|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Thank Jesus that we have someone in the white house who isn't afraid to openly discriminate. Who ever said the constitution was meant for freedom?
Washington and Jefferson were just practical jokers. All that freedom and pursuit of happiness stuff was a joke.
Quote:
the G-man said:
How many gay marriages were occuring in 1776?
Anyone? Anyone?
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Just a few less than happen today in this shit hole of a country!
The point, however, is that, given the were no gay marriages (or at least no legally sanctioned gay marriages) at the time the Constitution was drafted and/or ratified, it is difficult to see how Ray can argue that the Founding Fathers intended to protect such marriages in the constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Thank Jesus that we have someone in the white house who isn't afraid to openly discriminate. Who ever said the constitution was meant for freedom?
Washington and Jefferson were just practical jokers. All that freedom and pursuit of happiness stuff was a joke.
Quote:
the G-man said:
How many gay marriages were occuring in 1776?
Anyone? Anyone?
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Just a few less than happen today in this shit hole of a country!
The point, however, is that, given the were no gay marriages (or at least no legally sanctioned gay marriages) at the time the Constitution was drafted and/or ratified, it is difficult to see how Ray can argue that the Founding Fathers intended to protect such marriages in the constitution.
so by your standard the ammendment ending slavery should be overturned because it directly violates the standard in 1776.
I would argue that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is more pro-gay marriage then for specifically adding discrimination and limiting rights within the constitution.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
actually the idea of whether its a chosen lifestyle may be somewhat offensive to the gay posters (and moderators) here. And yes, you can insult a group who fought for their civil rights and then turned their back on the civil rights of others. That's called hypocrisy (or hippo-crazssy to you).
It may be offensive, but that doesn't mean it's not true. It's absurd to equate behavior with heritage regardless of how ingained someone claims that behavior is.
Also redefining an ancient institution isn't a civil right. If it was a civil right then you could put NO restrictions on marraige whatsoever.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
actually the idea of whether its a chosen lifestyle may be somewhat offensive to the gay posters (and moderators) here.
I don't care how offensive it is. I know you find the idea that you're a retard offensive, but that doesn't make it a false statement.
The same scientists who claim that homosexuality is an ingrained trait are the same ones who say that the urge to kill is a bred trait as well. But are you really going to call the person who was born a killer a murderer even if he refrains from doing so?
There's absolutely no logic in basing your entire argument on "always gay". Labels require more than simple feeling. They require action. In which case, it is fallacious to say that everyone who declares themself gay has "always been" gay.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
actually the idea of whether its a chosen lifestyle may be somewhat offensive to the gay posters (and moderators) here.
I don't care how offensive it is. I know you find the idea that you're a retard offensive, but that doesn't make it a false statement.
The same scientists who claim that homosexuality is an ingrained trait are the same ones who say that the urge to kill is a bred trait as well. But are you really going to call the person who was born a killer a murderer even if he refrains from doing so?
There's absolutely no logic in basing your entire argument on "always gay". Labels require more than simple feeling. They require action. In which case, it is fallacious to say that everyone who declares themself gay has "always been" gay.
being gay and being a killer are vastly different things. you're like the guys who used to say that black people were by design inferior to whites.
basically your point is that people should force themselves to conform with whatever your view of "normal" is. Tell me, Pariah. How's your tranny porn collection going?
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
And like a typical Whomodian zombie, you take the high road and associate the word "killer" with "homosexual", from my post, instead of addressing my point regarding your inability to prove that homosexuality is an ingrained trait at birth through a comparison to another situation alikened to the homosexuality issue.
I don't need to hear about your insecurities r3x; just address my point if you really want to argue it.
And my collection is flourishing, thank you for asking.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
And like a typical Whomodian zombie, you take the high road and associate the word "killer" with "homosexual", from my post, instead of addressing my point regarding your inability to prove that homosexuality is an ingrained trait at birth through a comparison to another situation alikened to the homosexuality issue.
I don't need to hear about your insecurities r3x; just address my point if you really want to argue it.
And my collection is flourishing, thank you for asking.
sigh.
some people are born with sociopathic traits, some are born gay, some are born smart, some are born retarded, some are born left handed, some are born right handed. Some sociopaths kill, others are just weird. Some gay people stay closeted and spew hate upon gays while collecting gay/tranny porn, while others are more open and honest with themselves and can therefore live happy lives because their sexuality is dealt with.
I'm not sure what your point is, in fact i'm probably wasting my time with you. You're a hateful person who sees it as your place to judge people for who they want to have sex with.
But at the end of the day, life can be very shitty and people might as well try and live a happy life as long as its not hurting others. You (or anyone else) have yet to offer a single valid reason to ban gay marriage. Its as flimsy as the reason for banning interracial and we'll look back at this conversation in 30 years and see how idiotic your side really is.
And its a nice touch for G-man to bury my thread. Because he was able to sidestep the point of the title, which is:
Bush only brings up the ammendment before elections. I don't remember any action on his part in 2005.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
What the hell are you trying to say with your "some are" speech?
I'll restate my point: If you were to title someone, who decided they were homosexual, as always gay (or "born gay if you wish), then you'd have no choice but to say that particular individuals who have an urge to kill people have always been killers even before they killed someone--You'd even have to say this to people who fought the urge down. My point here is not to say homosexuals kill people (as you tried to deceptively imply), but rather show you an example that makes it more clear on how you're misunderstanding the situation...Perhaps purposefully.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
What the hell are you trying to say with your "some are" speech?
I'll restate my point: If you were to title someone, who decided they were homosexual, as always gay (or "born gay if you wish), then you'd have no choice but to say that particular individuals who have an urge to kill people have always been killers even before they killed someone--You'd even have to say this to people who fought the urge down. My point here is not to say homosexuals kill people (as you tried to deceptively imply), but rather show you an example that makes it more clear on how you're misunderstanding the situation...Perhaps purposefully.
You're playing semantics.
By definition a killer is someone who has killed, whereas by definition a homosexual is either someone who has sex with the same gender or is attracted to the same gender.
Someone who is a born killer as you say I would label a "psychopath," "sociopath," or whatever term fits their particular profile and actions.
So, if I knew someone was born with this "killer gene" I would be always careful and watchful around them and not trust them to change their brain chemistry, and if I knew someone with a "gay gene" I wouldn't waste my time trying to make them straight.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
You're playing semantics.
No. I'm not.
Quote:
By definition a killer is someone who has killed,
Which is my entire point!
Quote:
whereas by definition a homosexual is either someone who has sex with the same gender or is attracted to the same gender.
Not if a person was born a killer--As many people assert to be the case with assorted people who have killed. In which case, it's placed and used in exactly the same context as the label "homosexual". It's only after someone dubs themself as such that it is concluded that they were born that way. This is just as much the case with people who say they have the urge to kill. Even though they have the urge, they can, and have, fought it. But still, by your logic, they'd be closet killers because they carry an urge. This proves that both the term "homosexual" and the term "killer" carry the same proper context in my point. This is opposed to how you tried to differentiate it with your first sentence.
Quote:
Someone who is a born killer as you say I would label a "psychopath," "sociopath," or whatever term fits their particular profile and actions.
But then you'd have to deal with the issue of a person having the capacity to kill, which is associated with urges. Even people who kill in self defense would have to go under your standard.
Furthermore, your evasive use of "psycho/socio" totally avoids the issue here. The propriety of dubbing them as "killers" is at the heart of my argument and not simply the state of their sanity. Neither "socio" nor "psycho" statically mean "urge to kill".
Quote:
So, if I knew someone was born with this "killer gene" I would be always careful and watchful around them and not trust them to change their brain chemistry, and if I knew someone with a "gay gene" I wouldn't waste my time trying to make them straight.
And, once again, you totally avoid my point in favor of ad hominem.
My point, as I had already stated, was not to say that homosexuals have mannerisms we should be as cautious of as we do killers, but rather to show you that your way of deciding how someone has "always been gay" is fallacious. It is because you cannot call someone a killer before they have killed someone that you cannot retroactively label someone homosexual after they out themselves through sex or a declaration of homosexuality.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
I don't know why I'm bothering to even respond. You go around in your dumb little circles trying to prove some point and making it sound like you have some well reasoned argument when you don't.
Killing is an action, a killer is someone who does that action. Gay/homosexual is a preference/attraction. Your point would only stand if I said buttfucker or carpetmuncher.
And once again you are trying to draw parallels between homosexuality and a form of mental perversion. You did this before saying pedophile was the same thing as being gay and now you're saying equating the urge to kill with sexual desires.
You, Pariah, and people like you are the true deviants in this world. You're a hateful, spiteful little boy who wants the world to fall into your hateful, angry view. Well it won't happen. If you look at history, eventually more positive things win out in the end.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Thank Jesus that we have someone in the white house who isn't afraid to openly discriminate. Who ever said the constitution was meant for freedom?
Washington and Jefferson were just practical jokers. All that freedom and pursuit of happiness stuff was a joke.
Quote:
the G-man said:
How many gay marriages were occuring in 1776?
Anyone? Anyone?
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Just a few less than happen today in this shit hole of a country!
Quote:
the G-man said
The point, however, is that, given the were no gay marriages (or at least no legally sanctioned gay marriages) at the time the Constitution was drafted and/or ratified, it is difficult to see how Ray can argue that the Founding Fathers intended to protect such marriages in the constitution.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
so by your standard the ammendment ending slavery should be overturned because it directly violates the standard in 1776.
Actually, your attempt to draw an analogy to slavery proves, rather than questions, my point.
Slavery, sadly, existed at the time of the passage and ratification of the constitution. Therefore, a prohibition against it was contrary to the founders' intent. As such, it required an amendment to prohibit it.
You, on the other hand, are arguing that gay marriage, something that did NOT exist at the time of the constitution's passage, something that was, in fact wholly outlawed, is somehow consistent to the founders' intent.
I have said in the past that I think the issue of gay marriage should be decided by legislation and that, if the appropriate legislature approves gay marriage, I have no problem with that.
However, I continue to oppose "legislation from the bench." Such judicial activism is, I would submit, wholly and clearly inconsistent with the framers' intent that there be a "separation of powers" between the judicial, executive and legislative branches.
If an amendment is necessary to prevent the courts from exceeding their authority, I would submit that the amendment is more consistent, not less, with the intent of the constitution to separate powers.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Actually, your attempt to draw an analogy to slavery proves, rather than questions, my point.
Slavery, sadly, existed at the time of the passage and ratification of the constitution. Therefore, a prohibition against it was contrary to the founders' intent. As such, it required an amendment to prohibit it.
Actually Jefferson was torn on the issue of slavery and it is now believed he considered banning it but chose not to due to the fragile nature of the union.
My point stands that they never would have written an amendment limiting someone's freedom. You can not argue that the founding fathers wanted later generations to write discrimination into the constitution.
Quote:
You, on the other hand, are arguing that gay marriage, something that did NOT exist at the time of the constitution's passage, something that was, in fact wholly outlawed, is somehow consistent to the founders' intent.
I have said in the past that I think the issue of gay marriage should be decided by legislation and that, if the appropriate legislature approves gay marriage, I have no problem with that.
then why are you bitching about whether it existed in 1776? My point has been about putting discrimination into the constitution.
Quote:
However, I continue to oppose "legislation from the bench." Such judicial activism is, I would submit, wholly and clearly inconsistent with the framers' intent that there be a "separation of powers" between the judicial, executive and legislative branches.
Judges entire role is to determine if something violates the law or, in the case of higher courts, if the law violates the constitution. So if a judge reads "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" they can determine that banning two adults from marrying (especially based on religious reasons) in a City Hall is unconstitutional. That's not legislating from the bench, its not judicial activism, its a judge doing their duty and following the law/constitution as they see it.
Quote:
If an amendment is necessary to prevent the courts from exceeding their authority, I would submit that the amendment is more consistent, not less, with the intent of the constitution to separate powers.
you're way off. Once a discriminating law is put in the Constitution then it opens the door for other discrimination. Once you throw in that there are limits to personal freedom in regards to marriage then someone can argue before the supreme court that another discrimination is okay and the judges will have to agree because its in the constitution.
Also, unless there's some fancy legal trick I'm missing, if its in the constitution then no state can legalize gay marriage no matter how much they want to. The legal marriages in Mass. become void and it prevents anyone from passing any sort of law allowing gays to marry.
And again I point out the main topic of MY thread that you deleted to avoid the point that you can't really argue which is that Bush is only making this an issue in election years.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
so instead of answering, G-man bumps a Reagan thread with a long article about how Reagan saved america blah blah blah.
What a fucktard.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
You're the one who asked for thoughts, feelings and opinions on Reagan. Why ask if you didn't really want us to answer?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
You're the one who asked for thoughts, feelings and opinions on Reagan. Why ask if you didn't really want us to answer?
And you avoid the question I asked. And you avoid the points I brought up. Typical G-man. You get backed into a corner and then pretend the corner is your front door so you meant to go there all along.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
the G-man said:
You're the one who asked for thoughts, feelings and opinions on Reagan. Why ask if you didn't really want us to answer?
And you avoid the question I asked. And you avoid the points I brought up. Typical G-man. You get backed into a corner and then pretend the corner is your front door so you meant to go there all along.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
the G-man said:
You're the one who asked for thoughts, feelings and opinions on Reagan. Why ask if you didn't really want us to answer?
And you avoid the question I asked. And you avoid the points I brought up. Typical G-man. You get backed into a corner and then pretend the corner is your front door so you meant to go there all along.
Still no response, eh G-man?
Methinks Rob's goldenboy has lost his shine.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Actually, I was savoring the moment before I demolish you once again, by pointing out that you have, once again, constructed your argument upon "rayfacts," which are well known to be false.
In regards to your attempt to induce the reader to conclude that Bush is, for lack of better term, pandering by opposing gay marriage, you have not argued a single point to support your premise. Instead, you have argued the constitutional grounds on which a prohibition should or should not exist.
Unfortunately for you, your constitutional argument rests on fallacies.
You have argued that a Judge is constitutionally empowered to interpret the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness clause" of the US Constitution to judicially impose gay marriage.
There is, in fact, no such clause. Further, the phrase itself appears nowhere in the Constitution.
Since the phrase does not appear in the constitution, your argument, again, fails.
It would be tempting to suggest that, if you spent half as much time trying to research your arguments for factual accuracy, and constructing your points, as you do whining about "unfairness" and spamming forums when you don't get your way, you might not embarrass yourself quite as often.
However, since your "rayfacts" provide no shortage of amusement to the rest of us, and your arguments tend to make the rest of us look all the smarter, I won't.
So...any other reasons why you think the federal government has no legitimate basis to consider the question of gay marriage
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
so by your standard the ammendment ending slavery should be overturned because it directly violates the standard in 1776.
Actually, your attempt to draw an analogy to slavery proves, rather than questions, my point.
Slavery, sadly, existed at the time of the passage and ratification of the constitution. Therefore, a prohibition against it was contrary to the founders' intent. As such, it required an amendment to prohibit it.
You, on the other hand, are arguing that gay marriage, something that did NOT exist at the time of the constitution's passage, something that was, in fact wholly outlawed, is somehow consistent to the founders' intent.
I have said in the past that I think the issue of gay marriage should be decided by legislation and that, if the appropriate legislature approves gay marriage, I have no problem with that.
However, I continue to oppose "legislation from the bench." Such judicial activism is, I would submit, wholly and clearly inconsistent with the framers' intent that there be a "separation of powers" between the judicial, executive and legislative branches.
If an amendment is necessary to prevent the courts from exceeding their authority, I would submit that the amendment is more consistent, not less, with the intent of the constitution to separate powers.
I'm sure you've heard this before but here goes. Original intent is a fallacious idea. At the time it was written the framers could hardly imagine a world like todays. Their real intent was to create a living document that could adapt to changes in the world and circumstance while maintaning core values of liberty and freedom. It's purpose is to protect those ideas, not limit them.
The courts aren't really at liberty to write law anyway. A judge may rule on an issue but legislatures and governors certainly have the right to change the law if they disagree. The checks and balances remain in effect. The courts protect freedoms from politics.
I've ever been able to understand why the right has such an interest in who people sleep with. It doesn't cost them anything. No one is asking them to sleep with people they don't desire so why the big deal?
BTW Pariah, you'll be so much happier when you come out of the closet. Most 'Straight' guys that are into t-girls really want the cock. That's why they're interested in us. The only problem is most t-girls aren't into it. Only in porn do you find the man topping domme!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Actually, I was savoring the moment before I demolish you once again, by pointing out that you have, once again, constructed your argument upon "rayfacts," which are well known to be false.
i find it funny that you have no respect for the declaration of independence. 
I also find it funny that you needed so long to respond.
Quote:
In regards to your attempt to induce the reader to conclude that Bush is, for lack of better term, pandering by opposing gay marriage, you have not argued a single point to support your premise. Instead, you have argued the constitutional grounds on which a prohibition should or should not exist.
Bush in 2004 (an election year) pushed for the amendment.
Bush in 2005 did nothing (at least I don't recall a single story where he was actively pushing for it, show me one where he was, ACTIVELY).
Bush in 2006 (election year) pushes for the amendment again.
Quote:
Unfortunately for you, your constitutional argument rests on fallacies.
You have argued that a Judge is constitutionally empowered to interpret the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness clause" of the US Constitution to judicially impose gay marriage.
There is, in fact, no such clause. Further, the phrase itself appears nowhere in the Constitution.
you're right. the declaration said that. i am such an idiot. i forgot the declaration is looked down upon as jibberish and the constitution has no mention of freedom except.....
Quote:
9th
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Quote:
Since the phrase does not appear in the constitution, your argument, again, fails.
founding fathers, bitch. They worked on both of them. If I said Yellow Submarine was on Rubber Soul would you argue the Beatles never wrote it because it was on Revolver?
Quote:
It would be tempting to suggest that, if you spent half as much time trying to research your arguments for factual accuracy, and constructing your points, as you do whining about "unfairness" and spamming forums when you don't get your way, you might not embarrass yourself quite as often.
I hit a nerve, didn't I?
Quote:
However, since your "rayfacts" provide no shortage of amusement to the rest of us, and your arguments tend to make the rest of us look all the smarter, I won't.
okay, G-man. Thanks for proving my point to Rob.
Quote:
So...any other reasons why you think the federal government has no legitimate basis to consider the question of gay marriage
Besides the numerous moral reasons? Or the fact that the constitution has never been about adding discrimination? That in 230 years its approved upon the rights and liberties of the people in this country? That this amendment is offensive to the very idea of what America is supposed to be?
Other than that, none that I can think of now?
Tell me why an atheist conservative wants christian values imposed on the states by the federal government.
You try and play yourself off as more of a economical conservative, not a religious right one.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
you're the perfect poster boy for what's wrong with Bushies, G-man. You partially respond, then avoid the things you don't like, then come out swinging with "you're wrong and I laugh at you for it" and you never have an actual debate.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
I don't know why I'm bothering to even respond.
Becuase you're insecure in your position and have to constantly prove to people that you're right about your blind stupidity.
Quote:
Killing is an action, a killer is someone who does that action. Gay/homosexual is a preference/attraction. Your point would only stand if I said buttfucker or carpetmuncher.
Wrong again. I have already stated repeatedly that "Killer" is comparable to "homosexual" in that particular individuals carry the urge according to scientists who continually say our genes control everything about us. Because of this, it can be used in the same way the word "homosexual" does in that it's constantly asserted that they've been that way their entire lives. So, again, by your logic, killers have always been killers even before they killed--Or even if they fought off the urges--Just as homosexuals have always been homosexual even before they decided what they were--Or even if they never acted upon those urges you say that were ingrained upon them.
I'll spell it out a whole lot more clearly for you, because you're obviously straining to avoid it: Homosexuality is just as much based on action as killing is. Thus, your attempted wrongful use of the word is what kills your argument.
Quote:
And once again you are trying to draw parallels between homosexuality and a form of mental perversion. You did this before saying pedophile was the same thing as being gay and now you're saying equating the urge to kill with sexual desires.
I've already long since recognized that the acts are different, but that doesn't mean the urges aren't overtly related through mental disorder.
Quote:
You, Pariah, and people like you are the true deviants in this world. You're a hateful, spiteful little boy who wants the world to fall into your hateful, angry view. Well it won't happen. If you look at history, eventually more positive things win out in the end.
WOW.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Bush in 2004 (an election year) pushed for the amendment.
Bush in 2005 did nothing (at least I don't recall a single story where he was actively pushing for it, show me one where he was, ACTIVELY).
2005, 2003 and 2002
Early in January of 2005, Bush told the Washington Post that although he still supported the amendment, he would not lobby heavily for the passage because he believed that until a federal court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, there would not be enough votes for passage.
On January 25, 2005, according to the New York Times, Bush told a privately invited group of African-American community and religious leaders that he remained committed to amending the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
Over the course of the next two days, it was revealed by the Washington Post and USA Today that the Bush Administration had paid columnists to promote its views on marriage. The Department of Health and Human Services paid Maggie Gallagher $21,500, and Mike McManus $49,000, to write syndicated news columns endorsing the FMA.
Additionally, Gallagher also received $20,000 in 2002 and 2003 to write a report on government initiatives to strengthen marriage. McManus leads a group called Marriage Savers that works with other organizations to promote marriage as defined between a man and a woman.
In regards to your points about the Declaration of Independence, regardless of who wrote it, it is not U.S. law. It was passed in 1776, years before the United States was formed. Judges interpret laws, not declarations. It is completely without precedential or legal authority.
Your point on the Ninth Amendment is more valid. And, in fact, that would be a potential basis for a judge to rule in favor of gay marriage. Which, of course, is a valid reason for an opponent of gay marriage to want a subsequent amendment to prevent it.
You may or may not have a point about whether we should allow gay marriage. I think there are legitimate arguments for why we should, in fact, legalize it through a legislative process. However, to have those arguments requires our leaders, including Bush, to broach the topic.
So why are you opposed to the topic being brought up?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Your point on the Ninth Amendment is more valid. And, in fact, that would be a potential basis for a judge to rule in favor of gay marriage.
Only if marriage was actually a right. And it's not.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
the G-man said:
Your point on the Ninth Amendment is more valid. And, in fact, that would be a potential basis for a judge to rule in favor of gay marriage.
Only if marriage was actually a right. And it's not.
we get it, pariah. you don't think gay people should be allowed to do anything but pose nude in drag for you to jerk off to.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
How dare you!?
Transexuals are not gay men! They are women trapped inside men's bodies you ignorant/intolerant fuckwit!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
Welcome to the club, Pariah...please wait 4 to 6 weeks for your Gay membership card to arrive....It will instruct you on :
Musicals you must listen to.
Great online sites to meet a man..or a woman..or whatever it is you are seeking....
Terrific discounts on drinks at selected bars, sex clubs, and a $2.00 locker at the baths on Tuesdays and Thursdays!
Congratulations, Pariah..You are one of us now....
"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." - Tuvok. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Unfortunately, Jim may de-join the club now that Pariah has joined.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
How dare you!?
Transexuals are not gay men! They are women trapped inside men's bodies you ignorant/intolerant fuckwit!
Some T people would describe their experience that way but not all. Some m2f's hate their genitals, which is classified as a Body Dysmorphic Disorder in the DSM IV, the same as anorexia or bulemia.
Quote:
Not Sick
A move is afoot to delist GID (gender Identity disorder) from the DSM. Gender roles are largely determined by society and culture. Therefore gender variance is a social problem, not a psychiatric one. Studies have found that gender role variance in itself is not harmfull while corrective measures frequently are.
For those seeking SRS, the 'disorder' definition is crucial to getting insurance companies to pay for it. So for business purposes we are stuck with a mental illness diagnosis that is incorrect.
TG people may have other mental illness to accompany transgenderism. Depression is a frequent companion as are substance abuse problems. PTSD is another problem trans people may have.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Beardguy57 said:
Welcome to the club, Pariah...please wait 4 to 6 weeks for your Gay membership card to arrive....It will instruct you on :
Musicals you must listen to.
Great online sites to meet a man..or a woman..or whatever it is you are seeking....
Terrific discounts on drinks at selected bars, sex clubs, and a $2.00 locker at the baths on Tuesdays and Thursday!
Congratulations, Pariah..You are one of us now....
Guys that are into trannies arent really gay, Beardguy. They self identify as straight even though they usually want to get real personal with the dangly bits of a t-girl. Often they want you to top them, something myself and most trannies aren't into. "Admirers" seem like bi-guys in deep denial of their homo erotic desires. It's okay if your partner has tits and where's a dress!
Sound like anyone we know?
BTW, I don't know about your experience but mine is out gay men rarely hook up with pre-op transexual women. But there is this gay guy I know.....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
I didn't come out of the closet until I was a few weeks away from turning 21. That was mid June, 1978. I remember hearing from SOMEWHERE that when you are gay, gay guys just come to your door one day, they make you dress up in drag, they make you wear one of those dumb little pointed hats like kids wear to birthday parties, and they give you a party where everyone is in drag and make you listen to showtunes on the stereo and they dance.
Ughh! So, when in reality I finally went to my first gay bar the summer of 1978, there was one guy sleeping at the bar, another guy sitting there drunk, and another man talking with the bartendar.
No drag queens. No dumb little pointed hats. No dancing. The jukebox wasn't even on, so no showtunes.
It was pretty fucking boring, actually......
A year or so later, I met a guy who was black, about 6 ft tall, and about 45 years old. He sometimes got dressed in drag for shows. He looked masculine enough when he was wearing guy clothes. I didn't get involved with him because the whole drag thing turned me off then, but if I met a hot guy like that who wasn't a big lady at heart, not totally, anyway, LoL, I might date him if he was a cool guy and nice, too.
Ving Rhames did a wonderful job of playing a drag queen in "Holiday Heart." He was fabulous in that role. I don't want to have sex with a guy while he is dressed as a girl, that is not my thing.
I guess that is as close as I would like to get to T Girls.
"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." - Tuvok.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
Beardguy57 said:
Welcome to the club, Pariah...please wait 4 to 6 weeks for your Gay membership card to arrive....It will instruct you on :
Musicals you must listen to.
Great online sites to meet a man..or a woman..or whatever it is you are seeking....
Terrific discounts on drinks at selected bars, sex clubs, and a $2.00 locker at the baths on Tuesdays and Thursdays!
Congratulations, Pariah..You are one of us now....
Gabba gabba, one of us.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Beardguy57 said:
I didn't come out of the closet until I was a few weeks away from turning 21. That was mid June, 1978. I remember hearing from SOMEWHERE that when you are gay, gay guys just come to your door one day, they make you dress up in drag, they make you wear one of those dumb little pointed hats like kids wear to birthday parties, and they give you a party where everyone is in drag and make you listen to showtunes on the stereo and they dance.
Ughh! So, when in reality I finally went to my first gay bar the summer of 1978, there was one guy sleeping at the bar, another guy sitting there drunk, and another man talking with the bartendar.
No drag queens. No dumb little pointed hats. No dancing. The jukebox wasn't even on, so no showtunes.
It was pretty fucking boring, actually......
A year or so later, I met a guy who was black, about 6 ft tall, and about 45 years old. He sometimes got dressed in drag for shows. He looked masculine enough when he was wearing guy clothes. I didn't get involved with him because the whole drag thing turned me off then, but if I met a hot guy like that who wasn't a big lady at heart, not totally, anyway, LoL, I might date him if he was a cool guy and nice, too.
Ving Rhames did a wonderful job of playing a drag queen in "Holiday Heart." He was fabulous in that role. I don't want to have sex with a guy while he is dressed as a girl, that is not my thing.
I guess that is as close as I would like to get to T Girls.
Drag queen and transexual are to very different creatures. Both fall under the heading of transgender, but the similarity stops there. Drag quuens, and I love 'em btw, are characatures of women. They're over the top and generally just into the show. Our very own Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are all over 6 feet tall without heels. Transexuals on the other hand are women full time. Drag queens seek to stand-out in a crowd, TS s seek to blend in to it.
My favorite TG flick is an English movie called Different for Girls that came out in '98. Steven Mackintosh plays Kim a TS woman who rekindles a friendship with her best friend from school.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
Jay, I know the difference between the two, but thank you for pointing that out. There may be some here who don't know the difference.
I neglected to mention that, during that same summer of 1978, I met a T girl and her boyfriend. I had just missed my last train home from downtown. I told them that, without expecting anything, and they offered to let me sleep on their couch. They were very nice people! In return, I helped them with housework, and they gave me lunch.
There was no sex, but I never forgot the experience. Later, on my way to the train station, they took me to a trans bar. It was a bit surreal, seeing the T girls, playing pool and cursing like sailors on shore leave. I had a good time. They were very good to me.
That was my first summer out. I learned a lot. It was much more fun than being in the closet. I am out to my entire family. My mom knew George and had a crush on him, LoL.
"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." - Tuvok.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
I forgot another common deal with admirers. They can be deep closet TGs themselves. They wanna get into your panties. Literaly. Into which of these closets do you think Pariah fits; fag or queen or both? Is it just me or is his silence on this topic deafening? 
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
I'm actually not an expert on trannies. I just play one on TV
Oh no......MY SECRET'S OUT!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Still, I find it pretty funny how transexuality is apparently just as inconsistent as homosexuality is--If MJ is to be believed.
|
|
|
|
|
