Sexual Orientation

[jaxmike]

I hope you all will remember back to the second Bush-Kerry debate (the one where Bush CLEARLY was better than Kerry as Kerry was in the first debate) when Kerry decided that outing (though many already knew) Cheney's daughter as a lesbian was an appropriate thing to do. Honestly, he has no reason to do this other than to make sure that the base for Cheney and Bush know that Cheney's daughter is a lesbian, something that many people feel would for some reason hurt W and Cheney. Recently, Bill Clinton responded to a gay Republican authors book with comments that referenced his homosexuality and referring to the author as possibly being self hating.

These are two major and public examples of Liberals using someones sexual orientation as an attack. Let's be clear and intellectually honest here, they WERE attacks. So, please provide me with some examples of similar things Republicans have done on the issue of homosexuality. I, for one, cannot think of a case LIKE these.

So, the question is, who is REALLY intolerant? It's not the Conservatives, so who could it be?

[Edge34]

I have nothing to add to this thread, although I know where I stand...I just wanted to have it on record that this is gonna get UGLY.

[kurto]

"when Kerry decided that outing (though many already knew) Cheney's daughter as a lesbian" How can he out someone who is not only out, but publicly active? Furthermore, it had already been raised earlier in this campaign. Was it not public knowledge?

I find it odd that some Republicans vehemently attack gays, then have the audacity to be offended when someone discusses a gay relative of a Republican.

"These are two major and public examples of Liberals using someones sexual orientation as an attack." Personally, I find that an odd way to look at it. (I'm not familiar with your second example, so I should say... I think your first example is way off. Kerry is defending the rights of Cheney's daughter and pointing out the hypocrisy of Cheney defending a position he (I think clearly) doesn't actually agree with)

"So, the question is, who is REALLY intolerant? It's not the Conservatives, so who could it be?" Sigh. This is like Limbaugh/Coultier-lite. Yes, let's try to stereotype more and make stupid generalizations. This is real the heart of the issue.

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]
I hope you all will remember back to the second Bush-Kerry debate (the one where Bush CLEARLY was better than Kerry as Kerry was in the first debate)

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect. Kerry owned GWB in all three debates.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]

I find it odd that some Republicans vehemently attack gays, then have the audacity to be offended when someone discusses a gay relative of a Republican.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is your basis for this opinion. Where is the attacking of gays? You support nothing.

You are NOT being honest with yourself if you do not ADMIT that the REASON that Kerry used Cheney's daughter as an example was POLITICAL.

[ QUOTE ]
This is like Limbaugh/Coultier-lite. Yes, let's try to stereotype more and make stupid generalizations. This is real the heart of the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I gave two examples, and you respond with the Limbaugh/Coulter rebuttal. You again provide nothing of substance.

Your post has really opened my eyes. Now I see that the best friend of homosexuals is the Republican Party.

[jaxmike]

Way to stick to the topic, however, just because you LIKE Kerry doesn't mean he won the second debate. I honestly was IMPRESSED with Kerry's effort in the first debate, but I was MORE IMPRESSED with Bush in the second for 2 major reasons. How poorly he did in the first debate, and how well he did in the FORMAT and under the MATERIAL of the second debate.

[kurto]

"Incorrect. Kerry owned GWB in all three debates." I come from a family of lifelong Republicans who all were embarrassed by Bush. I have trouble taking anyone seriously who thinks too much of Bush, especially in debates. When I'm in the right mood, I watch Bush speak (unscripted, of course) for the laughs. He's such an inarticulate gibberish speaking boob.

It was no surprise to me that the person who started with this gaffe, ended it by wanting to make another meaningless generalization (liberals are intolerant/conservatives are open minded).

This thread was setup to avoid a specific issue. Its a call for empty rhetoric.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Your post has really opened my eyes. Now I see that the best friend of homosexuals is the Republican Party.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the point that I was trying to make. I was simply attempting to point out the unchecked hypocracy that is displayed day in and day out by prominent Democrats. They answer to know one, they have no one asking them the hard questions.

I simply am trying to show that the party that claims its the "party of tolerance" is anything but.

[Felix_Nietsche]

When Kerry brought up Cheney's daughter in the debate, his tactic was so obvious and transparent. One of the reporters in the press pool said a collective groan erupted from the press room when Kerry mention Cheney's daughter.... That tactic alone probabaly earned Bush 500,000 votes. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
This thread was setup to avoid a specific issue. Its a call for empty rhetoric.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it was created to point out hypocracy and ask for examples of what is claimed of Republicans.

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]
Way to stick to the topic, however, just because you LIKE Kerry doesn't mean he won the second debate. I honestly was IMPRESSED with Kerry's effort in the first debate, but I was MORE IMPRESSED with Bush in the second for 2 major reasons. How poorly he did in the first debate, and how well he did in the FORMAT and under the MATERIAL of the second debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I don't like Kerry
2. Just because GWB improved more from debate 1 to debate 2 than Kerry did doesn't mean he did better. The Arizona Diamondbacks might improve by 30 games this year, and the Boston Redsox might win 5 fewer games. The Redsox will still be better this year.

[kurto]

"Where is your basis for this opinion. Where is the attacking of gays?" Sigh. Are you for real? Honestly? Somehow you've missed which party is trying to deny gays rights to get married (some don't even want them to be able to have civil unions)? I have to believe you're being intentionally obtuse.

"You are NOT being honest with yourself if you do not ADMIT that the REASON that Kerry used Cheney's daughter as an example was POLITICAL." Weird, you ignored where I pointed out the flaws in your own thesis. Kerry did not out Cheney's daughter. She was out, it had been addressed already in the campaign, she was involved in a gay political group AND the Bush campaign made Homosexuality a political topic with the laughable, 'defense of marriage act'... intended to appeal to all the bigotted sheep on the right. But continue being silly.

"Again, I gave two examples, and you respond with the Limbaugh/Coulter rebuttal. You again provide nothing of substance." This is ironic coming from the guy who's conclusion is to label liberals as being intolerant and conservatives of the opposite. Dude, you're making stupid generalizations based the actions of one person in a debate and you started with false premises. Don't talk to me about substance, you might make me spit out my drink on my keyboard.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]

1. I don't like Kerry
2. Just because GWB improved more from debate 1 to debate 2 than Kerry did doesn't mean he did better. The Arizona Diamondbacks might improve by 30 games this year, and the Boston Redsox might win 5 fewer games. The Redsox will still be better this year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I looked at it objectively and came to a different conclusion. I don't see how anyone who watched the debate and focused on the raport, content, etc. could have thought that Kerry won the second debate.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Sigh. Are you for real? Honestly? Somehow you've missed which party is trying to deny gays rights to get married (some don't even want them to be able to have civil unions)? I have to believe you're being intentionally obtuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one does not have the right to marry in this country. There are some restrictions on who you can marry though. This is NOT attacking gays, its a policy decision based on their moral/religious code. This is much differently than using sexual orientation as an attack.

[ QUOTE ]
Weird, you ignored where I pointed out the flaws in your own thesis. Kerry did not out Cheney's daughter. She was out, it had been addressed already in the campaign, she was involved in a gay political group AND the Bush campaign made Homosexuality a political topic with the laughable, 'defense of marriage act'... intended to appeal to all the bigotted sheep on the right. But continue being silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

More attacks, yet still nothing accurate. My thesis is NOT flawed. In it I accounted for the fact that she was already "out". But she had not been outed on a national stage as of yet.
How do you justify calling people on the right biggots? Just because their moral code or religious beliefs make them think that people of the same sex should not be married? That does not make someone a biggot. You are fitting the definition pretty well with your continued baseless attacks on people on the "right" side of the political spectrum.

[ QUOTE ]
This is ironic coming from the guy who's conclusion is to label liberals as being intolerant and conservatives of the opposite. Dude, you're making stupid generalizations based the actions of one person in a debate and you started with false premises. Don't talk to me about substance, you might make me spit out my drink on my keyboard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Still no facts, still nothing. You are making a fool out of yourself. I did not start this thread under false pretenses. I stated facts, and suggested hypocracy and asked for examples of Republicans doing what has been done. I LAUGH at your responses because you are doing EXACTLY what I expect. You are doing what you have been programmed to do.

[kurto]

"I was simply attempting to point out the unchecked hypocracy that is displayed day in and day out by prominent Democrats." I don't think you've done anything to prove your point. Furthermore, picking the subject of homosexuality is laughable since Democrats are more likely to fight for the rights of gays while the Right fights tooth and nail to deny them. Hard to take you seriously.

Can you repeat exactly what Kerry said about Cheney's daughter, and what the context of the debate was? And then perhaps you can tell us why homosexuality was in the public debate? Could it be that Cheney was part of a team putting it into the public forum? And that his thoughts on the issue and how it related to real people is relevent considering he works with someone who wants to change the Constitution to deny them rights?

"They answer to know one, they have no one asking them the hard questions." LOL You've got some hard questions there.

"I simply am trying to show that the party that claims its the "party of tolerance" is anything but." Yeah. OK. That makes sense. Kerry asking Cheney about a gay family member when Cheney is part of a team trying to screw the Constitution to deny rights to GAY PEOPLE sure makes him sound intolerant.

I'm beginning to think you're a parody of a neocon goof.

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1. I don't like Kerry
2. Just because GWB improved more from debate 1 to debate 2 than Kerry did doesn't mean he did better. The Arizona Diamondbacks might improve by 30 games this year, and the Boston Redsox might win 5 fewer games. The Redsox will still be better this year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I looked at it objectively and came to a different conclusion. I don't see how anyone who watched the debate and focused on the raport, content, etc. could have thought that Kerry won the second debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's easy. Some people see what they want to see. If they want GWB to win, they will convince themselves that he won. Same goes for the other side. What is raport?

[thatpfunk]

After your hiatus it is really nice to see you back posting the most ridiculous topic possible.

1) You have to cite Clinton's quotes and the passages he is speaking about if you are going to accuse him of something, otherwise the thread will be meaningless.

2) Kerry's attack was not on homosexuals, it was on Cheney and the Rebuplican party, therefore, no hypocrisy.

The Republican party supports banning gay marriage which is harmful and detrimental to the gay community.

On a side note, do Republicans actually believe that a ban on gay marriage will stay in place? Anyone who does not see gay marriage legalized nationally within 10 years is completely naive.

[andyfox]

I voted for Kerry, and I'm a liberal. I remember the debate you're talking about and I thought, at the time, that Kerry's discussion of Cheney's daughter was an attempted cheap shot. I've re-read the text of what Kerry said, and it still seems the same to me today.

I'm not aware of the Clinton incident you cite. Let's assume, for the sake of the discussion, that Clinton did the same thing, i.e., gratuitously mention a person's homosexuality to divert attention to it.

There are certainly incidents of prominent Republicans saying stupid things about homosexuality:

Senator Rick Santorum: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything,"

Alan Keyes called homosexuality "Selfish hedonism."

Trent Lott, while he was the Republican Senate leader,
likened homosexuality to kleptomania, alcoholism and sex addiction.

Jesse Helms' record provides a whole host of quotable quotes, but, for example, he said to the Congressional Quarterly, "They start by pretending that it is just another form of love. It's sickening."

And there was the famous case of Dick Armey calling Barney Frank "Barney [censored]."

So there are liberals and there are liberals and there are conservatives and there are conservatives. Were I gay, I'd be more comfortable with liberal Democrats in office. Even a moderate on the issue like President Bush, whose previous comments have been respectful of homosexuality, and critical of the more conservative Republicans who have made comments like those listed above, felt the pressure to call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. It is usually conservatives who call legislation giving homosexuals protection and equal rights with heterosexuals preferential treatment.

[kurto]

blah blah blah. Quit speaking in empty platitudes. You're regurgitating babble but saying nothing.

Let's start simple... explain the defense of marriage. I got married a year ago. My parents have been married for about 40 years. Let's say my neighbors are two gay guys who get married. Please show a logical cause and effect of how my and my parents marriages need defending from this threat. Thank you.

"This is NOT attacking gays, its a policy decision based on their moral/religious code" On their religious code????? Oh that's right, this is to appeal to the people who want America to be a theocracy. (BTW, there's a lot of debate about whether or not its even frowned upon in the Bible, which I would to discuss with something who seems well read and open minded... but I'll skip it with the guy who wants to point out his interpretation of ONE person's conduct and then generalize about a whole group of people. That's the actions of a fool.)

" In it I accounted for the fact that she was already "out". But she had not been outed on a national stage as of yet." Wrong. You're inaccuracies are tiresome.

"How do you justify calling people on the right biggots? Just" I'm not classifying all of the right as bigots. I believe I earlier pointed out that there are many intelligent Republicans/Conservatives. I am refering to a subset of the Right (generally, I believe referred to as neoconservatives) who are bigotted. Unfortunately, this is the segment of Right that the GOP reaches out to a lot these days.

There are plenty of bigots all over the political spectrum. You just don't see the bigots on the left being powerful enough to try to get their bigotry codified into law (or change the Constitution).

"Just because their moral code or religious beliefs make them think that people of the same sex should not be married?" Some people think its immoral for people of different skin color to marry... they're still bigots.

"Still no facts, still nothing." You're right. All liberals are intolerant. Conservatives are just the opposite. Just because many of them want to do all they can to make sure that 2 men or 2 women can't have a legal binding relationship... is just proof of how tolerant they are! I stand corrected. I bow down to your fantastic arguments.

/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
These are two major and public examples of Liberals using someones sexual orientation as an attack. Let's be clear and intellectually honest here, they WERE attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only reason that you and other conservatives percieve these two instances as attacks upon the specific persons that they were refrencing is thet YOU think that it's shameful or wrong to be a homosexual.


the reason that Kerry, et al, thought that the 'outing' (i don't see how you can out someone who is already both 'out' and a public figure) is that it reveals the utter hipoccracy of conservatives. YOU are the one that is ashamed of homosexuality, to you it would be an insult to be called a homosexual, i suppose.


your positions, IMO, are indefensible, and founded upon a CULTURE of intolerance...


[ QUOTE ]
So, the question is, who is REALLY intolerant?

[/ QUOTE ]
I want to get you on the record here: what is YOUR position on the MORALITY of being a homosexual?

[Dead]

Dick Armey called Barney Frank a nice name: Barney f-g.

What Kerry did wasn't homophobic at all. Neither was what Clinton did.

Kerry was just pointing out the hypocrisy to possible Bush voters.

[zaxx19]

[ QUOTE ]
Incorrect. Kerry owned GWB in all three debates.

[/ QUOTE ]

And of course this lead to his historic victory in last Nov election....where he piggy packed the entire party to wider congressional victories than had been seen....

Back to reality..

[bholdr]

buy a dictionary, it'll help you stop putting your foot in your mouth:


[ QUOTE ]
How do you justify calling people on the right biggots? Just because their moral code or religious beliefs make them think that people of the same sex should not be married? That does not make someone a biggot.

[/ QUOTE ]


Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices


Main Entry: in·tol·er·ant
Pronunciation: -r&nt
Function: adjective
1 : unable or unwilling to endure
2 a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights


hmmmm.... mr webster disagrees with you, jamike.

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Incorrect. Kerry owned GWB in all three debates.

[/ QUOTE ]

And of course this lead to his historic victory in last Nov election....where he piggy packed the entire party to wider congressional victories than had been seen....

Back to reality..

[/ QUOTE ]
Bush obviously won the election. That doesn't mean he won the debates.

[zaxx19]

If the Democrats want to keep pushing the Gay issues they are more than welcome to....

Its a loser for them amongst swing voters and its also appaling that some liberals would stoop to comparing the gay rights movement of now with the civil rights movememnts of yesteryear...(homosexuality is a behavior...being black is not.)

I personally dont really care if gays get married or not.

But I do think that by ramming the gay lifestyle down everyones throats and pretending its as normal and natural as heterosexuality liberals are not connecting with the mainstream of America.

OTOH, far right wingers saying gays deserve AIDS and that gay people are going to hell....are alos out of touch IMHO.

How about a civil union law where gays would share every right that married couples get but they wouldnt be "married". Seems like this type of compromise would be tolerable to the wider part of American people than say gay-marriage is.

[andyfox]

The consensus of opinion was that Kerry clearly dominated the first debate, but that the next two were pretty close. Kerry started to look better in the polls after that debate but couldn't sustain any momentum. Winning the debates, obviously, does not necessarily mean winning the election. Ronald Reagan did terribly in his first debate with Walter Mondale and people just didn't care. It was widely believed that the way Richard Nixon appeared in his televised debate with John Kennedy hurt him, but I'm not sure if there is scientific evidence of that. Reagan, in contrast to his first debate with Mondale, did particularly well against Carter ("There you go again"), but since that election turned out to be a landslide it's hard to say just how much impact it really had compared to, say, economic conditions or the Iran hostage crisis.

[zaxx19]

I dont think Bush won the debates...but I dont agree that Kerry dominated the 2nd or 3rd ones...

The first one was a complete debacle. Bush looked tired and disinterested/frustrated.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
So, please provide me with some examples of similar things Republicans have done on the issue of homosexuality. I, for one, cannot think of a case LIKE these.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ever hear about Alan Keys' comments about Dick Cheney's daughter?

[kurto]

There's some faulty logic there. I think we can all agree that winning a debate doesn't necessarily have any bearing on how a nation votes.

If I recall correctly, many people who voted for Bush, said they agreed with a majority of things that Kerry said but just felt 'safer' with Bush in terms of national security.

It would be erroneous to conclude that winnning or losing the debates decides the election.

Frankly, I think 2 things lost the election for Kerry:
1) The vile Swift Boat campaign.
2) Kerry. He was a weak campaigner.

I have no problem saying Kerry was a weak candidate. Personally, I'd prefer him to Bush, but I think someone's wrong with our country when these 2 people were our final choices.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
How about a civil union law where gays would share every right that married couples get but they wouldnt be "married". Seems like this type of compromise would be tolerable to the wider part of American people than say gay-marriage is.

[/ QUOTE ]

it still would be an institutionalization of intolerance (albeit meerly a semantic one), and i don't think it would really be a fair solution- you can call an apple an oarnge, but it's still an apple, you're suggesting forbiding people from using a specific WORD in refrence to gay couples? that doesn't sound good...

it's not a terrible idea or anything- gayrrage (my buddy's term for it), i just don't see a feasable way to work it.


[ QUOTE ]
Its a loser for them amongst swing voters and its also appaling that some liberals would stoop to comparing the gay rights movement of now with the civil rights movememnts of yesteryear...(homosexuality is a behavior...being black is not.)


[/ QUOTE ]

no, zaxx, the homosexual act is a behavior, homosexuality, according to 99.9% of all homosexuals, is not. i will continue to accept their belief that they were born with their sexual orientation until somebody is capable of providing PROOF that it is not.


think of it this way: you were born srtaight, right? when you were a kid, you wanted to play Dr. with the girls, you may have a crush on your babysitter... were these 'choices'? is being straight a 'behavior'? do you think a gay child "chooses" to be attracted to the other boys?

and from another angle: do you think YOU are capable of becoming gay? if it's just a behavior, then you should be... just concentrate on a dude at the gym and see if you can get hard watching him on the stairclimber... I certinaly can't, which reinforces my conviction that gayness and straightness are inherited, genitic, or inborn traits.

can YOU?

[kurto]

You know, not a single person who believes that sexuality is a choice has ever been able to pass the choice challenge.

several times, I've proposed... "I want you to CHOOSE to become repulsed by your girlfriend's naked body. If you see her naked, you will not be aroused. Instead, I want you to buy Playgirl, look at the pictures, get totally turned on and then have an affair for a week with another man. Then switch back."

The typical response is, "I can't. That's disgusting."

"You mean, you choose to think its disgusting. You just need to choose otherwise."

They usually change the subject.

I like the ones who are more straightforward and just admit they're just hateful. (And they do exist. Honest bigots)

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
your positions, IMO, are indefensible, and founded upon a CULTURE of intolerance...

[/ QUOTE ]

What position have I taken? Other than Liberals are intolerant hypocrites. I must thank all of you radical neocoms for proving my point so clearly in this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
I want to get you on the record here: what is YOUR position on the MORALITY of being a homosexual?

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I could care less. My best friend is a lesbian. We often talk about politics. Does she like the fact that I don't think marriage is anything other than a union of a man and a woman? No. But my reasons are my own, they are not based in hate, and if you think they are, fine, I honestly don't care. I personally cannot understand why any man would be homosexual. Pervertedly, I can understand how women could be. But I guess thats because I see beauty in women.

Call me a homophobe all you want, you would be wrong in doing so. Call me a homosexual, I don't care, its not an insult to me. Quite frankly, I could care less what you think of me because you express a lot of hatred; and I really wouldn't associate with you much if I knew you if you are anything like what you have shown here.

I thank those that have shown examples of Republicans saying things "like" what Clinton and Kerry did, even if they were never cited. Kerry's I think is clear.. Here is a link to Clinton's remarks...

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/299104p-255983c.html

[bholdr]

i think bush actually won the town-hall style one, not by his arguments or prose, of course, but he definitly had a better rapport with the crowd, which goes a long way.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
You know, not a single person who believes that sexuality is a choice has ever been able to pass the choice challenge.

several times, I've proposed... "I want you to CHOOSE to become repulsed by your girlfriend's naked body. If you see her naked, you will not be aroused. Instead, I want you to buy Playgirl, look at the pictures, get totally turned on and then have an affair for a week with another man. Then switch back."

The typical response is, "I can't. That's disgusting."

"You mean, you choose to think its disgusting. You just need to choose otherwise."

They usually change the subject.

I like the ones who are more straightforward and just admit they're just hateful. (And they do exist. Honest bigots)

[/ QUOTE ]

Your challenge is bogus. Scientifically, you could respond like this.

It's natural for a man and a woman to have sex. That, afterall, is how we all came to be here. So, to deviate from the natural you have only possibilities.

1.) someone chooses to deviate
2.) someone has a defect that makes them deviate


So, are you saying that people who are homosexual are defects?

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
Its a loser for them amongst swing voters and its also appaling that some liberals would stoop to comparing the gay rights movement of now with the civil rights movememnts of yesteryear...(homosexuality is a behavior...being black is not.)

[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds like you think they can't be compared because you think homosexuality is a choice, and being black is obviously not.

Well, you pick your religion, too. Perhaps we should move religious protection from the Civil Rights Act and other federal civil rights legislation.

Maybe I should be able to fire you because you are Jewish. How does that sound? Maybe I find your religion repulsive?

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
It's natural for a man and a woman to have sex. That, afterall, is how we all came to be here. So, to deviate from the natural you have only possibilities

[/ QUOTE ]

the 'appeal to nature' is a fallicy of logical argument, jaxmike, you should know this.

more webster:

Main Entry: na·ture
Pronunciation: 'nA-ch&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin natura, from natus, past participle of nasci to be born -- more at NATION
1 a : the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing : ESSENCE b : DISPOSITION, TEMPERAMENT
2 a : a creative and controlling force in the universe b : an inner force or the sum of such forces in an individual
3 : a kind or class usually distinguished by fundamental or essential characteristics <documents of a confidential nature> <acts of a ceremonial nature>
4 : the physical constitution or drives of an organism; especially : an excretory organ or function -- used in phrases like the call of nature
5 : a spontaneous attitude (as of generosity)
6 : the external world in its entirety
7 a : humankind's original or natural condition b : a simplified mode of life resembling this condition
8 : the genetically controlled qualities of an organism
9 : natural scenery


i don't see anything that excludes homosexuality from nature. maybe definition 7a... but that's a chicken and the egg paradox waiting to happen- unless you're talking about adam and eve, here /images/graemlins/smirk.gif. and the term 'defect' is a derogotory one based on the assumption that the natural state of each and every human is hetrosexuality, AND that any deviation from natural norms denotes a 'defect'. your argument is not logically valid, which doesn't really matter, since your premises aren't either.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because their moral code or religious beliefs make them think that people of the same sex should not be married? That does not make someone a biggot. You are fitting the definition pretty well with your continued baseless attacks on people on the "right" side of the political spectrum.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you misunderstand people's complaints against the republican's and their gay marriage stance.

It is okay for someone to have religious beliefs and a moral code. It is okay for someone to formulate any opinion based on these beliefs.

IT is NOT okay for someone to legislate those beliefs. By doing so, they would be attacking anyone with a different belief. Therefore, the republican's attempts to legislate their reglious beliefs and morals IS an attack on those who believe differently.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
I personally cannot understand why any man would be homosexual.

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe they don't want to be homosexual, maybe they are homosexual. and you totally dodged my question. YES or NO: DO YOU THINK HOMOSEXUALITY IS IMMORAL? don't duck my (very reasonable) question- it makes you look like a coward. (not saying you are one, just saying that when you sidestep a direct question it makes you LOOK like one)


you are the very definition of a intolerant:

Main Entry: in·tol·er·ant
Pronunciation: -r&nt
Function: adjective
1 : unable or unwilling to endure
2 a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights

and you claim that it is the other side that is hateful...
you say that you're not a homophobe, yet you're the very definition of one:

Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

...of course your little lesbian freind is a convient counterargument for you, but I am not impressed. "i'm not a homophobe, how could i be i have a HOMOSEXUAL FREIND! i just think that letting them marry like everyone else that's in love would destroy this country" or some such self-contradictory nonsense. [i'm paraphrasing, not quoting] you probably don't think you're a bigot either:

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices


...but you are...

it's ok, though, nobody thinks that they're a bad person. i don't see where you get off calling other people hatefull...

oh, wait...

Main Entry: hy·poc·ri·sy
Pronunciation: hi-'pä-kr&-sE also hI-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -sies
Etymology: Middle English ypocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage, hypocrisy, from hypokrinesthai to answer, act on the stage, from hypo- + krinein to decide -- more at CERTAIN
1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy

heh heh. /images/graemlins/grin.gif
hello, pot, my name is kettle.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
It sounds like you think they can't be compared because you think homosexuality is a choice, and being black is obviously not.

Well, you pick your religion, too. Perhaps we should move religious protection from the Civil Rights Act and other federal civil rights legislation.

Maybe I should be able to fire you because you are Jewish. How does that sound? Maybe I find your religion repulsive?

[/ QUOTE ]

VERY GOOD, dead. NH.

[adios]

So what? The debates had very little impact on the election and are basically meaningless. Bush won by a bigger margin than he did in 00; the Republicans gained seats in the Senate and the House; and the Republicans are in the majority in most states. How can the debates be significant? Also it depends on what you mean by "winning a debate." Some slick snakeoil salesman like Kerry baffles the media with b.s. and they call that a victory. Puhleeze.

[zaxx19]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I should be able to fire you because you are Jewish. How does that sound? Maybe I find your religion repulsive?

[/ QUOTE ]

Im sorry did anyone here say gays should be fired....

Did anyone say that it was ok to fire gays.....

Good one Dead, set up a strawman then knock him down NH.\


Geneseo huh....I can see that.

[ QUOTE ]
Some slick snakeoil salesman like Kerry baffles the media with b.s. and they call that a victory. Puhleeze.

[/ QUOTE ]

Boy, that's an awfully odd description of the debates, at least from this citizen's viewpoint. I think it would be more accurate to say that Kerry "won" the debats because our president came across as a befuddled rube, particularly in the first debate. I think you would find more people who feel Kerry "won" the debates for this reason than because he came across as a "snake oil salesman" who shoveled "bs".

[Dead]

Your grammar is awful, so don't rip on my college. I doubt you even went, and if you did, it surely wasn't to a good school. Typical elitist Republican f***bag.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]

Im sorry did anyone here say gays should be fired....

Did anyone say that it was ok to fire gays.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Republicans in the House and Senate have made it clear that it is ok to fire gays, by blocking passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. It failed by 1 vote in the Senate a few years back.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
the 'appeal to nature' is a fallicy of logical argument, jaxmike, you should know this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually its not. More on that follows.

[ QUOTE ]
1 a : the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing : ESSENCE b : DISPOSITION, TEMPERAMENT


[/ QUOTE ]

The inherent state of sexual beings is male-female. Arguing against this is a fools errand.

[ QUOTE ]
4 : the physical constitution or drives of an organism; especially : an excretory organ or function -- used in phrases like the call of nature

[/ QUOTE ]

In the long run, what is the basic drive of all living things? If you answered procreation, you are not an idiot.

[ QUOTE ]

8 : the genetically controlled qualities of an organism
[ QUOTE ]


IE breeding in the case of humans. Humans are born to breed, explain to me how homosexuals can do this.

[ QUOTE ]
i don't see anything that excludes homosexuality from nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you don't.

[ QUOTE ]
and the term 'defect' is a derogotory one based on the assumption that the natural state of each and every human is hetrosexuality

[/ QUOTE ]

Please logically strike down that assumption before you continue. You can't so just stop, you have been defeated by logic and science. Sting a little?

[ QUOTE ]
AND that any deviation from natural norms denotes a 'defect'.

[/ QUOTE ]

defect- An imperfection that causes inadequacy or failure; a shortcoming.

You like the dictionary so much, still want to use it?

[ QUOTE ]
your argument is not logically valid

[/ QUOTE ]

Please show me logically why its not. You cannot.


[ QUOTE ]
which doesn't really matter, since your premises aren't either.

[/ QUOTE ]

My only premise is that liberals are hypocrites (not like conservatives aren't) but they get free passes.



You have been totally and completely defeated in this.

[Dead]

Bholdr, you got pwned by Jaxmike. He said so. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

http://home.nyc.rr.com/lclaypool/images/corson_pwned_sm.jpg

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
maybe they don't want to be homosexual

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe they don't. But then, what does that make homosexuality? See my post above for more on the logic of what I refer to.

[ QUOTE ]
YES or NO: DO YOU THINK HOMOSEXUALITY IS IMMORAL? don't duck my (very reasonable) question- it makes you look like a coward. (not saying you are one, just saying that when you sidestep a direct question it makes you LOOK like one)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I am in a position to judge anyone on morality. I am free to my opinions, I have absolutely no stake in this issue, just simply wanted to point out the homosexual bashing the liberals do.

[ QUOTE ]

you are the very definition of a intolerant:


[/ QUOTE ]

I am far from it.

[ QUOTE ]
1 : unable or unwilling to endure

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. If you knew me, you would agree.

[ QUOTE ]
2 a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't fall into this category either. Clearly in a, I make no suggestions of suppression of any group. In b, I think all people should have the right to socialize as they wish (within the law, ie not allowed to give crack to kids, etc.), have the right to their political opinions, and shouldn't be persecuted professionally.

[ QUOTE ]

and you claim that it is the other side that is hateful...
you say that you're not a homophobe, yet you're the very definition of one:

[/ QUOTE ]

This ought to be good.

[ QUOTE ]
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no irrational fear that I hold towards homosexuality or homosexuals. There is no irrational aversion that I have towards homosexuality or homosexuals. There is no irration discrimination that I wish upon homosexuality or homosexuals.

[ QUOTE ]
...of course your little lesbian freind is a convient counterargument for you, but I am not impressed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't expect someone like you to be impressed.

[ QUOTE ]
"i'm not a homophobe, how could i be i have a HOMOSEXUAL FREIND! i just think that letting them marry like everyone else that's in love would destroy this country" or some such self-contradictory nonsense. [i'm paraphrasing, not quoting]

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly you don't know what words mean. You were not paraphrasing you were creating out of thin air.

[ QUOTE ]
you probably don't think you're a bigot either:

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't.

[ QUOTE ]
a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really fit this definition either. Yes, I have very strong opinions. However, I am not obstinately devoted to them.

[ QUOTE ]
it's ok, though, nobody thinks that they're a bad person. i don't see where you get off calling other people hatefull

[/ QUOTE ]

You came off as hateful to me. That's where I get off calling you hateful.

[ QUOTE ]
1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not claiming to be anything I am not. I am not presenting a false front of virtue or religion. I do not fall into this definition.

[ QUOTE ]
hello, pot, my name is kettle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Irony....

[Dead]

Jaxmike, it is okay to be gay.

We will accept you for who you are on this forum. We will welcome you into the liberal fold, and you can fight alongside us in the struggle for equality for all GLBT people. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Jaxmike, it is okay to be gay.

We will accept you for who you are on this forum. We will welcome you into the liberal fold, and you can fight alongside us in the struggle for equality for all GLBT people. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Even if I were gay, I would still never be a liberal. [censored] what would be "best" for me, I want whats best for my country and the population as a whole.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[censored] what would be "best" for me, I want whats best for my country and the population as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think these two ideas are mutually exclusive; there are a great deal of conservatives (like every free market capitalist?) who feel what's best for YOU is what's best for your country.

[kurto]

LOL Honestly, are you a parody poster?

"Your challenge is bogus." I guess if you arbitrarily say so. If one believes the premise that people choose to be gay, one has to believe that everyone can arbitrarily choose their sexuality. So, if you believe the ridiculous notion that people choose their sexuality, my challenge makes perfect sense.

"It's natural for a man and a woman to have sex." Who says? "Natural" is usually defined as happening in the natural kingdom. Homosexuality has not only persisted throughout human history, it is also found with other species all over the natural kingdom. So you're already starting your response with a scientific falsity. No surprise.

"That, afterall, is how we all came to be here. So, to deviate from the natural you have only possibilities." Since homosexuality exists in nature, they are not deviating from nature. Honestly, you are a parody poster, right?

"1.) someone chooses to deviate" So this conclusion is drawn from your erroneous premise.
"2.) someone has a defect that makes them deviate" Who, besides the usual bigotted homophobes, says its a defect?

"So, are you saying that people who are homosexual are defects? " LOL does anyone take you seriously?

[kurto]

"The inherent state of sexual beings is male-female. Arguing against this is a fools errand." You're being ironic, right? The inherent state of homosexual beings is male-male or female-female. You seem to misuse words a lot.

"My only premise is that liberals are hypocrites (not like conservatives aren't) but they get free passes." My primary premise is you like to make up mindless platitudes and pretend you're saying something.

[kurto]

What is a "radical neocom"? Is this a new madeup word?

"I must thank all of you radical neocoms for proving my point so clearly in this thread." I enjoy people who arbitrarily declare their point proven.

"I personally cannot understand why any man would be homosexual." I guess that's because you're not gay. Gay men can't understand why someone would want to have sex with a woman. This seems so basic.

"I could care less what you think of me because you express a lot of hatred" Yep. All these people arguing about giving gays equal rights to marry their loved ones... they're hatred is so apparent. They should be more tolerant and loving by arguing to deny rights to gay people.

"and I really wouldn't associate with you much if I knew you if you are anything like what you have shown here." I can see why you wouldn't want to hang out with people who don't agree with all of your generalizations.

[Dead]

Jaxmike and I hang out all the time.

He's not a bad guy, really.

Although he does tend to put both his hands on his ass, when we're in the gay bar. It's like he's trying to protect it or something.

[kurto]

"He's not a bad guy, really." I have no reason to doubt he could be a nice guy. But he does seem a lot closeminded. I've never seen someone so taken by generalizations. And he seems to use faulty logic and misuse definitions to support his beliefs. A lot of projection.

A lot of reasonable and nice people shut down when it comes to politics. Like a religion, they shut out anything that contradicts their beliefs, ignoring anything that contradicts them... And then the generalizing. He twists two examples of 2 politicians making (arguably) questionable statements and concludes.... ALL LIBERALS are intolerant.

That would be like me pointing out that the Republican Senator who was paying a woman to have sex with her children (I forget his name, but I believe he was from CT)... and concluding that all Republicans are pedophiles.

If we hung out, we'd just have to avoid politics. (though I enjoy a juicy debate)

"Although he does tend to put both his hands on his ass, when we're in the gay bar. It's like he's trying to protect it or something." He should just pop a cork in there and relax.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually its not. More on that follows.


[/ QUOTE ]

the 'appeal to nature' is accepted by any serious student of philosophy and argumentation as a fallicy. this is not up for debate- any educated person should know this... it's an accepted convention of debate. did you go to college? if not, then i understand your confusion.

[ QUOTE ]
The inherent state of sexual beings is male-female.

[/ QUOTE ]
not if they're geniticly predisposed to be male-male or female-feamle... 'inherant' is a clever rephrasing of 'natural' which is, again, a fallicy.

the rest of your post is too jumbled to make any sense, please respond in a coherant manner and i will reply in kind.

[bholdr]

BULLSHIIT

you continue to duck my question. if i had asked wether or not you thought cold-blooded murder was immoral, would you have responded the same way? of course not. you lack the courage of your convictions, and once again reveal your cowardice and ignorance.


i meet people like you all the time. too bad, really...

you are a COWARD! /images/graemlins/mad.gif you may not respond that it isn't up to you to pass judgement, that is the escape-hatch of bigots that know that they are busted... it's an ambigous and non-commital response... if you really felt that it was not up to you to pass judgement, you would not be against marrige of homosexual couples- where you ARE passing judgement. instead of respond directly to my criticisims, you resort to clever wordplay and the dissection of semantic minutia. You ARE judging, but are AFRAID/ too smart to admit it, in the face of your obvious hipporacy (this time i use the term in an idiomatic sense and not the dictionary definition).

you clearly fit every defintition that webster has supplied and i have posted... why do you think you're the only conservative defending your 'arguments' (and i use that term very loosely, you clearly don't even know what an argument is...) in this thread? it's because the others are too smart to get behind your indefensible arguments!

i'm turning your setting back to "ignore" i'll give you another chance in a few weeks to grow up and join the reasonable discussion that educated people here try to carry on.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
"It's natural for a man and a woman to have sex." Who says? "Natural" is usually defined as happening in the natural kingdom. Homosexuality has not only persisted throughout human history, it is also found with other species all over the natural kingdom. So you're already starting your response with a scientific falsity. No surprise.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly, which is why serious logicians consider the 'appeal to nature' a fallicy of argument.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
What is a "radical neocom"? Is this a new madeup word?

"I must thank all of you radical neocoms for proving my point so clearly in this thread." I enjoy people who arbitrarily declare their point proven.

"I personally cannot understand why any man would be homosexual." I guess that's because you're not gay. Gay men can't understand why someone would want to have sex with a woman. This seems so basic.

"I could care less what you think of me because you express a lot of hatred" Yep. All these people arguing about giving gays equal rights to marry their loved ones... they're hatred is so apparent. They should be more tolerant and loving by arguing to deny rights to gay people.

"and I really wouldn't associate with you much if I knew you if you are anything like what you have shown here." I can see why you wouldn't want to hang out with people who don't agree with all of your generalizations.

[/ QUOTE ]


you should post here more often.

[bholdr]

jaxmike has obviously never studided 'logic', as he seems to use the Mr. Spock definition of the term.


[ QUOTE ]
A lot of reasonable and nice people shut down when it comes to politics. Like a religion, they shut out anything that contradicts their beliefs, ignoring anything that contradicts them... And then the generalizing. He twists two examples of 2 politicians making (arguably) questionable statements and concludes.... ALL LIBERALS are intolerant.

[/ QUOTE ]

which is, of course, andother fallicy of argument! (but don't try to tell jaxmike!- he knows all about 'logic' and argumentation)

[thatpfunk]

nice domination.

[zaxx19]

[ QUOTE ]
Typical elitist Republican f***bag.


[/ QUOTE ]

An elitist who "probably never went..(to college)"

Tell me more oh oracle @ Geneseo. LOL.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[jack spade23]

UMMMM,kurto, kerry is a catholic but wasn't going to let that affect his position on abortion, etc. Therefore, you can't say that Cheney is wrong to defend a position he doesn't believe in. They are too similar.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
blah blah blah. Quit speaking in empty platitudes. You're regurgitating babble but saying nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is really funny coming from you.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's start simple... explain the defense of marriage. I got married a year ago. My parents have been married for about 40 years. Let's say my neighbors are two gay guys who get married. Please show a logical cause and effect of how my and my parents marriages need defending from this threat. Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you show me cause for changing the law to allow same sex marriages. Furthermore, show me why changing the definition of the word marriage is appropriate.

[ QUOTE ]
On their religious code????? Oh that's right, this is to appeal to the people who want America to be a theocracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who wants that?

[ QUOTE ]
(BTW, there's a lot of debate about whether or not its even frowned upon in the Bible, which I would to discuss with something who seems well read and open minded... but I'll skip it with the guy who wants to point out his interpretation of ONE person's conduct and then generalize about a whole group of people. That's the actions of a fool.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, funny coming from you. Do you support affirmative action? If so, you are a racist, and a hypocrite. Since most liberals seem to support it, I can safely say what I did, while you cannot safely say what you are.

[ QUOTE ]
" In it I accounted for the fact that she was already "out". But she had not been outed on a national stage as of yet." Wrong. You're inaccuracies are tiresome.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't know how to respond to this. I'm so clearly right that I find it incredible that you say I am wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not classifying all of the right as bigots. I believe I earlier pointed out that there are many intelligent Republicans/Conservatives. I am refering to a subset of the Right (generally, I believe referred to as neoconservatives) who are bigotted. Unfortunately, this is the segment of Right that the GOP reaches out to a lot these days.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't see how they are bigots just for being neocons. Perhaps the playbook tells you to call them such...

[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of bigots all over the political spectrum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly.

[ QUOTE ]
You just don't see the bigots on the left being powerful enough to try to get their bigotry codified into law (or change the Constitution).

[/ QUOTE ]

That's really funny. REALLY funny.

[ QUOTE ]
Some people think its immoral for people of different skin color to marry... they're still bigots.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's pretty obvious.

[ QUOTE ]
You're right. All liberals are intolerant. Conservatives are just the opposite.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not true either. However, I think liberals as a whole are just as intollerant as conservatives as a whole.

[ QUOTE ]
Just because many of them want to do all they can to make sure that 2 men or 2 women can't have a legal binding relationship...

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree that they shouldn't be able to have a legally binding relationship. In fact, I would guess that most conservatives would agree with me.

[ QUOTE ]
is just proof of how tolerant they are!

[/ QUOTE ]

There are always going to be people who are intolerant. However, when liberals claim to be all about gay rights this, etc, then attack someone for being gay, they are the worst kind of bigot, a hypocritical one.

[ QUOTE ]
I stand corrected. I bow down to your fantastic arguments.

/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

As well you should.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
buy a dictionary, it'll help you stop putting your foot in your mouth:

[/ QUOTE ]

This will be fun to make you look even more the fool.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you justify calling people on the right biggots? Just because their moral code or religious beliefs make them think that people of the same sex should not be married? That does not make someone a biggot.

[/ QUOTE ]


Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices


Main Entry: in·tol·er·ant
Pronunciation: -r&nt
Function: adjective
1 : unable or unwilling to endure
2 a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights


hmmmm.... mr webster disagrees with you, jamike.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, people who have a moral or religious code that makes them feel one way or another are not necessarily bigots.

To be a bigot you have to be intolerant or obstinate by your definition, which if someone draws their opinion from a moral code/religion that they HAVE PUT SOME THOUGHT INTO they dont fit the definition of intolerant. They are not a bigot because they aren't obstinately or intolerantly devoted to their opinions.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
You're being ironic, right? The inherent state of homosexual beings is male-male or female-female. You seem to misuse words a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

You dodge the point again. What is the natural or inherent state of sexual beings? Hetero or [censored] sexual? Further, how many generations of Heterosexual beings are there in comparison to Homosexual beings?

[ QUOTE ]
My primary premise is you like to make up mindless platitudes and pretend you're saying something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, weak attacks on me because you cannot win on the issue. Typical liberal tactic.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
the 'appeal to nature' is accepted by any serious student of philosophy and argumentation as a fallicy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where you are wrong. I can prove that the natural state of sexual beings is heterosexuality as opposed to homosexuality. Here's how, they can procreate. Done.

[ QUOTE ]
this is not up for debate- any educated person should know this... it's an accepted convention of debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your challenge of this is foolish, any person who has gone to college should know this. I am setting up a control, I am backing that control by facts. Doing so allows me to show deviation from a norm. This is how you win debates, well, how I win, not you.

[ QUOTE ]
did you go to college? if not, then i understand your confusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. Did you? Your whacky ideas lead me to believe you have been well indoctrinated. Your inability to defeat logic just makes me that much more sure.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The inherent state of sexual beings is male-female.

[/ QUOTE ]
not if they're geniticly predisposed to be male-male or female-feamle...

[/ QUOTE ]

So there is something wrong with them? Is that what you are saying? Since they CANNOT accomplish the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING an organism has to do, BREED, it seems that's what you are saying.

[ QUOTE ]
'inherant' is a clever rephrasing of 'natural' which is, again, a fallicy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have already shown that it's not a fallacy. Go ask a math professor on your indoctrination camp about logic.

[ QUOTE ]
the rest of your post is too jumbled to make any sense, please respond in a coherant manner and i will reply in kind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice attack for a typo, why don't you go to the effort to read it? It's not all that hard, just one quote was messed up.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
exactly, which is why serious logicians consider the 'appeal to nature' a fallicy of argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not an appeal to nature. Your use of that defense is inappropriate in this case, and if you really knew what you were talking about, you would admit that.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
BULLSHIIT

you continue to duck my question.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I gave you your answer.

[ QUOTE ]
if i had asked wether or not you thought cold-blooded murder was immoral, would you have responded the same way?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not a rabbi or a priest or an imam, I am not the one to judge morality in others. I have my own moral code, that is all.

[ QUOTE ]
of course not. you lack the courage of your convictions, and once again reveal your cowardice and ignorance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I think you have it backwards. I am strong enough and smart enough to know that I have no right judging the morality of others.

[ QUOTE ]

i meet people like you all the time. too bad, really...


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

you are a COWARD! /images/graemlins/mad.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I think I am the opposite.

[ QUOTE ]
you may not respond that it isn't up to you to pass judgement, that is the escape-hatch of bigots that know that they are busted...

[/ QUOTE ]

I am no bigot. I don't see how, in any way, you have even come close to busting me. All you have done is attack attack attack, and they have been very poorly constructed and supported attacks at that.

[ QUOTE ]
it's an ambigous and non-commital response... if you really felt that it was not up to you to pass judgement, you would not be against marrige of homosexual couples- where you ARE passing judgement.

[/ QUOTE ]

In no way am I passing judgement. I am expressing my logical conclusions about the situation. There is no person (of legal age) in this country that does not have the right to marry.

[ QUOTE ]
instead of respond directly to my criticisims, you resort to clever wordplay and the dissection of semantic minutia.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have responded to you, you simply don't like my answer. I am dealing with logic in my argument, which you cannot defeat.

[ QUOTE ]
You ARE judging, but are AFRAID/ too smart to admit it, in the face of your obvious hipporacy (this time i use the term in an idiomatic sense and not the dictionary definition).

[/ QUOTE ]

I fail to see your proof of this.

[ QUOTE ]

you clearly fit every defintition that webster has supplied and i have posted...

[/ QUOTE ]

I have clearly shown that I do not.

[ QUOTE ]
why do you think you're the only conservative defending your 'arguments' (and i use that term very loosely, you clearly don't even know what an argument is...) in this thread? it's because the others are too smart to get behind your indefensible arguments!

[/ QUOTE ]

You have lost the point entirely. Someone posted a "challenge" that I believed was BS. So, I made a logical argument, which I do not endorse or denounce, that countered his "challenge".

[ QUOTE ]
i'm turning your setting back to "ignore" i'll give you another chance in a few weeks to grow up and join the reasonable discussion that educated people here try to carry on.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is REALLY funny to me. When you can't win, just ignore them.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
What is a "radical neocom"? Is this a new madeup word?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, its just as valid as neocon. I think I may have been the one to coin the term however. The Democratic leadership today is full of neocom's. (Neo-Communists)

[ QUOTE ]
I guess that's because you're not gay. Gay men can't understand why someone would want to have sex with a woman. This seems so basic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? You REALLY think that's true? Do you KNOW anyone who is gay? Your ignorance of the issue and inability to logically debate are telling.

[ QUOTE ]
I can see why you wouldn't want to hang out with people who don't agree with all of your generalizations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring to your intollerance and the anger that you display.

[kurto]

Jax, you are a clown. A very amusing clown.

"No, you show me cause for changing the law to allow same sex marriages." Show you cause? How about so that 2 consenting gay adults in a loving relationship can have all of the benefits that a heterosexual couple does. Its sad that equal rights under the law isn't reason enough for you.

Mostly, though, its just funny that you completely dodged the question. The right argues for "The Defense of Marriage." I'll ask you again... how is my marriage, my parents marriage or ANYONE'S marriage threatened if two gay people get married. I won't hold my breath for an answer.

" Furthermore, show me why changing the definition of the word marriage is appropriate." Who needs to change it. This is from one-look dictionaries....
Quick definitions (Marriage)

noun: the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony (Example: "Their marriage was conducted in the chapel")
noun: two people who are married to each other (Example: "His second marriage was happier than the first")
noun: the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce) (Example: "A long and happy marriage")
noun: a close and intimate union (Example: "The marriage of music and dance")

Only certain definitions define marriage as having gender requirements.

I'm perfectly happy with this defintion: noun: the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life.

Perhaps you prefer Websters?
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

Perhaps you prefer a legal dictionary?
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

marriage

n 1: the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union" [syn: matrimony, union, spousal relationship, wedlock]

You are really bad at this. Perhaps you're better at poker?

"Who wants that?" Clearly you're very aware.

"Do you support affirmative action? If so, you are a racist, and a hypocrite." LOL You just spout Limbaughisms and Coultier speak left and right. I don't think you've articulated a single thought that isn't rote from these types. According to you, these make you racist. This is of course another subject entirely where you can parrot more goofy things you heard, but you're really changing the subject. Try to focus on one area of your ignorance at a ttime.

"I really don't know how to respond to this. I'm so clearly right that I find it incredible that you say I am wrong" LOL Perhaps this will convince you just how ignorant you are? Try researching before you glaringly expose how little you know about the subjects you debate. Here's some quotes for you (took me all of 2 minutes to find this on the web)-
Mary Cheney has been happily out of the closet for at least a decade, so John Kerry was hardly dragging her out against her will.
She spent the late '90s working as a veritable professional lesbian, as gay and lesbian corporate relations manager for Coors Brewing Co.
Dick Cheney himself has been using her sexuality on the campaign trail. Click here to watch a Human Rights Campaign ad with him on the stump on Aug. 24, 2004: "Lynne and I have a gay daughter ... "
John Edwards brought up Mary Cheney in response to a similar gay-rights question just eight days earlier in the veep debate. Dick Cheney responded by thanking him for his kind remarks.

See... as I said, the subject was brought up 8 days earlier... but you're so amazingly ignorant, your response was that you were speechless, because you were so clearly right. LOL Your ineptitude is really fun.

"I really don't see how they are bigots just for being neocons." There is no causal relationship implied. One trait many of the neocons seem to have is an affinitiy with anti-gay bigotry. Hence their drive to deny gays rights.

"That's really funny. REALLY funny." Yes, it is funny. Please point to the Democrat proposals to modify the Constitution to deny others rights.... Man, you have to be an act. You can't be this inept.

"There are always going to be people who are intolerant. However, when liberals claim to be all about gay rights this, etc, then attack someone for being gay," Except no one attacked anyone for being gay. only YOU are claiming they did. Its not clear if you don't understand their comments or if you're just sloppily trying to alter what they said. I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're just trying to twist things to make it support your biases, but considering most of your postings, I'm going to have to assume you truly just don't understand it.

[kurto]

"kerry is a catholic but wasn't going to let that affect his position on abortion, etc." May I first say... I don't think Kerry was that stellar a candidate. Also, if you've been watching coverage on U.S. Catholics these days (you can't miss it), you'll find that a large number of them disagree with the Church on many of these types of issues. So, Kerry being Catholic does NOT mean he necessarily is against abortion across the board. Being Catholic should also mean you don't believe in premarital sex, yet I've never met a single one who believed that either.

"Therefore, you can't say that Cheney is wrong to defend a position he doesn't believe in." Actually, let me say, in defense of Cheney, I think he handled himself well with this issue. I think he was very publicly accepting of his daughter being a lesbian AND if I remember it correctly, he has publicly said that he didn't agree with the Defense of Marriage act.

I was not attacking Cheney in my post. I was only explaining why the subject was in the public forum and why it was appropriate in the debates. It was a platform of the President's re-election campaign.

[Dead]

Jaxmike doesn't really think that liberals are intolerant of gay people. He's trying to divert attention away from all of the homophobic things that Republicans have said and done over the year. None of my gay friends would even consider voting Republican for this reason.

[kurto]

LOL You're like the energizer clown.

"You dodge the point again." You're the only artful dodger here. You make such little points, there's not much to dodge.

"What is the natural or inherent state of sexual beings?" Umm... to be sexual?

"Hetero or [censored] sexual?" Both. They are both natural.

"Further, how many generations of Heterosexual beings are there in comparison to Homosexual beings?" Ummm... there has been homosexuality throughout the natural kingdom, as best we know, forever.

"Again, weak attacks on me because you cannot win on the issue. Typical liberal tactic." LOL

[kurto]

"Jaxmike doesn't really think that liberals are intolerant of gay people. He's trying to divert attention away from all of the homophobic things that Republicans have said and done over the year." If this is true... then my earlier guess was pretty accurate; that his postings were an act or a parody. His arguments don't make any sense.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Jax, you are a clown. A very amusing clown.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good, started it off with an insult.

[ QUOTE ]
How about so that 2 consenting gay adults in a loving relationship can have all of the benefits that a heterosexual couple does. Its sad that equal rights under the law isn't reason enough for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

They have equal rights. They have the right to marry, they just choose not to do it in accordance with the law.

[ QUOTE ]
LOL You just spout Limbaughisms and Coultier speak left and right. I don't think you've articulated a single thought that isn't rote from these types. According to you, these make you racist. This is of course another subject entirely where you can parrot more goofy things you heard, but you're really changing the subject. Try to focus on one area of your ignorance at a ttime.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is really a funny section of your diatribe.

[ QUOTE ]

"I really don't know how to respond to this. I'm so clearly right that I find it incredible that you say I am wrong" LOL Perhaps this will convince you just how ignorant you are? Try researching before you glaringly expose how little you know about the subjects you debate. Here's some quotes for you (took me all of 2 minutes to find this on the web)-
Mary Cheney has been happily out of the closet for at least a decade, so John Kerry was hardly dragging her out against her will.
She spent the late '90s working as a veritable professional lesbian, as gay and lesbian corporate relations manager for Coors Brewing Co.
Dick Cheney himself has been using her sexuality on the campaign trail. Click here to watch a Human Rights Campaign ad with him on the stump on Aug. 24, 2004: "Lynne and I have a gay daughter ... "
John Edwards brought up Mary Cheney in response to a similar gay-rights question just eight days earlier in the veep debate. Dick Cheney responded by thanking him for his kind remarks.

See... as I said, the subject was brought up 8 days earlier... but you're so amazingly ignorant, your response was that you were speechless, because you were so clearly right. LOL Your ineptitude is really fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet, I am right. If you read what I wrote, you will see the term national stage. I don't think any of the instances you refer to were on the national stage. A Presidential debate is certainly that. Edwards slimy ass brought her up in the VP debate too, hes another hypocrite, of course, he can channel fetuses...

[ QUOTE ]

There is no causal relationship implied. One trait many of the neocons seem to have is an affinitiy with anti-gay bigotry. Hence their drive to deny gays rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically you admit that you are wrong while not admitting you are wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
Except no one attacked anyone for being gay. only YOU are claiming they did. Its not clear if you don't understand their comments or if you're just sloppily trying to alter what they said. I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're just trying to twist things to make it support your biases, but considering most of your postings, I'm going to have to assume you truly just don't understand it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are so obtuse. You sit here and attack me, and call me names, yet its you that displays these characteristics. I expect nothing more, or less, from people like you.

It's you who won't admit to the gay bashing done by your liberal leadership.

[bholdr]

"This is where you are wrong. I can prove that the natural state of sexual beings is heterosexuality as opposed to homosexuality. Here's how, they can procreate. Done."



"It's not an appeal to nature. Your use of that defense is inappropriate in this case, and if you really knew what you were talking about, you would admit that."



G'HUH? if you'd ever taken a logic or philosophy class you would see my problem, here....

[kurto]

I almost fell out of my chair. He REALLY is a joke poster, right? Let's follow this...

I asked: "What is a "radical neocom"? Is this a new madeup word?"

Jax responds: "No .... I think I may have been the one to coin the term however."

So its not a made up word... but he made it up. Come on, he's gotta be a joke. No one can be this ridiculous.

"its just as valid as neocon" How so? Neoconservatism is a self-described label used by a political group. Try reading some Irving Kristol or the Weekly Standard.

Only in the mind of a complete goofball is a word for a political movement used throughout our culture on equal grounds as words he just makes up!

You know you're hopeless when you find yourself having to make up words.

"Do you KNOW anyone who is gay?" Well, let's see... I work in an office with 7 gay men, one of my roommate's in college was gay, one of my best friends who was in my wedding party is gay, I had a gay boss for 4 years.... No, I guess not. lol

"Your ignorance of the issue and inability to logically debate are telling." That's funny. especially because I was showing some of your posts to one of my gay coworkers and we were all having a good laugh at your expense.

"I was referring to your intollerance and the anger that you display." Why would you think I'm angry. You've been keeping me giggling constantly.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL You're like the energizer clown.

[/ QUOTE ]

More attacks...

[ QUOTE ]
You're the only artful dodger here. You make such little points, there's not much to dodge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this speaks for itself.

[ QUOTE ]
Umm... to be sexual?

[/ QUOTE ] No, it's to be heterosexual, so that you can pass on your DNA to offspring.

[ QUOTE ]
Both. They are both natural.

[/ QUOTE ]

Homosexuality cannot be if logic is used. It's ILLOGICAL!

[ QUOTE ]

"Further, how many generations of Heterosexual beings are there in comparison to Homosexual beings?" Ummm... there has been homosexuality throughout the natural kingdom, as best we know, forever.

[/ QUOTE ]

They cannot breed. Hence, there is no lineage. The only logical solutions are a choice, or a genetic dysfunction that causes irrational behavior.

[ QUOTE ]
"Again, weak attacks on me because you cannot win on the issue. Typical liberal tactic." LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this acceptance?

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Jaxmike doesn't really think that liberals are intolerant of gay people. He's trying to divert attention away from all of the homophobic things that Republicans have said and done over the year. None of my gay friends would even consider voting Republican for this reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then how can they vote for a Democrat for the same reason?

[kurto]

"I can prove that the natural state of sexual beings is heterosexuality as opposed to homosexuality. Here's how, they can procreate. Done." You arbitrarily decide that procreate is the natural state of all sexual creatures. Yet, homosexual is everywhere throughout the natural kingdom. Therefore, it is natural.

"So there is something wrong with them? Is that what you are saying?" I notice you do this a lot. Not a single intelligent person would conclude that he was saying something was wrong with them. He was saying the opposite. Do you really believe that's what he's saying? If so, I would suggest you take some reading comprehension courses.

"Since they CANNOT accomplish the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING an organism has to do, BREED, it seems that's what you are saying." As a species, it is important that the species breeds. It is not important that every member of that species breeds. Matter of fact, its better for the species if some don't. You are a goofy one.

[kurto]

"Good, started it off with an insult." Correction- started it off with an accurate observation, which you choose to take as an insult. I have a friend who's a clown and would find it a compliment. Since it seems possible that you are just putting on an act, then you may indeed find it as a compliment as well. If you are for real, I apologize. Not for the comment, but because of the challenges you must face on a daily basis.

"They have the right to marry, they just choose not to do it in accordance with the law." Laws are written and changed throughout time. I posted earlier a definition of marriage from a Legal Dictionary. There was no gender requirements. Furthermore, the Republicans are trying to make it a law that gays cannot marry... ie, to prevent states who allow gay marriage, to change their laws. Try again.

"This is really a funny section of your diatribe." You know what they say, "Its funny because its true."

LOL its so hard to take you seriously.
"Yet, I am right. If you read what I wrote, you will see the term national stage." I see, the VP debate wasn't a national stage. Nor were Cheney's national ads where he mentioned his gay daughter. You can't be this dumb. Try again.

"Edwards slimy ass brought her up in the VP debate too, hes another hypocrite, of course" Hypocrite? Cheney thanked Edwards for his kind remarks. LOL I guess you and Cheney are at odds. I suspect its because Cheney and Edwards have more respect for gays then you do.

"Basically you admit that you are wrong while not admitting you are wrong." Seriously, take a logic and reading comprehension course.

"You are so obtuse." Judging by pretty much all the other postings in this thread, including one person who claims to be your friend, it seems fairly universal that you are the one being obtuse in this thread.

"You sit here and attack me, and call me names, yet its you that displays these characteristics." I don't arbitrarily call you names. I haven't seen you do better then arbitrarily dismiss any observation I've made about you. Maybe it would help if you made another new word?

"It's you who won't admit to the gay bashing done by your liberal leadership." Why would we admit something that isn't true? For starters, you haven't mentioned a single liberal. Second, there was no gay bashing. Only in the mind of a complete clown is someone bringing up the rights of a gay person in a public debate... DEFENDING the rights of the gay, interpreted as gay bashing.

Do you laugh at yourself?

[jaxmike]

There is no logical or scientific reason to think that homosexuality is of any vital benefit to any creature that procreates sexually. It provides nothing of benefit besides gratification of desires. Be they emotional, physical, etc. I have nothing against anyone who chooses to be homosexual. I have nothing against anyone who feels like they are "wired" to be homosexual. I am not one to judge their morality, etc. However, I have still yet to be seriously challenged with my assumption that homosexuality is either a choice or a genetic defect when you look at the situation logically and/or scientifically. The goal of all creatures is to pass on their DNA, creatures that procreate sexually cannot do this if they are homosexual. Thus, to be homosexual through genetics HAS to be a defect as they are UNABLE to accomplish their primary objective. If, in the future, human males evolve the ability to carry offspring then definitions would have to change. However, that is not currently the case.

[ QUOTE ]
You arbitrarily decide that procreate is the natural state of all sexual creatures. Yet, homosexual is everywhere throughout the natural kingdom. Therefore, it is natural.

[/ QUOTE ]

You claim I do so arbitrarily, amazing. Just because its present, doesn't make it natural.

[ QUOTE ]
I notice you do this a lot. Not a single intelligent person would conclude that he was saying something was wrong with them. He was saying the opposite. Do you really believe that's what he's saying? If so, I would suggest you take some reading comprehension courses.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I am saying there are two options. If there are more, provide me with them, and support them with science or logic.

[ QUOTE ]
As a species, it is important that the species breeds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing is more important.

[ QUOTE ]
It is not important that every member of that species breeds. Matter of fact, its better for the species if some don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, since homosexuals cannot breed, you are indeed implying that "IT'S BETTER FOR THE SPECIES" if they do not? That is EXACTLY what YOU conclude.

[ QUOTE ]
You are a goofy one.

[/ QUOTE ]

More name calling...

[kurto]

"No, it's to be heterosexual, so that you can pass on your DNA to offspring."

So, if your muttonhead, even though homosexuality is found consistantly and significantly throughout the natural kingdom... it is unnatural. So, even though it is a regular feature seen throughout nature... it is unnatural.

You can't be this dumb.

"Homosexuality cannot be if logic is used. It's ILLOGICAL!" Clownhead... I took some courses in logic. Believe me, you're not qualified to discuss the subject. You're the idiot denies a word is madeup,.. then a sentence later, admits he made it up.

"They cannot breed. Hence, there is no lineage." Gay creatures and humans do and have bred. They don't breed with each other. By the way, their is a tribe in Papau New Guinea where the majority of the tribes relationships are homosexual. They have days set aside where procreation happens. But it is considered unnatural by them to have relationships this way.

By the way, you are arbitrarily deciding that having a lineage defines something being natural. Once again, you make up your own definitions to suit your purpose.

How do explain the persistance of homosexuality in all species throughout the natural kingdom? This should be good for a laugh.

"Is this acceptance?" LOL means laughing out loud. I was laughing at your act.

[kurto]

I really can't figure out if this guy is for real or not. Is he always this comical?

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Correction- started it off with an accurate observation, which you choose to take as an insult. I have a friend who's a clown and would find it a compliment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your intention was an insult.

[ QUOTE ]
Since it seems possible that you are just putting on an act, then you may indeed find it as a compliment as well. If you are for real, I apologize. Not for the comment, but because of the challenges you must face on a daily basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Veiled insult. 2/2.

[ QUOTE ]
Laws are written and changed throughout time.

[/ QUOTE ]

That they are.

[ QUOTE ]
I posted earlier a definition of marriage from a Legal Dictionary. There was no gender requirements. Furthermore, the Republicans are trying to make it a law that gays cannot marry... ie, to prevent states who allow gay marriage, to change their laws. Try again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gays can marry. Just not people of the same sex.

[ QUOTE ]

"Yet, I am right. If you read what I wrote, you will see the term national stage." I see, the VP debate wasn't a national stage. Nor were Cheney's national ads where he mentioned his gay daughter. You can't be this dumb. Try again.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was an attack. You need to look up the definition (practical) of outing. I stand by my statement. I was right in what I wrote. You semantically try to challenge that, fine, avoid the real FACTS. CLINTON AND KERRY ARE HYPOCRITS AND ATTACKED PEOPLE ON THE BASIS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION!


[ QUOTE ]
I suspect its because Cheney and Edwards have more respect for gays then you do.

[/ QUOTE ]


I have the same respect for gays as I do for straights.

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, take a logic and reading comprehension course.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you need it far more.

[ QUOTE ]
Judging by pretty much all the other postings in this thread, including one person who claims to be your friend, it seems fairly universal that you are the one being obtuse in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I am open minded. I have asked for reasons why my logic is flawed. I have recieved none that fit logic or science.

[ QUOTE ]
Why would we admit something that isn't true? For starters, you haven't mentioned a single liberal.

[/ QUOTE ]

WOW! Talk about reading comprehension.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, there was no gay bashing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Attacking people on the basis of sexual orientation isn't gay bashing?

[ QUOTE ]
Only in the mind of a complete clown is someone bringing up the rights of a gay person in a public debate... DEFENDING the rights of the gay, interpreted as gay bashing.

Do you laugh at yourself?

[/ QUOTE ]

I laugh a lot at your inability to mount a concise and well thought out argument of anything other than your belief that I am a clown.

[kurto]

"There is no logical or scientific reason to think that homosexuality is of any vital benefit to any creature that procreates sexually." I guess if Jax the clown says so, it must be true. LOL Humans have benefits from intimacy, sexuality and companionship that have nothing to do with procreation. I doubt you would understand.

"You claim I do so arbitrarily, amazing. Just because its present, doesn't make it natural." Just because its found consistantly throughout time in pretty much every species in the natural kingdom, doesn't mean its natural! Good point. You should write a book.

"So, since homosexuals cannot breed, you are indeed implying that "IT'S BETTER FOR THE SPECIES" if they do not? That is EXACTLY what YOU conclude." First, moron, homosexuals can and do breed all the time. Man, you are dumb. Second, it is better for the species if EVERY member of it doesn't procreate. There's a reason why China has laws about the number of children any family may have. They've overpopulated. The population of our species has been growing geometrically. This is NOT good. Therefore, if some people do not procreate, it is GOOD for the species. I'm sure that's way over your pinhead, but think about it.

"More name calling..." If you are goofy and I call you goofy, it is merely an observation.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
So, if your muttonhead, even though homosexuality is found consistantly and significantly throughout the natural kingdom... it is unnatural. So, even though it is a regular feature seen throughout nature... it is unnatural.

You can't be this dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]

More insults and still no substance. How do you define significantly?

[ QUOTE ]
"Homosexuality cannot be if logic is used. It's ILLOGICAL!" Clownhead... I took some courses in logic. Believe me, you're not qualified to discuss the subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, an attack, but no refutation.

[ QUOTE ]
You're the idiot denies a word is madeup,.. then a sentence later, admits he made it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another attack. I made up a word and gave it a definition. So?

[ QUOTE ]
Gay creatures and humans do and have bred.

[/ QUOTE ]

With each other?

[ QUOTE ]
They don't breed with each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not?

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, their is a tribe in Papau New Guinea where the majority of the tribes relationships are homosexual. They have days set aside where procreation happens. But it is considered unnatural by them to have relationships this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are also cannibalistic tribes there. Whats your point?

[ QUOTE ]

By the way, you are arbitrarily deciding that having a lineage defines something being natural. Once again, you make up your own definitions to suit your purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I am simply showing the folly of your support.

[ QUOTE ]
How do explain the persistance of homosexuality in all species throughout the natural kingdom? This should be good for a laugh.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, one could argue that if homosexuality is a choice, than some animals choose it. If homosexuality is not a choice, it could be argued that a number of animals are born that way. The question is, what does it mean?

Here's a question I would like answered. How often do two female animals have sex in the wild?

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
"There is no logical or scientific reason to think that homosexuality is of any vital benefit to any creature that procreates sexually." I guess if Jax the clown says so, it must be true. LOL Humans have benefits from intimacy, sexuality and companionship that have nothing to do with procreation. I doubt you would understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why didn't you quote me fully where I covered my acceptance of these types of benefits? I think you might be a troll.


[ QUOTE ]
First, moron, homosexuals can and do breed all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

More name calling. I know they breed, but they cannot breed with each other.

[ QUOTE ]
Man, you are dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]

More name calling. Best part about it, was the fact that he's calling me dumb for agreeing with him.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, it is better for the species if EVERY member of it doesn't procreate. There's a reason why China has laws about the number of children any family may have. They've overpopulated. The population of our species has been growing geometrically. This is NOT good. Therefore, if some people do not procreate, it is GOOD for the species. I'm sure that's way over your pinhead, but think about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

More insults. I fully understand your point here, but the fact is that this is not what you wrote the first time.

[ QUOTE ]
"More name calling..." If you are goofy and I call you goofy, it is merely an observation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't care what you call me.

[kurto]

"Your intention was an insult." You shouldn't make assumptions. I would like to assume you're just trolling and trying to be a clown. I find that easier to accept then the idea that you're as inept as your posts would make you appear. All this is moot, since my comments are accurate based on your posts. For instance, you don't understand basic logic. You are ignorant in many areas you have discussed. You make up words. etc.

"Veiled insult. 2/2." How is it veiled. If you are putting on an act, I applaud you. If you are not, I am merely being accurate.

"Gays can marry. Just not people of the same sex." This wasn't defined in the law. Some states allow it. Republicans want to CHANGE the law to make sure that they cannot. Again, your ignorance is astounding.

"It was an attack." Be specific. Since you constantly show problems with reading comprehension, give specific details. Show us how they were gay bashing. BTW... if Edwards was attacking, why did Cheney thank him?

"You need to look up the definition (practical) of outing." Suddenly you are concerned about the definition of words? Why the sudden change? And once again, Kerry didn't 'out' anyone. Why do insist on ignoring the facts which I researched and posted for you. Let's try this again since you're so slow:
1) She was a public relations professional as the GAY spokesman/liaision for a huge AMERICAN beer company for over a decade. She was out professionally for over 10 years. To people not as ignorant as you, her sexuality was rathar common knowledge prior to the debates. especially since...
2) Her father mentioned his daughter's sexuality in national campaign ads. (To you, that wasn't a national stage,... and you wonder why I keep laughing at you.)
3) It was mentioned little more then a week previously in ANOTHER national debate... yet you pretend Kerry was outing her.

Yet you insist that he outed her. Odd.

"I was right in what I wrote. You semantically try to challenge that, fine, avoid the real FACTS." See the last section about your problem with facts... where you state that Kerry outed a woman who's been a public gay advocate for over a decade and whose father has been 'outing' her in his campaign prior... you don't use facts.

"No, I am open minded." LOL.

"Attacking people on the basis of sexual orientation isn't gay bashing?" That's not what happened. Did Kerry criticize Cheney's daughter for being gay? Did Clinton attack someone because they were gay? of course not, Clinton's attack was that the person was 'self hating' because he was a gay man actively endorsing an anti-gay party/agenda. I won't pretend for a second that you'll understand that.

"For starters, you haven't mentioned a single liberal.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WOW! Talk about reading comprehension."

Clinton was a liberal? He was a moderate Democrat. There are very few true liberal politicians. You're one of those sheep who arbitrarily call anyone who disagrees with you 'liberal.'

[kurto]

"More insults and still no substance." Pointing out that you are goofy, ignorant, dumb and 'seemingly a parody' is all substantive.

"How do you define significantly" Well, its 5-10% of all humans. Its found in nearly every species. Is that defined enough for you?

"Funny, an attack, but no refutation." Contesting your misuse of the word logic is a refutation. Besides, you sentence didn't even make sense.

"I made up a word and gave it a definition. So?" Actually, you denied the word was made up, then a second later admitted you made it up. You simultaneously come across as a liar and an idiot in one statement!

"With each other?" Two gay men do not have offspring with each other. Yet they can reproduce. The point of which is moot. Whether or not 2 men or 2 women can have children with each other has no bearing on whether or not their sexuality is natural (it is), whether its a choice (one of the original points you've steered of), has no bearing on "the defense of marriage" garbage.

By the way... you still haven't explained why marriage needs defending. Explain again why 2 men getting married will be a threat to married people everywhere.

"There are also cannibalistic tribes there. Whats your point?" I don't expect you to get the point. Its fun to write stuff and see it befuddle you.

"No, I am simply showing the folly of your support." By defining 'natural' as meaning having a lineage, you haven't shown folly anywhere except in your arguments.

"Well, one could argue that if homosexuality is a choice, than some animals choose it." Yeah... sure, another arbitrary response from Jax the wonder clown.

So, Jax, choose to be gay for a week. Be turned off by women and have hot erotic sex with men. All you have to do is choose. I know when I get aroused, its completely by choice. Did you fall on your head a lot as a child?

"If homosexuality is not a choice, it could be argued that a number of animals are born that way." I'm sure its more believeable to accept that animals are CHOOSING to be gay.

"The question is, what does it mean?" Why do you assume it means anything.

"Here's a question I would like answered. How often do two female animals have sex in the wild?" 47,321.

[kurto]

"More name calling." Who cares? Its also a statement of fact. If you don't like it, quit acting moronic.

"Why didn't you quote me fully where I covered my acceptance of these types of benefits?" Frankly, its too exhausting to go back through your gibberish to see what you're talking about. As I vaguely recall, I thought you'd indicated that the only benefit was procreation. In which case you would be wrong again.

"know they breed, but they cannot breed with each other." You say the same thing over and over again. It doesn't matter. It has no bearing on whether or not their sexuality is 'natural' (ie.. existing in the natural kingdom/a normal part of the natural world) or whether or not they should be allowed to be married.

"I fully understand your point here, but the fact is that this is not what you wrote the first time." Since you consistantly misinterpret what people say, its more likely you didn't understand it.

[Talk2BigSteve]

[ QUOTE ]
I personally cannot understand why any man would be homosexual.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why am I gay??? Hmmmm...Maybe it was my Grandmother who taught me to knit and crochet when I was 7. Maybe it was my Dad who was in the Navy on a ship in my early childhood development stages. Maybe it was my Mom who got me a Cabbage Patch Doll for Christmas in 1984. Or maybe it is just that I am sexually attracted to guys with big dicks, and looking at a vagina reminds me of trying to peel apart a grilled cheese sandwich.

[ QUOTE ]
Call me a homophobe all you want

[/ QUOTE ]
Homophobe!!!

But hell you can call me a heterophobe if it makes you feel better.

And back to your first post, John Kerry talking about Dick Chaney's Daughter was wrong...But equally as wrong was Dick Chaney paying his daughter $100K+ to run his campaign office and shut her mouth in public.

Big Steve /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
You shouldn't make assumptions. I would like to assume you're just trolling and trying to be a clown. I find that easier to accept then the idea that you're as inept as your posts would make you appear.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is your posts that are in fact inept. They are simply insults and you basically saying "you are wrong" without supporting your argument.


[ QUOTE ]
All this is moot, since my comments are accurate based on your posts. For instance, you don't understand basic logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny you say that. You have yet to even TRY to refute or correct me.

[ QUOTE ]

You are ignorant in many areas you have discussed. You make up words. etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is what you mean by the pot calling the kettle black???


[ QUOTE ]
How is it veiled. If you are putting on an act, I applaud you. If you are not, I am merely being accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have yet to mount any substantive argument against what I have written.

[ QUOTE ]
This wasn't defined in the law. Some states allow it. Republicans want to CHANGE the law to make sure that they cannot. Again, your ignorance is astounding.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's funny, because you are totally wrong. There is no state (I'm pretty sure) that has a law that allows same sex marriage. The only places where its being allowed is due to legislation from the bench. IE judges grossly overstepping their bounds.

[ QUOTE ]
Be specific. Since you constantly show problems with reading comprehension, give specific details. Show us how they were gay bashing. BTW... if Edwards was attacking, why did Cheney thank him?

[/ QUOTE ]

My reading comprehension is not what is up for debate here. This will be my last reply to one of your hateful and insulting posts. You have displayed utter immaturity in this thread. The vast majority of your posts have been insults, and quite frankly I will no longer waste my time to respond to your ignorant and hate filled words. Cheney thanked him, indeed, in one of the most deft parry's in political history.

[ QUOTE ]
Suddenly you are concerned about the definition of words? Why the sudden change?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is you that has shown a less than rudimentary knowledge in the meanings of words.

[ QUOTE ]

And once again, Kerry didn't 'out' anyone. Why do insist on ignoring the facts which I researched and posted for you. Let's try this again since you're so slow:

[/ QUOTE ]

You still don't have any idea what you are talking about. To argue that Kerry did NOT "out" Cheney's daughter is insane. By announcing that she was a lesbian in a public forum, he outed here. It matters not if some already had known she was a lesbian. Another insult. I will truely miss your balanced and reason debating style.

[ QUOTE ]

1) She was a public relations professional as the GAY spokesman/liaision for a huge AMERICAN beer company for over a decade. She was out professionally for over 10 years. To people not as ignorant as you, her sexuality was rathar common knowledge prior to the debates. especially since...
2) Her father mentioned his daughter's sexuality in national campaign ads. (To you, that wasn't a national stage,... and you wonder why I keep laughing at you.)
3) It was mentioned little more then a week previously in ANOTHER national debate... yet you pretend Kerry was outing her.

Yet you insist that he outed her. Odd.

[/ QUOTE ]

And yet, under the definition out "outing a homosexual" I am right, and you are wrong. The "points" you bring up are irrelevant. KERRY ANNOUNCED THAT SHE WAS A LESBIAN IN A PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE. THAT'S THE [censored] DEFINITION OF OUTING A LESBIAN.

[ QUOTE ]
That's not what happened. Did Kerry criticize Cheney's daughter for being gay?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he used the nationally televised debate to discuss her sexual orientation with the intent of damaging Cheney's support within what liberals percieve as the Repulican's homophobic base.

[ QUOTE ]
Did Clinton attack someone because they were gay? of course not, Clinton's attack was that the person was 'self hating' because he was a gay man actively endorsing an anti-gay party/agenda. I won't pretend for a second that you'll understand that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You CLEARLY do not yourself. It is a pretty powerful insult to homosexuals to be called self hating. It's almost like saying a Jew is self hating. You CLEARLY have NO [censored] CLUE what you are talking about.

[ QUOTE ]

Clinton was a liberal? He was a moderate Democrat.

[/ QUOTE ]

ROFLMAO! That proves you are truely an idiot.

[ QUOTE ]
There are very few true liberal politicians. You're one of those sheep who arbitrarily call anyone who disagrees with you 'liberal.'

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that is not the case. Me and Joe Lieberman disagree about a lot, but I don't call him a liberal. GWB and I disagree about an awful lot, but I don't call him a liberal.

I am done with you. If you had actually had anything of substance to say, I would continue even with the insults. But the idiocy you have displayed along with the insults leads me to believe you are nothing but a troll. Have a good day.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
"How do you define significantly" Well, its 5-10% of all humans. Its found in nearly every species. Is that defined enough for you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Support this number. Nevermind, don't I am not responding to any new posts of yours.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, you denied the word was made up, then a second later admitted you made it up. You simultaneously come across as a liar and an idiot in one statement!

[/ QUOTE ]

Get your facts straight. Reread what I wrote. You asked if that was a word, I replied yes, and said that I had (to my knowledge) coined it.

[ QUOTE ]
Two gay men do not have offspring with each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Finally something factually accurate.

[ QUOTE ]

"Here's a question I would like answered. How often do two female animals have sex in the wild?" 47,321.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL.

[kurto]

"It is your posts that are in fact inept. They are simply insults and you basically saying "you are wrong" without supporting your argument." Liar. And a bad one at that.

Easy example-- You claimed that Kerry outed Cheney's Daughter. I provided multiple examples showing that she was out and publicly active for a decade prior to the debate. Furthermore, her father was mentioning her homosexuality in national campaign ads prior to the election. I posted facts conclusively proving you were wrong. And now you state that I just insult you and don't use facts. You, sir, can now add liar to your list of traits.

Another example- You claim that the definition of marriage MUST be a man and a woman. I print the definition of marriage from 3 different sources, including a LEGAL DICTIONARY, all of which had definitions which were gender neutral (and one outright included gay marriage.) I provided reference material proving you were wrong. As usual, you ignored it.

Why must you lie? And when you do, why lie about something so poorly? Didn't it cross your miniscule mind that I had only to reference this very thread to show that I posted facts? You're not too bright, are you. Are you at least good at poker?

"Funny you say that. You have yet to even TRY to refute or correct me." LOL You're just babbling nonsensically now. I just referenced two examples where I corrected your facts. The corrections to your faulty logic are endless.

For instance- When you made up a word... denied it was made up, then admitted it was made up by you, yet decided since you made it up, it was as legitimate as another. LOL Its cute.

"This is what you mean by the pot calling the kettle black???" Where have I made up words? Point to a single instance where you have demonstrated my ignorance on the topic. Can you even find one post where anyone (conservative/liberal/moderate) has taken you seriously?

"You have yet to mount any substantive argument against what I have written." Right. Like when I prove you were wrong about Kerry outing someone, rebuked your laughable premise that for something to be natural it must have sex with the opposite gender, when I disagreed that supporting gay rights is gay bashing... I've done substantive. That's just a weakness of us neocoms.

"That's funny, because you are totally wrong. There is no state (I'm pretty sure)" I'm totally wrong or you're pretty sure? Sounds like you have doubts. Since you don't know, just stop blabbing. Maybe you should research and see if all 50 states have codified gender requirements for marriage.

"My reading comprehension is not what is up for debate here." there's no debate... you have the reading comprehension of a 5th grader. I doubt many would disagree.

"This will be my last reply..." That's a shame. I get the impression your posts gave a lot of people a good chuckle. I'll miss your penchant for making up words, making up facts and random generalizations. I guess you got tired of being bested. I'm sure that's nothing new for you.

"to one of your hateful and insulting posts." lol My posts are hateful? I don't hate you. You amuse me. "Insulting"... I'm sorry if the truthful observations insult you. I apologize that you find people pointing out your lies, lack of logic and numerous false statements as insulting. You made you what you are.

"The vast majority of your posts have been insults" The vast majority of my posts are about poker. Look, you're erroneous again.

"and quite frankly I will no longer waste my time to respond to your ignorant and hate filled words." LOL A little classic projection coming from you, buddy.

"Cheney thanked him, indeed, in one of the most deft parry's in political history." tee hee.

"You still don't have any idea what you are talking about. To argue that Kerry did NOT "out" Cheney's daughter is insane." Yes, its insane to suggest that someone can't be outed who's already been out for a decade. INSANE.

"The "points" you bring up are irrelevant. KERRY ANNOUNCED THAT SHE WAS A LESBIAN IN A PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE." I see. She was already outed. So, despite the fact that she was already out, he still 'outed her.' I'm sorry, dude, you can't possibly be real. Is your last name Gump?

"THAT'S THE [censored] DEFINITION OF OUTING A LESBIAN." I see... "Outing a lesbian" -- mention it in a presidential debate. It must be very difficult to out a lesbian. How many people get to be in presidential debates.

By your (ahem) logic, someone can be an outspoken advocate for gays, be openly gay, have their father run national ads mentioning that they're gay, discuss her sexuality in a VP forum... but she's not outed until its mentioned in a presidential debate. You're clearly a very smart guy.

"No, he used the nationally televised debate to discuss her sexual orientation with the intent of damaging Cheney's support within what liberals percieve as the Repulican's homophobic base." I see... so he didn't attack her for being gay. He used her politically to make a point about political policies which would effect her in a political debate. Yeah, that sounds like gay bashing. Please don't stop posting. I don't think I've ever seen anyone debate quite like you.

"It is a pretty powerful insult to homosexuals to be called self hating." He didn't call homosexuals self hating, you laughable dunce. He called an individual self hating. Here's your reading comprehension and logic problems rearing their ugly head again. Making a statement about an individual is not the same as making a statment about all people. IE- Because one person is self-loathing doesn't mean everyone who shares an unrelated characteristic with that individual is also self loathing.

Clinton attacked the man because his actions were against his own self interest. Not because he was gay. Man...

Thanks for the laughs. I'll miss you.

[kurto]

"Support this number. Nevermind, don't I am not responding to any new posts of yours." Do your own research. There have been numerous polls and the findings have consistantly fallen between 5-10 percent. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that was news to you.

"Get your facts straight. Reread what I wrote. You asked if that was a word, I replied yes" No, my mindless friend, I asked if it was a madeup word. Here's a direct cut and paste:

"What is a "radical neocom"? Is this a new madeup word?"

The key being, a 'made up word.'

Your response: "No, its just as valid as neocon. I think I may have been the one to coin the term however." So, by "NO" you meant "YES." Honestly, a baby chimp could outwit you.

"Finally something factually accurate." Well, aside from the numerous other facts I posted that you ignored.

I'm sure you especially won't answer now since I cut and paste from the earlier thread and have shown, once again, that you're wrong. You'd think if you had an ounce of sense, you would have looked it up yourself to save yourself the embarrassment of being inaccurate again.

[thatpfunk]

If this is remotely what you are really like, you are very hateful. If you are just trolling, it seems like a large amount of energy to spend on something so silly.

[bholdr]

in life, we are often forced to make value judgments. we consider certian things, mostly choices, that we do to be either moral or immoral. how does my question apply to YOUR moral code? and, be honest, here, 90% of your posts are HIGHLY judgemental, no one on this forum (except you, i suppose) would argue this.


[ QUOTE ]
I am no bigot. I don't see how, in any way, you have even come close to busting me.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Just because their moral code or religious beliefs make them think that people of the same sex should not be married? That does not make someone a biggot.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices


Main Entry: in·tol·er·ant
Pronunciation: -r&nt
Function: adjective
1 : unable or unwilling to endure
2 a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no person (of legal age) in this country that does not have the right to marry.


[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
There is no irration discrimination that I wish upon homosexuality or homosexuals.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think marriage is anything other than a union of a man and a woman

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
if someone draws their opinion from a moral code/religion that they HAVE PUT SOME THOUGHT INTO they dont fit the definition of intolerant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure that the Klan has thought long and hard about their opinions and predijuces- by your definition, they are not bigots. this is a problem. (BTW, their main argument against interracial marrige? 'it's not natural' /images/graemlins/grin.gif)


[ QUOTE ]
ROFLMAO! That proves you are truely an idiot....
You are so obtuse....
Your challenge of this is foolish, any person who has gone to college should know this....
This will be fun to make you look even more the fool.
...


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My reading comprehension is not what is up for debate here. This will be my last reply to one of your hateful and insulting posts. You have displayed utter immaturity in this thread. The vast majority of your posts have been insults, and quite frankly I will no longer waste my time to respond to your ignorant and hate filled words.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
This is REALLY funny to me. When you can't win, just ignore them.

[/ QUOTE ]

yup. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[jaxmike]

Are you responding to me??? In THIS thread??

If so, then I just don't see it. I have been bad in other threads, but I have been pretty damn nice in this one.

[Aytumious]

Wow, I just read through this entire thread and I must say it has been truly hilarious, on par with the famous "Pattern Mapping" thread in terms of comic value. Good work!

[kurto]

"Wow, I just read through this entire thread and I must say it has been truly hilarious, on par with the famous "Pattern Mapping" thread in terms of comic value. Good work!" Awesome. Then it was all worthwhile. I was thinking of proposing to Jax that he and I do a vaudville roadshow together.