OK, this is the problem....you said I had a distorted view of reality....Everything above IS REALITY...just like it is for normal people.....how could you not understand my post to your response???? I made a statement of phrase that was true and you say it's distorted. Isn't this post about homosexuals????? Shouldn't I be speaking to that??? I thought that this was clear??? Reasking the questions for heterosexuals does not change the fact about homosexuals. There's not enough evidence or proof to confirm or deny either side...That's why I always say that it's my opinion only!
You DO have a distorted view of reality. How many times do I have to say it in every single one of my posts? Those "facts" you present are LIES. The reason why your view of reality is distorted is because you're basing your opinions on reality off lies. You says gays do this and that when they don't yet you claim it as fact. Hello? Bueller, are you there?
I'm not trying to poison anyones mind! That's just it. You bring up poison when speaking on gays having children! You know children that are being reared by gays and they are fine. I know adults who have been reared by gays who are not fine! It does go both ways you know. Theres not enough proof to state either way as of yet.
Uh, there is "proof" to state either way, however, seeing as you're a fundamentalist Christian who only listens to other fundamentalist websites and nothing else, you think things are bad on the homosexual side as if they're unfit parents when it's not true. You continue to ignore the numerous other studies that say claims against homosexuals being unfit parents are false. You only listen to your fundamentalist websites and because they say all other studies are lies, you believe em. Gee, many studies being lies but only the Christian one being correct? Uh, okay.And what do you mean you don't bring up poison when speaking on gays having children? You're the one not wanting them to have children, WTF.
And your reasoning is also pretty stupid of "I know kids who have been raised badly by homosexuals therefore homosexuals should be at the bottom of the adoption list". Well uh, I can list 100x the amount of bad heterosexual parents than that of homosexual parents. Just because you know a couple cases where homosexuals raised their children badly doesn't mean you should ban them or automatically put em on the bottom of the list because heterosexuals have the exact same problem, but are even more common. This is why your arguments are stupid especially using those statistics you used. It basically means NOBODY should be allowed to adopt children since everyone in the world is dysfunctional.
So let me get this straight.....You and Neildo Dildo initially have a problem with me because I stated and I quote "Let them have their marriage"?
Please point me to where you said "let them have their marriage". And even if you did still say it, all of these posts have been about debating our opinions on the matter of why it's okay vs why it's bad.
My comments against white people are true. Period....Has nothing to do with racism....It's funny you try to use that alot.
So our mine against other races yet I'm called a racist. Funny how when YOU generalize a whole race, it's okay, but when I generalize a whole race, I'm being racist, lol.
someone of no consequence who uses her colour and her sex to try to achieve her own sense of superiority over others..
That's exactly what gay/lesbians are trying to do! Thanks for pointing that out.
Uh, where exactly are homosexuals trying to achieve superiority over others? All they want is to be able marry the one they love the same as heterosexuals can. The homosexuals are the ones with the limitations, not the heterosexuals so exactly how are they trying to gain superiority over them? Here, I'll use your guys' stupid thinking. There is no superiority because the new law is created equal. Heterosexuals can choose to marry the same or other sex, just as homosexuals can. Just because one may not choose to marry both, doesn't mean it's discrimination, or whatever other stupid things you wanna call it, lol.
I never said that they were or ever will be! So you're saying that you're not using you're sexual preference in order to change a law?
Nope, they're not. They're using freedom to change the law because that law severly limits the act of marriage. I'm also all for polygamists, brothers and sisters, man and animal, or whatever else crazy combinations you can think of to be allowed marriage. It's a simple freedom of being able to do what you want so long as it doesn't harm others.
Measure 36, which amends the Oregon Constitution to legally recognize marriage only between a man and a woman, passed in Tuesday's election by 57 percent to 43 percent, the smallest margin among the 11 states that had such measures, most of which passed by 70 percent of more. Oregon's measure was approved in every county except Multnomah and Benton.
"What this really demonstrates above anything else is that basic rights should not be put up for a popular vote," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force,
Thank you for posting that. As you can see, there used to not be a limitation on marriage between a man and a woman. People used to be free to marry whom they choose. Only now are limitations being placed on others. Where is the freedom in that? That's taking away the freedom of others. And you call yourself proud to be an American? Well Americans love their freedom among anything else so why aren't you arguing against a fascist law such as that?
Isn't it religion or the life thereof that started the sanctity of marriage in the first place?
Nope, only the sanctity of marriage UNDER GOD. Toss out being married under God where one brings their religious book into play and it no longer is a religious ceremony therefore the religious limitations of same sex marriage being bad no longer applies. I love how the last four weddings I've been to, no religious parts were used, and these were all 100% heterosexual weddings.
Gotta love the freedoms lack of religion brings. I'm surprised America isn't an athiest or agnostic country yet. Hopefully all the inbreeding that the redneck religious people do will finally result in the demise of their group thereby removing a large portion of Christians that force their views upon others. The same applies to any group that forces others to live by their rules of limitations. Don't force others to live under your rules and it's all good. The rules that those types of people try to force on others goes against everything America stands for which is FREEDOM.
we don't want legal reorganization of our marriages because we're different, we want legal recognition of our marriages because we are not different in any significant way to disqualify us from such a civil contract."
”
So in which ways then would you say you are different??? Or are you not different at all???
God you need to learn how to read. No, they are not different. A man is a man and a woman is a woman. The only "not in any significant way" is what I meant in the porition you quoted of me awhile back of "blondes are different, blue-eyes are different, blacks are different, big-nosed people are different". The same can be said about sexual preference. Someone may prefer black men, someone may prefer oriental women. Some may prefer blondes, some may prefer brunettes. Some may prefer the opposite sex and some may prefer the same sex. In the end, they're still both a man and a woman. The marriage law of forcing a person to marry someone of the opposite sex is the same as making a law to force people to marry those of the opposite hair color. A pretty stupid limiting law.
Oh? But what happens when someone's "freedom" Is exerted over others such to prevent them from exerting the rights of their "freedom"? Isn't that what slavery is in the first place? Are you trying to make an argument in favor of organizing our society such that the will of the majority trumps all and your rights are provisional based entirely on the whim of those in power? That's a very dangerous sort of thing to suggest - and you'll have a lot of work to do in destroying the constitution before it's achieved. Somewhere our founding fathers are rolling in their graves. . .
Also, you are a human failure because you have betrayed one of the most noble ideals ever conceived of by man. One which, as an American, and especially as an African American, I really feel you should be particularly in tune with.
A shame she still doesn't get it.
That's just it! Your rights are not being witheld. Is it new law that you want?
AND You think that the sanctity of marriage is trivial??
New law? More like old law. The old law, before '96 as Mysech metioned, did not specify marriage being only between a man and a woman.
You're exactly right...they are turning in their graves at the thought of realizing that the founding of these terms would now be used as a joke for gays.
Uh, exactly how is freedom being used as a joke for gays? What ignorance. You don't even know what freedom for all means, what our country was founded on. Get the hell out of our country, you sad excuse for an American.
I can't believe that you're putting gays in the same light as slavery? How unjust is that! I do believe that gay bashing and crimes against them because they are gay need to be addressed before we can move on to something as important as marriage. I'm simply against gay/lesbian marrying until that issue (among others) is addressed and resolved. I don't see how you would disagree with me on that. I said this a long time ago.
Well at least I can finally "sort of" agree with you on something. At least you don't mind homosexuals getting married, you'd just rather quell the angry heteros first. However, waiting until everyone is fine with people being homosexual before allowing them to marry would never happen. If that were so, blacks would still have their same limitations as they used to have before the Civil Rights Movement. Someone has to first recognize blacks as equal before others can think of them as equal, and that's exactly what the laws did. Now once the laws deem homosexuals as equal, others will think of them as equal too, even if it may be a long awhile before all do. But if the law doesn't even acknowledge blacks or homosexuals being equal to whites, then why exactly would others think so too?
If you like these semantic games so much here's another fun one I like to tell to children - My intolerance of intolerance makes me intolerant! What an amusing paradox!
Lol, I was gonna use that exact same line.
Whether I believe in religion, self identity, the sanctitiy of marriage, birth control.....so forth and so on......these are my beliefs and opinions just like yours...they are just as important as your beliefs
Yes, but the difference? People that share your limiting views are forcing those on others. Stupid laws such as those have been enacted because of people that hold discriminating views that want to limit other's freedoms.
but you say I'm ranting and raving...you guys have called me least 15 names unecessarily, when you could just stake your point and continue the discussion..
ignorant biatch - Me, but that speaks for itself
hypocrit - All of us?
a black girl - Me, but how's that an insult?
stupid - All of us?
nigger - I don't know who called her that, but I did say the next one, which isn't an insult but was rather used in comparison to a line she said
I just don't want niggers drinking from the same water fountain as me. - Me, see above and I'll specify this too
whiney ass - Me, in regards to her saying we shouldn't compare blacks to homosexuals
Here's a b-ball, go involve yourself with something you should be good at rather than these discussions. - Me, I intentionally said this after her calling me a racist so many times
most idiots that have yet to socially evolve. - Me, but that speaks for itself. That was in response to her, and others like her, with their continuous discrimination against others
stupid comment - Prolly me, but that speaks for itself.
Yeah nigga, y'know what I'm sayin? - Me, which isn't an insult directed at her, but was rather a jokingly response to her saying the word "dude" isn't limited to white people.
You're stingy mothaf'ers - Me, in response to people who've been discriminated against yet discriminate others and don't try to protect others from discrimination but rather only when it applies to themselves which includes her
Well quite a few of those listed were mine targetted at you. HOWEVER, I purposely wrote those AFTER you called me a racist when I showed not one racist comment. If someone is gonna continue to call me something I'm not, then I'm gonna start flinging that mud at their direction. Also someone of those you listed weren't bad things directed towards you, but was rather using the exact same logic as you used such as the one you selectively quoted of mine:
"I'm not racist, [<-- part you left out] I just don't want niggers drinking from the same water fountain as me." was in response to you saying [in response to what you left out -->] "I'm not discriminating, I just don't want homos to adopt children", etc.That's the exact same applied limitation with also the same little hypocritical insult added. It would have been even better though if you said faggot instead of homo though.
Perhaps African Americans should have never been put through that atrocity in the first place! No one has the right to give you civil rights...that's yours by birthright!
Exactly, which is why it's so puzzling to me why those who have gone through the same discriminations would want others to as well. Disgruntled payback, perhaps?
Funny, I'm not insulting anyone and I am giving solid facts and information, that no one seems to be able to dispute... and I am being ignored. It's much easier to sling insults then have a valid debate around here.
I like your posts. I just don't respond to them cause I don't wanna ruin any of it. EVERYONE READ KOTOKO'S POSTS!!
You really are in bed with the Baron aren't you? You keep spouting the same crap as he does.
Hey now, that was below the belt. I don't think anyone should ever be insulted in such a way, hehe.
And pedophiles, just like homosexuals, are born that way, right? Even those who have NOT done anything to a child, they still have those tendencies, right? Should we allow them to adopt children? If not, why not?
Oh god, I knew something stupid like that was gonna be said and of course it had to be Baron Max. Heck, I even addressed something like that to make sure someone wouldn't say it.
Uh, moron, the big difference is that homosexuals don't harm others whereas pedophiles do. Oh, and of course, the person to refute that statement was of course you in another thread that wanted a definition of "harm". No, the act of homosexuals don't HARM others, it's the THOUGHT that causes harm to the person which is their own fault, not the homosexuals. No different than some racist being harmed by a black and white marrying each other.
- N
