Kurto the Clown

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok troll. Keep flaming me, its fun eh? 1200 posts, 1/2 of them flaming me by now probably..


[/ QUOTE ]

talk about delusional. LOL Yes, I have 600 posts flaming you.

[ QUOTE ]
So, its a falsehood that Kerry outed Cheney's daughter. WRONG. He did so, on TV. Whether it was the first time she was outed is irrelevant, outing someone who is gay is basically equal to telling others that someone is gay. It doesn't HAVE to be the first time.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't OUT someone who is already out. Bush's national campaign ads mentioned that Cheney had a gay daughter. Only someone so ignorant to be outright "Jaxian" could think that Kerry outed her.

"Hey everyone, Liberace was gay" Wow, I just outed him. It was a big secret, but I went and outed him.

[ QUOTE ]
I said that marriage has traditionally been defined as a union between a man and a woman, yet you challenge this.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, you said, "The word means, and has meant for hundreds of years, a union between a man and a woman." Yet you did nothing to prove that was the case.

I, on the other hand, posted this:
[ QUOTE ]
Consulting my Grand Larousse – and the Oxford English Dictionary for good measure – I discover that the word "marry" comes from the Latin term for "a husband" (maritus), which comes from the Latin word for "a man" (mas, maris). The notion of "marriage" therefore doesn't seem to refer to "wives".

Theoretically a person who gets "married" may take either a husband or a wife. But if we look at the history of "marriage" ceremonies, we will note that the most common meaning is, indeed, "to take a husband".
This provokes a number of conclusions: (1) a woman may "marry" a husband; (2) a man may "marry" a husband; and (3) a woman may not "marry" a woman. That is, lesbians cannot "marry" one another without violating the laws of linguistics, but gay men can.

So much for words. Let us now peruse the tarnished pages of history. Gay men seem to have frequently married one another throughout history. In fact, in some societies marriages between gay men were officially recognized by the state, as in ancient Sparta, and on the Dorian island of Thera.

Much later, in 2nd century Rome, conjugal contracts between men of about the same age were ridiculed but legally binding. Such marriages were blessed by pagan religions, particularly sects of the Mother Goddess Cybele (imported from Asia Minor). At the ceremony, the bridal party consists entirely of men, who enter the temple and deck each other with "gay fillets round the forehead . . . and strings of orient perals." They light a torch in honor of the goddess and sacrifice a pregnant swine. One man gets up and chooses a husband for himself, and dances himself into a frenzy. Then he drinks deeply from a goblet in the shape of a large penis, flings the goblet away, strips off his clothes, and "takes the stole and flammea of a bride" and the two men are married.

[/ QUOTE ]

Showing that you are likely wrong again.

[ QUOTE ]
now there are "new" definitions in some dictionaries that have CREATED a definition for same sex "marriages".


[/ QUOTE ]

You have posted no definitions from reference books that are hundreds of years old. Nor have you shown that you surveyed marriage customs in different customs. So how could you say that "The word means, and has meant for hundreds of years, a union between a man and a woman." I know... you just make stuff up.

[ QUOTE ]
Very good, challenging an utter fact, brilliant.


[/ QUOTE ]

Except that you are wrong; Romans, the English even the American Indians all had same sex marriages. The concept has been around for hundreds of years. Though it would be true that it has MOSTLY been about men/women... Since gays are a minority (and a repressed minority throughout most of history as well), it would make sense.

[ QUOTE ]
also stand by the statement I made about homosexuality being unnatural. Here is why..

natural-adj.
Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is where you prove you're an idiot.

Homosexuality is found through the natural world in most species. Ie.. it is 'usual'.

But thanks for proving that you were wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
The usual course of nature would be heterosexuality in humans, unless you would like to argue that as well.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not the usual... the predominant. If 4-10% of all people are gay (that seems to be the usual range), then there's nothing unusual about it. It is entirely natural.

If 95% of all people have blonde hair and 5% are brunettes... would the brunettes be unnatural? If you were as boneheaded as Jax, you would have to conclude that being a brunette was unnatural. Hard to imagine Jax's stupidity is 'natural,' yet I believe it is.

Once again, you seem to really be confused by words. To go by your (ahem) logic, you would have to argue that, even though homosexuality is found all throughout 'nature,' it is not 'natural.' ie... it falls outside of nature.

Just thinking about how dumb you have to be makes the head spin.

[ QUOTE ]
You have been PROVEN wrong yet again. I will await your spin, I can't wait to read it.


[/ QUOTE ]

If anything, you aided my case. Thank you.

[kurto]

Hmm... I noticed you evade most of my points. Like why did you lie? You told the board you were dropping the name... because even though you were ignoring me, you suspected I was mocking you. Why lie?

[ QUOTE ]
If you were not so impressively ignorant you would realize that there is more than one definition for the word natural.


[/ QUOTE ]

Here's 3 which all make sense in the context of this discussion:
in accordance with nature; relating to or concerning nature (Example: "A very natural development")
adjective: existing in or produced by nature; not artificial or imitation (Example: "A natural pearl")
adjective: existing in or in conformity with nature or the observable world; neither supernatural nor magical

In every case of the above, homosexuality is entirely natural.

Actual... I just read all the definitions that "one look dictionaries" post for 'unnatural'... not a single one of them could be used to describe homosexuality.

[ QUOTE ]
Either homosexuality or heterosexuality is the natural sexual orientation for humans.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's like saying either left-handedness or right-handedness is natural for humans.

Heterosexuality is the PREDOMINATE sexual orientation. Yet, they are both natural.

[kurto]

I can't believe I missed this.

If jax believes people attack him because he's right (and they fear him)... Jax writing the "kurto the clown" thread must shown undeniably that jax knows I'm right and fears me.

Geez, Jax, I didn't mean to scare you.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre> Sigh. More incomprehensible drivel. </pre><hr />

You seem to have more trouble then most comprehending what you read. I've suggested before you take a course in reading comprehension... but you probably comprehend what I was saying.

[ QUOTE ]
Littered with improperly spelled words that are important because hes trying to make a "point".

[/ QUOTE ]

Talk about improper... what kind of sentence is that? You really shouldn't comment on the spelling of others. Dare I say it would make you a hypocrit (Note: that is the Jaxian way to spell hypocrite... my mispelling in this case was intentional) MORE JUST FOR FUN:
Just for fun:
"More incomprehensible drivel." Sentence fragment, consider revising.
"are important because hes trying" That would be "he's". Hes isn't a word.
"Even though that "point" is a lie to begin with." Sentence fragment.
"so in a realistic fasion." Fasion? How do you expect to make a point with all of your improperly spelled words?
"evidence your recent replys to me," Did you mean 'replies'?
"Italy was a bitch, thats the only person" Did you mean "that's"?
"I wouldn't be suprised." Suprised? I'm not familiar with that word.

Good move, Jax. It demonstrates what I said about your projection. Even though you're either a sloppy typist or you can't spell, that doesn't stop you from pointing out the spelling mistakes of others. Typical Jaxian hypocrisy.

[ QUOTE ]
What is your idea of independent? Clearly nothing that is in any way consistent with reality. Please cite University studies, we know how impartial they are.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just go to the thread on Fox news, you lazy fool. Numerous sources were posted about Fox. But as the JAX GUIDE TO POSTING says, one should arbitrarily dismiss any and all studies.

[ QUOTE ]
I like evidence, too bad you don't present any.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL Right. Like when I posted numerous articles referencing same gender marriages throughout history. Oh right... you ignored those.

[ QUOTE ]
You are a flaming troll, nothing more.


[/ QUOTE ] How do you explain the 1200 or so posts about poker and politics then?

[ QUOTE ]
If you cannot understand the irony of the comment you specified, I pitty you.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you PITTY me? Man, that hurts. I hate to be pittied. Its weird how you started this post off with a comment about my improperly spelled words. You must have been feeling a lot of PITTY for me. What a hypocrit (sic).

[ QUOTE ]
I never said everyone is too stupid to understand me,

[/ QUOTE ]

True... just 'fascist liberals.' And that you are constantly right and everyone else attacks you because you're right and they're wrong. You're smarter then all of them. etc. etc.

[ QUOTE ]
I claimed that the lying woman from Italy was a bitch, thats the only person I remember making that statement about

[/ QUOTE ] That was an example. I'm glad you remembered it. Usually you just deny it.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, just about nothing of substance, and a lot of lies and distortions.

[/ QUOTE ]

You got me. Your posts are so meaty and full of content. I could only strive to meet the high standards you set. Like the one called, "Kurto the Clown." That was so substantive.

So... when are you going to stop using Jaxmike? I suppose that was as honest as your multiple threats to ignore me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you still here?

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well, you have shown a capacity to make a lot of stupid assumptions or outright stated falsehoods (Homosexuality is unnatural, marriage has always been between a man and a woman, Kerry outed Cheney's daughter, etc.). Its fully expected from you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok troll. Keep flaming me, its fun eh? 1200 posts, 1/2 of them flaming me by now probably..

So, its a falsehood that Kerry outed Cheney's daughter. WRONG. He did so, on TV. Whether it was the first time she was outed is irrelevant, outing someone who is gay is basically equal to telling others that someone is gay. It doesn't HAVE to be the first time.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then by your logic you just outed Cheney's daughter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. But who am I?

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Apparently not because I get an awful lot of reply's. Most are attacking me. Probably because I am usually right, otherwise, why waste time attacking me???

[/ QUOTE ]

link

are you being ironic?

[/ QUOTE ]

That was partly the idea there, yes.

[kurto]

That's an odd question from you. You're the one who promised everyone you were leaving.

[ QUOTE ]
So, I am going to leave this forum under this name.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh... another Jaxmike lie. He promises to ignore people. He doesn't. He promises to leave the Jaxmike name behind. He doesn't.

Well... what do you expect? He's dishonest.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure. But who am I?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just an ignorant, dishonest buffoon.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]

You can't OUT someone who is already out. Bush's national campaign ads mentioned that Cheney had a gay daughter. Only someone so ignorant to be outright "Jaxian" could think that Kerry outed her.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently you do not understand the definitions of words. That's fine. If person A is gay and tells person B, then person A has outed him/herself. Now, if person B then tells person C that person A is gay, is that not outing person A? If you announce to anyone who hadn't heard that person A is gay, you ARE outing person A. You are WRONG. ADMIT IT COWARD.

[ QUOTE ]

Except that you are wrong; Romans, the English even the American Indians all had same sex marriages. The concept has been around for hundreds of years. Though it would be true that it has MOSTLY been about men/women... Since gays are a minority (and a repressed minority throughout most of history as well), it would make sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, traditionally marriage has been between a man and a woman. Your posts prove that fact. There may have been some cultures that had SOME of it, but traditionally

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tradition
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=traditionally

it HAS been between a man and a woman. You CANNOT argue that FACT effectively.

[ QUOTE ]

This is where you prove you're an idiot.


[/ QUOTE ]

WRONG. I proved you wrong. ADMIT IT COWARD.

[ QUOTE ]

Homosexuality is found through the natural world in most species. Ie.. it is 'usual'.

But thanks for proving that you were wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please realize there is more than one definition for that word you dense fool.

[ QUOTE ]

Not the usual... the predominant. If 4-10% of all people are gay (that seems to be the usual range), then there's nothing unusual about it. It is entirely natural.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is where the idiot shines. Predominant is MORE inclusive than USUAL, yet he continues by totally contradicting himself. Classic Kurto, WRONG.

[ QUOTE ]

Once again, you seem to really be confused by words. To go by your (ahem) logic, you would have to argue that, even though homosexuality is found all throughout 'nature,' it is not 'natural.' ie... it falls outside of nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you understood the English language I would pitty you. That is why I suggest you get a better education so you can grasp the language a little better.
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You have been PROVEN wrong yet again. I will await your spin, I can't wait to read it.


[/ QUOTE ]

If anything, you aided my case. Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Case closed. I win, you lose, like usual.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
That's an odd question from you. You're the one who promised everyone you were leaving.

[ QUOTE ]
So, I am going to leave this forum under this name.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh... another Jaxmike lie. He promises to ignore people. He doesn't. He promises to leave the Jaxmike name behind. He doesn't.

Well... what do you expect? He's dishonest.

[/ QUOTE ]

I changed my mind. I never promised. I planned. Plans change.