Homophobes:: GET A CLUE!!!

reply to post by ArchIlluminatus


Actually, throughout history, gay people have reproduced, sometimes a lot. It was an obligation, or in the cases of many gay men today, it is a choice to have children using a surrogate mother. That means their genetics pass on to the next generation.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by ValValient4
The real reason gays are to be allowed in military service under the dont ask dont tell policy is this... We want all gays to join so we can practice friendly fire exercises on them,since we didnt ask they didnt tell does not mean we didnt know, Doin it this way so less questions to answer later... So by all means go join up today, and when the papers of your complaint cross my desk, Ill shuffle off right where you need to be and cross your name off the list myself... We will have this Country back one way or another... As for marriage do that too, I just love documents...

reply to post by ValValient4


There is that intelligent conversation I have come to depend on regarding this topic.

Anyhow..I am activlely working on getting your IP address..my mother is very high up in the D.O.D. And would be very interested in your threats!

Best of luck with that... If I see an intrusion you will be dealt with... My IP will do nothing for you though...

reply to post by Stovokor

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most of the uniformed people Here are old white men...that are so afraid of their own shadow and xneophibic that it is very sad and I feel extremely sad for them.

A classic dis-info statement. The key is not to address the object-lessons in the same vein as they are presenting it to you. in other words, a bad response might be to trail off into "Well, I feel extremely sad for you because...".
Otherwise you are getting caught in the lesser of two evils that are presented by the argument.

I'm not sad. I feel fine today. You have an over-active imagination, and could be looking at the root instead. Older can mean "value-added", and we should increase our inherant "value" as human beings over time, not degrade. Age is inevitable, baggage unfortunate, and there's nothing wrong with a healthy dose of xenophobia against behaviour that is off-the-charts or chaotic. Struck a nerve? You really think so? Under my skin? My skin would probably crawl if you were. Hence, the healthy dose of xenophobia, to keep ignorant jamming statements like that out of my mind. A successful older person is above much false conditioning, and should serve youth as examples of healthy, regenerate beings. The only stodgy, cold austerity, bankerish responses are those, such as yours, that attempt to wrinkle otherwise good people! Maybe it's not only the what of the inform, but the whom, eh? It reflects on the speaker, so consider the source. Do I want to think about matters in your language and thought-constructs, or some other way? Such could we become.

Animals do it because..well,they're animals.

Animals don't know right or wrong unless you teach them.

And when an animal is in heat it will "do" any thing.

You can't compare animals to humans in this situation because humans know better.

Have you ever thought of going to a medical center and asking the doctor if they maybe have a pill that you can take so you can be ...not gay? I bet they have it. That's quite a serious disease you have, I would definately have that looked at. Off the topic a bit, do you actually, you know......."do it" with other girls? I have a friend here that is asking. I know, I know, he is so silly, but he insists. Don't be afraid to go into details when you drop me a pm.......uh, I mean, when you drop "my friend" a pm in my box, which I will then turn my back to him as he reads in silence. He's a doctor, of sorts, so he will be totally discreet. He needs all the details so that he can give you the proper help that you need to rid yourself of this gayness disease. Don't mention it, that's what i'm here for.......to help!

Originally posted by resistancia
reply to post by Dr Cosma

 

I have read all your posts in this thread and you have not contributed anything valuable. Your posts are full of malice, insults, name calling and assumptions about other posters. That is really sad, I am sorry that you can't move on from your anger regarding this particular issue.



take care all
res

edit on 2-3-2011 by resistancia because: extra words

Well you have not read correctly then.
After my first post ive been labled a troll and a closet queen
So I respond with the same verocity. I have also been fined 1000 points
I dont even know what the points are for and I couldnt care less really, just makes me laugh.
My opinions dont change, they remain the same.

reply to post by ArchIlluminatus


Might be a higher percentage rate; but logically there are more straight people with the diesease, simply because there are more of us.

reply to post by ArchIlluminatus


Might be a higher percentage rate; but logically there are more straight people with the diesease, simply because there are more of us.

reply to post by Rastus3663

I am familiar with the separation between state and Federal jurisdictions. I am also very familiar with the outdated aspects of the state Constitution. What you are apparently missing is that there are movements underway to change the realm of marriage from a state-based to a Federal-based issue. Some even go as far as to argue that the US Constitution prohibits states from defining marriage.

So thank you again for emphasizing another of my original points. You already show the ad hominem attacks against me based on my state of residence, and now you show the extension of the agenda to limit states rights. Very good!

Incidentally, I know of ministers who were threatened with civil suits for refusing to marry a racially-mixed couple. No offense to your professors.

I'm sorry you had such a hard time getting a minister to marry you, but it begs the question of why you did not go to a more secular source such as the local courthouse? Any judge can marry you with almost zero notice. I know this for a fact because I was married by the local Probate Judge.

And this emphasizes again how the agenda is stretching... an atheist choosing to be married in a house of worship by an ordained minister?

Please keep responding; every post you make seems to only strengthen my arguments.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TKDRL


I agree, it ranks right up there with relgious nuts knocking on my door in the mornings.

Originally posted by Rastus3663
reply to post by ArchIlluminatus

 

Might be a higher percentage rate; but logically there are more straight people with the diesease, simply because there are more of us.

Wrong

Differences in sexual behaviours do not fully explain why the US HIV epidemic affects gay men so much more than straight men and women, claims research in the journal Sexually Transmitted Infections.

In 2005, over half of new HIV infections diagnosed in the US were among gay men, and up to one in five gay men living in cities is thought to be HIV positive. Yet two large population surveys showed that most gay men had similar numbers of unprotected sexual partners per year as straight men and women.

www.science20.com...

reply to post by TheRedneck


I love the way you assume things and present them as fact; reminds me of the home state (ah, nostalgia). I wasn't married at a church. Won't willingly set foot in one. I agreed to allow a minister to do the ceremony at a private residence because that's what my fiancee,who claimed to be a Christian, wanted. As far as being aware of the movement, I haven't seen it in the news. I'm currently on the west coast and have been in the mideast the better part of the past three years. I guess it's not important enough to make the news in either place, so I doubt its a serious issue; there is no way that such a movement would overturn the full faith and credit act short of a constitutional amendment. People get threatened with lawsuits everyday that doesn't make rational behind the suit legitimate.

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

Guess that didn't teach that definition at your high school.

I

reply to post by ValValient4

Dude you are a joke; some of the best medics I've ever seen are gay and I was happy to have them around when the shooting started.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
The 'Gay Marriage' issue has gone from a simple desire to be treated equally to one of demanding that churches be forced to recognize and accept gay marriages (some even demand they be required to perform such)

One question. Where/who exactly is demanding churches marry gays in the US?

I personally have never heard/read any gay person stating this.

I have heard those against gay marriage using this against gays.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Rastus3663

Churches do not make laws, but churches are bound by laws. Should a minister openly refuse to preform a racially mixed marriage, they are subject to civil action for such. While I would not agree with such a decision (and would not support nor attend such a church), I also do not agree with using the force of law to attempt to control individual opinion.

Your argument is therefore unconvincing.

TheRedneck

I would like documentation that a minister faced "civil action for such".

One can attempt to bring a civil action for anything but I believe this type civil action against a minister would not even be heard by any court in the land.

reply to post by romanmel

en.trend.az...

White US judge who refused to issue marriage licences for mixed-race couples resigns

'Lawsuit filed'

The couple Mr Bardwell refused to issue a licence for - Beth Humphrey, 30, and Terence McKay, 32 - have filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against him, US media reported. Ms Humphrey said that when she phoned Mr Bardwell on 6 October to discuss getting the licence, his wife told her about his stance on mixed-race marriage. She said she had not expected such comments "in this day and age". Mr Bardwell, who has worked as a justice of the peace for 34 years, said that in his experience most interracial marriages did not last very long. He estimated that he had refused applications to four couples in the past two-and-a-half years.

reply to post by romanmel


don't get me wrong by the way,

i am against any form of same sex marriage, intercourse or whatever. It's counterproductive.

We don't have sex JUST FOR FUN you know???