decision."

      Sure they are. Man up

      "The decision is the proof. "

      I'm sure it is. Bring it. Man up

      Delete
    149. I've given you the search for the decision, twice. You have no excuse to avoid opening it and clicking on a link.

      Quit being a goddamn baby. Surely you were raised better than this.

      Delete
    150. Here's a guy(?) refusing to prove what he(?) says and he(?) calls me a baby for not believing him(?). Man up

      Delete
    151. I gave you the search for the decision. It's not a question of belief, it's a question of you using the information you asked for.

      Delete
    152. You mean a question of me doing the work for you that you should have done long ago since it is your claim that the decision says what you claim it says. Typical liberal ... expecting others to do the work for them.

      Why should I look up information that you say is there? You even use the information as the most important part of your argument and you won't even bring the proof. It isn't a question about whether I can look it up or not, the point is YOU depend on that decision to base your entire argument and you won't even provide proof of your argument. That means your argument is null/void until your provide proof that the Loving v. Virginia. Just like all the other arguments you try to make, you fail when your proof is questioned (incest / homosexuality cause familial changes, race case determines heterosexual rights). When you man up and bring some proof of your claims, we can go further.

      Delete
    153. "You mean a question of me doing the work for you that you should have done long ago since it is your claim that the decision says what you claim it says."

      Opening a link is "work"? You want me to go to your house and open the link for you?

      "Why should I look up information that you say is there?"

      How is opening a link looking up information?

      "You even use the information as the most important part of your argument and you won't even bring the proof."

      I gave you the search for the decision, twice.

      "It isn't a question about whether I can look it up or not, the point is YOU depend on that decision to base your entire argument and you won't even provide proof of your argument."

      You don't have to look it up, even though you should have on your own. I gave you the search for the decision, twice. That is providing proof.

      "That means your argument is null/void until your provide proof that the Loving v. Virginia."

      That the Loving v. Virginia...? How about you finish your sentence there? Was it supposed to be "decision exists"? That would be hilarious.

      "Just like all the other arguments you try to make, you fail when your proof is questioned (incest / homosexuality cause familial changes, race case determines heterosexual rights)."

      You don't think incest causes familial changes? Meanwhile, I didn't claim homosexuality causes familial changes, so how you inserted that bears some explanation. And Loving v. Virginia demonstrated that all straight people have a right to marriage. Because it was based on the concept of equal protection (look it up, if you can bring yourself to make an effort). Since same-race couples had the right to marry, that right could no longer be denied to interracial couples. So, all heterosexual people of legal age then had the right to get married, regardless of race. Ergo, straight couples have the right to marry. You haven't challenged any of that in any substantial manner.

      The decision says there's a right to marriage, which was the basis for the equal protection judgment. You could confirm this if you had the balls to open the search I gave you. Until then, you can't possibly have anything meaningful to say.

      Delete
    154. "You don't think incest causes familial changes?"

      What my opinion is does not make a difference, remember? Since my opinion is from some book, then you have determined that my opinion doesn't count. That's what you've said anyway.

      " Meanwhile, I didn't claim homosexuality causes familial changes, so how you inserted that bears some explanation."

      Who cares what you think? You need to bring scientific proof that incest causes change in the familial unit and proof that homosexuality does not. Your opinion doesn't count when scientific evidence like psychology has determined it (incest + homosexuality) does change the dynamics of the normal familial unit. You can look that up yourself, since that is the standard you have created for making / proving claims made in a discussion. Here's the search link: http://www.google.com/ So, you are a hypocrite when you support one sexual deviance and not another based solely on your opinion of familial change. And your logic is highly skewed for the same reason.

      " And Loving v. Virginia demonstrated that all straight people have a right to marriage."

      No, the Loving v. Va decision demonstrated that mixed races can marry. You have yet to demonstrate that the decision gave marriage rights to only heterosexuals. That is because you refuse to bring proof of that claim. Which makes your argument null/void That mean you lose

      "Since same-race couples had the right to marry, that right could no longer be denied to interracial couples."

      So, when are you going to bring the evidence that the decision gave ONLY heterosexuals that right? Because the only statements (that you've brought), so far, say marriage is a "FREEDOM", not a "RIGHT". You lose again.

      "The decision says there's a right to marriage, which was the basis for the equal protection judgment. "

      The decision says there is a "FREEDOM" to marry, not a right. Those out of context quotes you brought even said that. I wonder what the REAL quotes from the decision say? Cause I'm tired of referring to those made up ones you already brought. You lose, yet again.

      Man up ... if you are capable. Just like the law against firing people "simply for being gay". It is true and I've proved it. There are laws against it that covers ALL 50 states while you say it is legal in 29 states. Which is my first concern in this article ... the lies brought by liberals to promote their hatred of ??? Good job, liberal, you've done exactly what all normal people expected by denying to support your claims with proof and lie every chance you get. BTW, that's not my opinion, that is proven fact.


      Delete
    155. "What my opinion is does not make a difference, remember?"

      You said that was part of my "proof" that failed. So, you must think incest doesn't cause familial changes. Since the Bible doesn't use the term "psychologically unhealthy", you must have your own rationale on the matter.

      "Since my opinion is from some book, then you have determined that my opinion doesn't count."

      I'm saying you have to have something else, moron. Something objective.

      "You need to bring scientific proof that incest causes change in the familial unit and proof that homosexuality does not."

      I need to scientifically prove that incest causes changes in the familial unit? Why do you think it's psychologically unhealthy? As for homosexuality, what "familial unit" would be relevant? You could make the same argument for interracial marriage. If someone's parents are bigots, that's their problem. People aren't obligated to follow other people's guidance because they're narrow-minded, so any "change" to a familial unit because of homosexuality is utterly irrelevant.

      "Your opinion doesn't count when scientific evidence like psychology has determined it (incest + homosexuality) does change the dynamics of the normal familial unit."

      Incest plus homosexuality?

      "So, you are a hypocrite when you support one sexual deviance and not another based solely on your opinion of familial change."

      What "familial change" regarding homosexuality are you even asserting? You aren't even making an argument.

      "No, the Loving v. Va decision demonstrated that mixed races can marry."

      Meaning all heterosexual couples could marry.

      "You have yet to demonstrate that the decision gave marriage rights to only heterosexuals."

      No, I don't. The point is that straight people have the right to marriage. "Only" wasn't part of it.

      "Because the only statements (that you've brought), so far, say marriage is a "FREEDOM", not a "RIGHT"."

      You quoted it yourself as a "right", moron.

      "The decision says there is a "FREEDOM" to marry, not a right."

      It says both. "Freedom" does not negate "right".

      "Those out of context quotes you brought even said that. I wonder what the REAL quotes from the decision say?"

      This is an excellent example of how you are a flaming idiot. In two sentences you both assert "out of context", then admit you don't know what the context is. And that's after I've pointed that out to you more than once.

      "Just like the law against firing people "simply for being gay". It is true and I've proved it. There are laws against it that covers ALL 50 states while you say it is legal in 29 states."

      No, moron. Federal hiring and firing policy is not federal law. It only applies to federal employees, so everyone else in those states can be fired simply for being gay.

      "BTW, that's not my opinion, that is proven fact."

      That was opinion by definition, moron. You don't even understand the most basic terms.

      Delete
    156. "Why do you think it's psychologically unhealthy?"

      "I" think it's psychologically unhealthy because it is a sin. Just like homosexuality

      "As for homosexuality, what "familial unit" would be relevant? You could make the same argument for interracial marriage. "

      No, that same argument could NOT be made for inter-racial marriage.

      "People aren't obligated to follow other people's guidance because they're narrow-minded, so any "change" to a familial unit because of homosexuality is utterly irrelevant."

      Using YOUR standards: your narrow-minded views on incest are irrelevant. Making it the same as homosexuality. You lose, yet again.

      "Incest plus homosexuality?"

      I didn't think you knew how to read. Either way, you didn't challenge what I said, so you must agree with it.

      "Meaning all heterosexual couples could marry."

      But, the decision didn't say that, did it? Are you inserting your opinion and calling it fact? Because the decision did NOT specify sexual orientation, did it?

      "No, I don't. The point is that straight people have the right to marriage. "Only" wasn't part of it."

      Liar. You said it was against the law for gays to marry and that meant "only" heterosexuals were given a "right" to marriage through the Loving v Va case. Although that may be why you are scared to bring proof of the court decision ... you may find out I am correct and you are wrong. That must be why you refuse to prove your statements.

      "It says both."

      No it doesn't. Where in the courts decision does it say only heterosexuals have a "right" to marriage?

      "It only applies to federal employees, so everyone else in those states can be fired simply for being gay."

      WHERE in that statement did Eddie (and you) say ONLY non-federal employees could be fired "simply for being gay" in 29 states. At what point were you going to let everyone know you have different parameters than what are actually being discussed in the actual article?

      "That was opinion by definition, moron. You don't even understand the most basic terms."

      No, that was definitely proven fact. You even lied in this most recent reply. You're a liberal, you can't help but lie ... you people are born that way. LOL

      "It says both. "Freedom" does not negate "right"."

      Having a "freedom" does not give you a "right", either. I have the "freedom" to cross the street, I have no "right" to cross the street. I have the "freedom" to call you a liar, I have no "right" to defame you.

      Delete
    157. ""I" think it's psychologically unhealthy because it is a sin."

      What does sin have to do with it? The phrase "psychologically unhealthy" doesn't mean anything if "sin" isn't attached to it? I guess PTSD isn't unhealthy because the Bible didn't say so, in your mind.

      "No, that same argument could NOT be made for inter-racial marriage."

      Why not?

      "Using YOUR standards: your narrow-minded views on incest are irrelevant."

      So, my opposition to incest is narrow-minded, but yours isn't? How does that work?

      "I didn't think you knew how to read. Either way, you didn't challenge what I said, so you must agree with it."

      I'm asking you for clarification, jackass. Either way, what scientific evidence are you citing?

      "But, the decision didn't say that, did it?"

      Why would it have to? Gay people couldn't get married. It wasn't even in the discussion at the time.

      "Liar. You said it was against the law for gays to marry and that meant "only" heterosexuals were given a "right" to marriage through the Loving v Va case."

      No, your phrasing suggested that Loving v. Virginia is limited to heterosexual couples:"You have yet to demonstrate that the decision gave marriage rights to only heterosexuals." I'm saying that the word "only" is redundant, since that was the only option at the time. There was no alternative.

      "No it doesn't. Where in the courts decision does it say only heterosexuals have a "right" to marriage?"

      Why would it need to specify "heterosexuals"?

      "WHERE in that statement did Eddie (and you) say ONLY non-federal employees could be fired "simply for being gay" in 29 states."

      Why was that necessary? It's still legal in those states to fire everyone else for that reason. Your quibbling over one exceptional group doesn't make anyone else a liar.

      "No, that was definitely proven fact."

      No, it's your opinion. You don't have any objective measurements to prove your statement.

      "Having a "freedom" does not give you a "right", either."

      I don't need it to, because the decision said "rights". You quoted it yourself.

      Delete
    158. "So, my opposition to incest is narrow-minded, but yours isn't? How does that work?"

      I didn't say mine wasn't ... you did. You always determine my thoughts and beliefs for me ... why is that? But, I'm glad you admit your viewpoint is narrow-minded.

      "Either way, what scientific evidence are you citing?"

      The exact same scientific evidence you brought to oppose incest ... oh wait, you didn't bring any either. Oh, golly. Looks like we both are relying on 'opinion'. So much for your intelligent conversational skills.

      "Gay people couldn't get married. "

      Neither could inter-races. Bring your evidence that the decision gave (or confirmed) marriage rights for heterosexuals specifically.

      "I'm saying that the word "only" is redundant, since that was the only option at the time."

      Well, you are wrong. And, if you think you are right then fully explain how that could be. Because no one else is seeing that.

      Delete
    159. "I didn't say mine wasn't ... you did."

      Why do you think your criticism is narrow-minded? And don't you think it's a bit of an odd criticism for you to make if you think you're the same way?

      "You always determine my thoughts and beliefs for me ... why is that?"

      I didn't. I asked you a question. However, you do have a habit of asserting my thoughts and beliefs, in case you hadn't noticed. So what's your point regarding that behavior, exactly?

      "But, I'm glad you admit your viewpoint is narrow-minded."

      I asked you a question regarding your criticism. That's not an admission of anything. The whole point of "how does that work" is that your claim is nonsensical.

      "The exact same scientific evidence you brought to oppose incest ... oh wait, you didn't bring any either."

      So, you have nothing to back up the claim that homosexuality has any impact on a familial unit. How is it similar to incest, then?

      "Looks like we both are relying on 'opinion'. So much for your intelligent conversational skills."

      I backed up my opinion with facts:the Loving v. Virginia decision. You have yet to find the moral strength to read it. Meanwhile I never claimed that my general argument wasn't my opinion. I've said several times already that my argument makes sense, while yours does not. Your little victory doesn't actually exist, moron.

      "Neither could inter-races."

      So what?

      "Bring your evidence that the decision gave (or confirmed) marriage rights for heterosexuals specifically."

      Let me get this straight:if you lived in a town with one stoplight, and you were told the stoplight was broken, you'd engage in a long, drawn-out argument over which stoplight was broken? There was no alternative, moron.

      "Well, you are wrong."

      Gay people could not get married at that time. The first state to legalize it did so in 2004. What else do you think you're referring to there?

      "And, if you think you are right then fully explain how that could be."

      How what could be? You aren't even explaining your assertion that I'm "wrong", so what exactly do you expect me to respond to? I really don't think it's necessary to explain yet again how only straight people could get married at the time, therefore the establishment of a "right" to marriage applied to straight couples.

      Delete
    160. "So, you have nothing to back up the claim that homosexuality has any impact on a familial unit. How is it similar to incest, then?"

      I have plenty of scientific evidence of harm to the familial unit. I just haven't brought any of it. You made a claim that scientific evidence supports your stance that psychological harm occurs in incest but you (again) failed to bring any of it.

      "I really don't think it's necessary to explain yet again how only straight people could get married at the time, therefore the establishment of a "right" to marriage applied to straight couples."

      That simply is not true. No "rights" were established beyond the right for inter-racial marriages. NO OTHER RIGHTS. You are assuming a lot and it has already made U look like an ASS, not ME.

      "You have yet to find the moral strength to read it."

      You do not know what I have or have not read. But if the best you can do is whine about me not knowing something, well, rest assured you can stop your whining. I've read that decision years ago when you people started using it to demand "rights" that no one else has. And your quotes are out of context (the way you used them) and the decision does NOT give ONLY heterosexuals rights to marriage. The decision gives inter-racial couples the FREEDOM to marry. The decision expresses that marriage is a FREEDOM. But you being a liberal and all are so closed minded and racist that you seethe at the mouth trying to force your OPINION down people's throat so that you can feel superior to others (in your mind). However, you only provided a big miss and you cannot provide that proof that you claim is there. The reason is that your proof does not support your claim and that is why you refuse to bring the proof you say is there. Anyone (past the 10 grade) already knows about the Loving v Va case and what it provided. "Rights" for heterosexuals to marry is not one of them. FREEDOM to marry is what they explained is present in America.

      "So what?"

      So what??? Inter-racial couples were determined to have just as much FREEDOM to marry as anyone else. When you get a case that says homosexuals have the same FREEDOM, then we can talk. But, since you are seeking special RIGHTS that no one else has, then you'll never be able to find a case that will support your demands.

      "Let me get this straight:"

      Wow, I ask for evidence of your stance and you bring a story about stop-lights. No wonder you're in the Army, you don't have enough brains to find a job in the real world.

      "Gay people could not get married at that time."

      They could to. You liar. Nobody would recognize the marriage, but they could certainly find someone to marry them. Now I'll wait for you to change the subject again. I wonder if it will be about horses this time or another good story about stop-lights. Either way, you have failed so miserably that you no longer even discuss what is being asked. You merely say: 'so what' or 'one stoplight' or 'how could what be'.

      Man up and bring your evidence. I've only been asking that for the past week, and you still avoid doing it. You obviously don't know how to man up, do you?


      Delete
    161. "I have plenty of scientific evidence of harm to the familial unit."

      No, you don't.

      "You made a claim that scientific evidence supports your stance that psychological harm occurs in incest but you (again) failed to bring any of it."

      I'm not sure I made any such specific claim. Maybe you could provide a link to back that up. And why is this even a point of contention, since you conceded the point by agreeing that incest is psychologically unhealthy?

      "No "rights" were established beyond the right for inter-racial marriages."

      The couples in question were straight. They couldn't possibly have applied to gay people, as gay marriage was not legal anywhere in the country.

      "You do not know what I have or have not read."

      I can only conclude from your incessant bellyaching about not getting the search you wanted (for no sensible reason) that you refuse to open the link I sent. You've also whined about doing my work, so on what basis would I think you'd done the reading?

      "I've read that decision years ago when you people started using it to demand "rights" that no one else has."

      Then you might remember that marriage is described as one of our "rights".

      "And your quotes are out of context (the way you used them) and the decision does NOT give ONLY heterosexuals rights to marriage."

      You haven't explained what is "out of context" about them, moron. Substantiate your arguments. As for "ONLY", are you saying that it applies to gay people as well?

      "The decision expresses that marriage is a FREEDOM."

      It also expresses that it is a right. Where does it distinguish between the two terms, and how?

      "But you being a liberal and all are so closed minded and racist that you seethe at the mouth trying to force your OPINION down people's throat so that you can feel superior to others (in your mind)."

      Are you high? You still haven't substantiated "racist", and if there's any one person in the world who can't complain about anyone else forcing their OPINION down other people's throats in order to feel superior, it's you. Shall we go back to your "I believe in God so you're wrong" speech? Note the paraphrasing ahead of time.

      (cont.)

      Delete
    162. "The reason is that your proof does not support your claim and that is why you refuse to bring the proof you say is there."

      Your nonsensical argument that it doesn't support my claim would not mean that I "refuse" to bring proof, moron.

      "Anyone (past the 10 grade) already knows about the Loving v Va case and what it provided."

      Which gave me every right to call you "moron", moron. It also makes you a liar for acting as if you hadn't read it.

      "Inter-racial couples were determined to have just as much FREEDOM to marry as anyone else. When you get a case that says homosexuals have the same FREEDOM, then we can talk."

      No, moron. The point is that straight people have the right to marry. You claimed otherwise, remember? Gay people getting married is not relevant to that argument.

      "Wow, I ask for evidence of your stance and you bring a story about stop-lights."

      Which you aren't smart enough to address. The point is that there's no alternative. Since I've had to explain this to you multiple times, it's your fault that I have to dumb it down for your child-like mind to grasp.

      "They could to. You liar. Nobody would recognize the marriage, but they could certainly find someone to marry them."

      That's not "married", then, moron. Marriage is a legal institution. You're thinking of a "wedding". Note how the words are spelled differently, indicating that they are, amazingly, different words.

      "You merely say: 'so what' or 'one stoplight' or 'how could what be'."

      I said "so what" because the lack of interracial marriage didn't affect my argument in the slightest. I could easily say that if a white man had a white girlfriend and a black girlfriend in Virginia (before Loving, to anticipate your moronic response), if someone said he was getting married on Saturday in City Hall, you would be stupid to ask which girlfriend he picked. Because one of them couldn't legally get married to him. Get it? There was no alternative.

      "I've only been asking that for the past week, and you still avoid doing it."

      You've been using that phrase to ask for the Loving decision. Did you forget you admitted to not needing that, already? Did you forget that you also admitted that I didn't give you an empty google search, meaning that I gave you a search for the Loving decision? You just type without thinking at all of how stupid it makes you look.

      Delete
    163. "No you don't"

      Yes, I do: http://psychcentral.com/lib/higher-risk-of-mental-health-problems-for-homosexuals/0006527 and http://www.frc.org/?i=IS01B1 and http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research

      Do you want more? Notice I bring the ACTUAL LINK to my evidence. Do you think you could do that for the Loving v Va case? Man up!

      "Then you might remember that marriage is described as one of our "rights"."

      I "might" remember that ... if the decision actually had described marriage FREEDOMS as rights. However, it does not do that.

      "It also expresses that it is a right. "

      It does not. You have nothing to show it does except for one out of context quote. Bring the whole decision and show where SCOTUS has determined a "right" for heterosexuals to marry. I think you will NOT bring that evidence because that evidence is not there. That is why you keep refusing to man up and bring the actual evidence that will support your stance.

      "Which gave me every right to call you "moron", moron. It also makes you a liar for acting as if you hadn't read it."

      I never acted like I hadn't read it. I want you to prove what you claim. I know what is in it. That is why I am so adamant about you bringing the proof that you say is in it. Since I KNOW that SCOTUS did NOT give any "rights" to marriage to anyone. What they DID do is explain that inter-racial marriage is a FREEDOM.

      "The point is that straight people have the right to marry."

      I don't care what your "point" is, the FACT is that people have a FREEDOM to marry, not a right. You have the FREEDOM to marry your dog, no right. You have the FREEDOM to marry your boyfriend, no right. You have the FREEDOM to marry your cousin, no right.

      "The point is that there's no alternative. "

      Are you saying that there were no gays back then? That's why there was no alternative? Or are you saying that gays simply did not live together back then because they didn't have rights that no one else had? I think you are off your rocker to insinuate that gays did not want to or seek out marriage back then. And then to use that excuse to support FREEDOMS that the SCOTUS verified and call them rights shows your inability to discuss rationally and intellectually.

      "That's not "married", then, moron."

      Yes, it is. And thank you for admitting they could get married back then. Even if it wasn't recognized, at least you admit they were forming functional families in spite of the lack of government recognition. That makes the Loving v Va case that much more un-acceptable, because now you have admitted that gays were in familial relationships and yet the SCOTUS said people have the FREEDOM to marry, not a right. Which would include gays. But, now you seek special rights to have gays force un-cooperative Churches into performing marriage ceremonies or be sued.

      "You've been using that phrase to ask for the Loving decision."

      I brought the same search you brought. You whine about mine but are proud of yours. Did you forget that YOU claim facts that YOU have not proven, yet? Whether I need them or not is inconsequential. The FACT is you claimed to have proof of what you said and you failed to bring it.

      Delete
    164. Hilarious! The second sentence:"Discrimination may contribute to the higher risk, believes lead researcher Dr. Apu Chakraborty of University College London, UK."

      "He stated that, although the level of discrimination was low, it was still significantly higher than against heterosexual people. This “lends support to the idea that people who feel discriminated against experience social stressors, which in turn increases their risk of experiencing mental health problems,” he says." In other words, it's the fault of people like you.

      Further:"The researchers say, “There are a number of reasons why gay people may be more likely to report psychological difficulties, which include difficulties growing up in a world orientated to heterosexual norms and values and the negative influence of social stigma against homosexuality."

      You really couldn't have proved my point about "outside influences" better if that was your intent.

      As for the FRC:http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/family-research-council. It's a hate group, moron. You might as well quote the KKK.

      "However, it does not do that."

      Yes, it did. Read it again.

      "It does not. You have nothing to show it does except for one out of context quote."

      How is it "out of context"? Show how the context changes any relevant meaning there.

      "Bring the whole decision and show where SCOTUS has determined a "right" for heterosexuals to marry."

      As I told you already, I never claimed that there was any specific mention of "heterosexuals". The ramifications are clear, even if it was completely unnecessary to spell it out for the likes of you at the time.

      "I never acted like I hadn't read it."

      Liar. Just one example:"Why the "..." afterward? Bring the full quote and reference, so I can check your accuracy. I think you're taking it out of context." If you were claiming to have read it, you couldn't have possibly thought I was leaving anything out. Check and mate, jackass.

      (cont.)

      Delete
    165. "I don't care what your "point" is, the FACT is that people have a FREEDOM to marry, not a right."

      A distinction without a difference. Again, show where the two terms are differentiated in the decision, and how.

      "You have the FREEDOM to marry your dog, no right."

      No, you don't, because animals can't sign legal documents.

      "Are you saying that there were no gays back then?"

      No, there was no gay marriage. It wasn't legal anywhere in the United States.

      "I think you are off your rocker to insinuate that gays did not want to or seek out marriage back then."

      Perhaps a few people talked about it, but it was surely sort of difficult to fight for gay marriage when anti-sodomy laws were still widely in effect. One step at a time, obviously.

      "And then to use that excuse to support FREEDOMS that the SCOTUS verified and call them rights shows your inability to discuss rationally and intellectually."

      What "excuse"? Gay people could not legally get married, so the declaration on the right to marriage clearly applied to straight couples. There was nobody else that it could have possibly applied to.

      "Yes, it is."

      No, marriage is a legal institution.

      "But, now you seek special rights to have gays force un-cooperative Churches into performing marriage ceremonies or be sued."

      Absolutely wrong. It's not a "special right", it's an equal right. And who is trying to force any church into performing a ceremony? Renting out property to the public is not the same thing at all, and that's all you've brought so far.

      "I brought the same search you brought."

      You brought an empty search. Mine was a completed search.

      "Did you forget that YOU claim facts that YOU have not proven, yet?"

      Your irrational and pigheaded behavior is not a reflection on my arguments.

      "Whether I need them or not is inconsequential."

      No, it's not inconsequential. If you never needed me to cite the decision, then it was dishonest of you to pretend otherwise. Your behavior is relevant, sorry.

      Delete
    166. "You really couldn't have proved my point about "outside influences" better if that was your intent."

      What I proved is psychological harm caused. That is your concern with incest, yet you can't (don't and won't) bring any proof of your claims. I bring proof of mine, you bring nothing. Maybe you'll bring another google search for me to finish for you, since you refuse to do any work of your own.

      "You might as well quote the KKK."

      Sorry, I'm not the racist that you are. I have no idea what the KKK quotes. You would be the expert on them, not me.

      "Show how the context changes any relevant meaning there."

      Because the placement of one word TWICE in a ten thousand word decision does NOT make that word meaningful. The case was about race relations ONLY. No implied rights ... only FREEDOMS

      "As I told you already, I never claimed that there was any specific mention of "heterosexuals"."

      That's right, never any specific mention of heterosexuals. That means there are no implied rights given or mentioned for heterosexual marriages.

      "Check and mate, jackass."

      When you're losing at checkers, you don't yell "check mate", little man.

      "No, you don't, because animals can't sign legal documents."

      Not a parameter to GET married. Only to have it recognized.

      " One step at a time, obviously."

      That's right, reduce morality in the US one step at a time. Your next step will be to allow incest or polygamy. Reduce the morality in the US. Good for you, liberal, you are achieving your goal.

      "It's not a "special right", it's an equal right. "

      It's a special right because NOBODY else has the right to marriage. Everyone else has the FREEDOM to marry, as designated by the decision in the Loving v Va case.

      "Renting out property to the public is not the same thing at all, and that's all you've brought so far."

      Yes it is. Church member owned property and they are being forced to perform a wedding against their will, or face legal/financial ramifications. The FACT is gay people are forcing religious institutions to perform actions that go against their beliefs. You are forcing your beliefs onto others when you are so dead-set against religions forcing their beliefs onto you. What a hypocrite you are.

      " If you never needed me to cite the decision, then it was dishonest of you to pretend otherwise. "

      You made the claim, you must prove it. Just because I'm smarter than you and already know things that you do not, does not release you from your responsibility to prove what you say is true.

      Delete
    167. "What I proved is psychological harm caused."

      No, moron, because I already accounted for that. It's outside influence. You can't very well create a hostile environment and then say that the problems that arise because of that environment make any comment about homosexuality. If people like you don't create the problem, then there's no problem.

      "Maybe you'll bring another google search for me to finish for you, since you refuse to do any work of your own."

      Opening a link isn't "finish(ing)" it.

      "Sorry, I'm not the racist that you are."

      Yet another unsubstantiated claim.

      "Because the placement of one word TWICE in a ten thousand word decision does NOT make that word meaningful."

      The decision is ten thousand words long? Are you sure? And why the hell would that be meaningful anyway? By your logic, if it said "heterosexual couples have the right to marriage", that wouldn't count because it only used the word once. You expect "right" to appear a thousand times, or what? What's your threshold for the amount of times a word has to appear in order for it to be recognized?

      "The case was about race relations ONLY."

      It was about marriage, more specifically, while you claim straight people have no right to it.

      "That's right, never any specific mention of heterosexuals. That means there are no implied rights given or mentioned for heterosexual marriages."

      Moron, "implied" does not rely on "specific mention" by definition. And how would "implied rights" be "mentioned"? They're implied.

      "When you're losing at checkers, you don't yell "check mate", little man."

      When you're trying to prove your point, you don't talk about checkers, jackass. Your failure to pursue your argument tells me that you know you were pretending to have not read the decision.

      "Not a parameter to GET married. Only to have it recognized."

      Except that "recognized" is what "married" means. It's a legal institution. The Loving v. Virginia case wasn't about some empty ceremonial act, obviously.

      "That's right, reduce morality in the US one step at a time. Your next step will be to allow incest or polygamy."

      No, there isn't any groundswell for incest or polygamy. Neither has anything to do with homosexuality.

      "Everyone else has the FREEDOM to marry, as designated by the decision in the Loving v Va case."

      Except the decision says "rights". And again, you're playing semantics. The use of the term "right" regarding gay marriage is based off of straight people having that right. If you really had a case that the proper term was "freedom", then people would then be arguing for the "freedom" of gay marriage. Your argument is deeply dishonest.

      "Yes it is. Church member owned property and they are being forced to perform a wedding against their will, or face legal/financial ramifications."

      Who is being forced to "perform a wedding against their will"? Be specific.

      "The FACT is gay people are forcing religious institutions to perform actions that go against their beliefs."

      No, church-owned businesses are being forced to not discriminate. If they don't like it, they don't have to run the business. That's not the same as weddings, which involve the church sanctioning of the union.

      "You made the claim, you must prove it."

      I have. You have no logical argument to the contrary.

      Delete
    168. "If people like you don't create the problem, then there's no problem."

      There's no way you can say that about homosexuality and not believe that about incest. There is NO problem within the incest family unit unless bigots like you create the problem. Which you defiantly claim a problem is there, and deny a problem within the homosexual family even though I brought scientific proof there IS a problem within the homosexual family. You are a hypocrite.

      "Yet another unsubstantiated claim."

      You mean I have to substantiate my claims, but you do not? Why is that?

      "The decision is ten thousand words long? Are you sure?"

      I did not count each word. Is that important?

      "It was about marriage, more specifically, while you claim straight people have no right to it."

      Even more specifically, it was about the FREEDOM to marry between races. No mention of heterosexual anywhere in the decision. So, you could say my "threshold" for the number of times a word needs to be somewhere to be recognized would be a minimum of ONCE. Is heterosexual EVER mentioned in the decision you failed to bring proof of?

      "Except that "recognized" is what "married" means. It's a legal institution."

      It's a religious ceremony.

      "No, there isn't any groundswell for incest or polygamy."

      Ahh,, but when there is, you'll be one of the first to jump on that immorality band-wagon. Thank you for admitting your morals change according to public perceptions and/or popularity.

      "Who is being forced to "perform a wedding against their will"? Be specific."

      Been there ... done that. Go read it yourself. Do your own work for a change, little man.

      "I have. You have no logical argument to the contrary."

      Out of context snip-its of assumed statements do not count as logical. Bring the real deal or not ... your choice, little man.

      Delete
    169. "There's no way you can say that about homosexuality and not believe that about incest."

      There is a way, because incest is dysfunctional whether other people make an issue of it or not.

      "You mean I have to substantiate my claims, but you do not?"

      I substantiate my claims. You throw around terms like "racist" without ever justifying them.

      "I did not count each word. Is that important?"

      No, I simply thought you were exaggerating. You seem to require an absurd standard of specificity from me, needing the most obvious rhetorical devices explained to you, but you have no problem with reckless exaggeration for yourself.

      "Even more specifically, it was about the FREEDOM to marry between races."

      The decision doesn't differentiate between "freedom" and "right".

      "So, you could say my "threshold" for the number of times a word needs to be somewhere to be recognized would be a minimum of ONCE."

      But twice doesn't count. Interesting. And your argument is pointless since I never claimed that sexual orientation was specifically mentioned.

      "It's a religious ceremony."

      Wrong. I got married on a beach by a justice of the peace. It was not religious. Churches only serve as witnesses for the purposes of state recognition. Atheists can legally marry people, as long as they're certified to do so.

      "Ahh,, but when there is, you'll be one of the first to jump on that immorality band-wagon."

      I doubt it will ever happen. Even if it did, I wouldn't support it. "You always determine my thoughts and beliefs for me ... why is that?"

      "Thank you for admitting your morals change according to public perceptions and/or popularity."

      You're not even trying anymore. You said there was a "next step". I said there's no push for either of those things, so that "next step" isn't likely. That doesn't say anything about my morals. Remember, you were asked already for evidence of me changing my morals, and you bailed out.

      "Been there ... done that."

      No, you have not shown how any church has been forced to perform a marriage against their will. You made the assertion, it's your job to back it up.

      "Out of context snip-its of assumed statements do not count as logical."

      Yet again, you have no substantiation for "out of context". You obviously don't know what that simple phrase even means.

      Delete
    170. "There is a way, because incest is dysfunctional whether other people make an issue of it or not."

      No more or less than the homosexual family unit.

      "You throw around terms like "racist" without ever justifying them."

      You are a racist. You brought a court decision on race relations and equated it to theh CHOICE of sexual preference. That makes you a racist.

      "but you have no problem with reckless exaggeration for yourself."

      Is it an exaggeration? Since you haven't ever read the decision, you wouldn't know, would you, little man?

      "The decision doesn't differentiate between "freedom" and "right"."

      Oh yes it does. Even in the 4 statements you provided it made that distinction.

      "But twice doesn't count."

      Heterosexuality was not mentioned twice, you liar.

      "You made the assertion, it's your job to back it up."

      Not according to the standards you follow, little man. Or is this another of your hypocritical moments?

      "Yet again, you have no substantiation for "out of context"."

      And, yet again, you have not provided any "in context" quotes from the decision. Only out of context snip-its of assumed statements that you call genuine.

      Delete
    171. "No more or less than the homosexual family unit."

      How so? Without discrimination, how is a gay couple any different in its interactions than a straight couple?

      "That makes you a racist."

      How so? Even factoring in your opinion of "CHOICE", that has nothing to do with racism.

      "Since you haven't ever read the decision, you wouldn't know, would you, little man?"

      I quoted the decision. Obviously, I read it.

      "Oh yes it does. Even in the 4 statements you provided it made that distinction."

      Really? Do explain how it did that.

      "Heterosexuality was not mentioned twice, you liar."

      But "rights" was, which is what I was referring to. You sort of stepped in it on that one.

      "Not according to the standards you follow, little man."

      I've substantiated my claims. You don't seem to feel you even need to try.

      "And, yet again, you have not provided any "in context" quotes from the decision."

      How are two full paragraphs not "in context", exactly? And if you've actually read the decision, feel free to show how my quotes were not "genuine".

      Delete
    172. "I quoted the decision. Obviously, I read it."

      Not so obvious, since you aren't able to bring the decision to this discussion without whining about having to do it. Man up, little man

      "Without discrimination, how is a gay couple any different in its interactions than a straight couple?"

      A healthy child needs the input during his/her life from both a mother AND a father. The 'father-figure' is very important for the upbringing of both a girl and boy and just as important is the 'mother' of the family. Obviously, 2 of one or 2 of the other CANNOT bring a balanced upbringing to a child that a normal family unit can. Notice NO "outside influences" used in my description of why gay marriages are as unhealthy as incest relations. Yet you find joy in remaining a hypocrite. Go figure.

      "And if you've actually read the decision, feel free to show how my quotes were not "genuine"."

      Who said those statements? In what context was that person saying it? Obviously, if they intended for the decision to be a base for heterosexual marriage rights, there would have been more said on the matter. Also just as obvious, they did NOT say anything about heterosexual marriage rights so the case decision is strictly based on FREEDOMS for inter-racial couples to marry ... as was said in the tiny little sentences you brought while trying to inject your racism into a discussion on homosexuals demanding rights that no one else has.

      Delete
    173. "Not so obvious, since you aren't able to bring the decision to this discussion without whining about having to do it."

      I never whined about anything. You're the one bellyaching about not getting the search you wanted, without explaining how one was better than the other. Further, you're now claiming you're familiar with the decision, so why the hell are you still asking for it?

      "A healthy child needs the input during his/her life from both a mother AND a father"

      No, they don't, and I don't think you'll find any source outside of the FRC that claims that.

      "Who said those statements? In what context was that person saying it?"

      If you're familiar with the decision, then you already know.

      "Obviously, if they intended for the decision to be a base for heterosexual marriage rights, there would have been more said on the matter."

      Intent isn't necessary, first off. And why would more need to be said, exactly? Saying marriage is one of our civil rights is pretty damn clear to anyone but you.

      "Also just as obvious, they did NOT say anything about heterosexual marriage rights so the case decision is strictly based on FREEDOMS for inter-racial couples to marry ... as was said in the tiny little sentences you brought while trying to inject your racism into a discussion on homosexuals demanding rights that no one else has."

      They don't have to say anything about "heterosexual" anything, because there's no alternative. It's inherent to the concept. As for "racism", you still can't explain that term and how it could possibly apply to anything I've said.

      Remember;"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival." If you want to show how some context changes the clear meaning of that, do so. I provided the entire conclusion. You haven't shown any context to counter my argument whatsoever.

      Delete
    174. "You're the one bellyaching about not getting the search you wanted, without explaining how one was better than the other."

      No, I'm whining about not getting the proof you are required to submit to support your stance. Even YOU said that is required, yet YOU don't feel that requirement applies to YOU. Remember this: "You made the assertion, it's your job to back it up." ? That is what you told me when I didn't back up my stance with proof.

      "No, they don't, and I don't think you'll find any source outside of the FRC that claims that."

      http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gold-standard-studys-striking-findings-children-of-heterosexual-parents-hap/
      I think you are wrong again.

      "If you're familiar with the decision, then you already know."

      Remember when YOU told ME this: "You made the assertion, it's your job to back it up." ? No, I guess you don't. Either that or your not bound by the same requirements you demand of me.

      "Saying marriage is one of our civil rights is pretty damn clear to anyone but you."

      Oh, they said it is a "civil right"? Sure would be good to know WHO said that and have it in full context without being cut into little snippets of words you use. Do you think you can prove what you claim is true this time? I don't think so, either. You made the assertion, it's your job to back it up!

      Delete
    175. "No, I'm whining about not getting the proof you are required to submit to support your stance."

      And I gave you the search for the decision, which you now claim you don't even need. So what is your problem?

      "I think you are wrong again."

      Really, Regnurus? Hilarious: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/13/opinion/la-oe-frank-same-sex-regnerus-family-20120613

      You should really do some research before you post. Seriously.

      "No, I guess you don't. Either that or your not bound by the same requirements you demand of me."

      That doesn't explain why I'm supposed to answer questions you claim to know the answer to already.

      "Oh, they said it is a "civil right"? Sure would be good to know WHO said that and have it in full context without being cut into little snippets of words you use."

      Then look at the decision, again. For someone who claims to know all about it, you do ask very stupid questions. If you want to demonstrate how the context makes that very clear statement mean something else, do so. Otherwise, quit bitching.

      Delete
    176. "Really, Regnurus? Hilarious:"

      The LA Times? Really. Hilarious: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_most_liberal_newspaper_in_the_US
      Hey, you asked for a non-FRC source and you still whine. Of course you use the most liberal newspaper in America to dispute a valid offering to your request.

      "Then look at the decision, again."

      You made the assertion, it is your job to back it up!

      "For someone who claims to know all about it,"

      I NEVER claimed to know all about it. That is why I'm asking for clarification on facts you claim are there. Bring it, little man. Maybe other parts of you are little too and you don't have big enough ones to find the courage to defend what you say with proof.

      Delete
    177. "The LA Times? Really."

      So someone on wikianswers says it's liberal, therefore Regnerus is credible? No.

      http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2013-03-29/new-documents-contradict-regnerus-claims-on-gay-parenting-study/

      http://www.examiner.com/article/popular-gay-parenting-study-scrutinized-as-being-flawed

      And besides, are your links supposed to be objective? The FRC? Lifesitenews? Sorry, your study is bullshit. Try again.

      "You made the assertion, it is your job to back it up!"

      Why do I have to back up something you supposedly already know about?

      "I NEVER claimed to know all about it."

      Really?:"I've read that decision years ago when you people started using it to demand "rights" that no one else has. And your quotes are out of context (the way you used them) and the decision does NOT give ONLY heterosexuals rights to marriage."

      Again, if you can claim "out of context", then you are claiming to know the context. Otherwise, you can't make the charge. That should really be obvious without me telling you even once. So, make your choice;either you know the decision or you can't accuse me of taking anything out of context. Either way, you got caught lying. Can you get arrested for that?

      Delete
    178. "And besides, are your links supposed to be objective?"

      You didn't ask for "objective". You asked for non-FRC. I provided one. Get over yourself

      "Why do I have to back up something you supposedly already know about?"

      Are you saying you're not bound to the same requirements you demand of others?

      "Really?"

      Really. Show where I made a claim that I "know all about it" as opposed to have read it.

      "Either way, you got caught lying. Can you get arrested for that?"

      Not in the context of your usage of "lying". However, you haven't shown where it is a lie in any way.

      Delete
    179. "You didn't ask for "objective". You asked for non-FRC."

      You should find good sources for everything you do, if you really want to show how gay relationships are in any way unhealthy.

      "Are you saying you're not bound to the same requirements you demand of others?"

      Did I ask you to substantiate something I already know?

      "Really. Show where I made a claim that I "know all about it" as opposed to have read it."

      Am I supposed to assume that you read, but don't understand?

      "Not in the context of your usage of "lying"."

      You mean, the definition of "lying"? As if my "usage" is somehow specific.

      "However, you haven't shown where it is a lie in any way."

      Of course I have. Either you've read the decision, in which case you know the context and know I wasn't omitting anything (contrary to your claims), or you haven't, in which case you're lying because you said you did read it. Which is it?

      Delete
    180. "You should find good sources for everything you do, if you really want to show how gay relationships are in any way unhealthy."

      What's not "good" about that source? Just because some ultra-liberal newspaper doesn't agree with it, you decide it isn't "good"? Is this more people telling you how to think? You just admitted to relying on an old book to determine your morals, now you rely on newspapers to tell you the difference between good and evil? So much for you being your own man and making your own choices on morality.

      "Did I ask you to substantiate something I already know?"

      I have no idea what you know. That isn't the point, though, is it? So, answer the question without using a question.

      "Am I supposed to assume that you read, but don't understand?"

      You assume everything else, why should this be different?

      " Either you've read the decision / or you haven't"

      Reading isn't the same as retaining. Some of us aren't as 'sharp as a tack' when it comes to remembering everything they've read in their lives. Do you remember every sentence in every book you've read? Please say 'yes', little man.

      Delete
    181. "What's not "good" about that source?"

      It was debunked, moron.

      "You just admitted to relying on an old book to determine your morals, now you rely on newspapers to tell you the difference between good and evil?"

      I admitted to no such thing. I can cite a fact about a set of laws without claiming to adhere to those laws, moron.

      "That isn't the point, though, is it?"

      It is the point. I didn't ask you to substantiate anything I already claimed to know. So the standard doesn't apply.

      "You assume everything else, why should this be different?"

      In other words, you can't understand what you read? If you say so.

      "Reading isn't the same as retaining."

      Then what was the point of claiming you read it? If you need to read it again, then use the search I gave you.

      Delete
  6. Sexuality is not a choice. I didn't choose to be straight I just am. Never once in my whole life did I ever choose to be straight, gay, or bi.

    ReplyDelete