Exactly. Anymore it's gay this and gay that and they're trying to ram it down everyone's throat. It's disgusting. Why do we need to know which way people perform sex? Just shut up about the gay proclivities.

And that's why "Don't ask, don't tell" should remain the rule of the military. Otherwise some jerk is going to go off like Perez Hilton did and a Rambo-type is going to break his stupid neck.

__________________
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (NASA Astronomer Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, p. 116.)

Perez's judgment is as foolish as yours. Perez asked her a political question and literally whines about getting a political answer. He is vulgar and has no class. Similarly, your attempt to turn this incident into a partisan brawl also has no class.

You miss the issue. What religious people see is a movement to redefine marriage and butt into it, frankly.

What a ridiculous over-simplification. There are NUMEROUS "groups" involved here: there are those who are ONLY gay marriage, but support CUs, those who oppose both, those who are FOR both, those who oppose gay marriage ONLY culturally and not from a legal standpoint, those who oppose it on ALL grounds, etc., etc. To IGNORE the issue that many simply disagree RATHER than prejudice is to do the whole issue as well as many people a dis-service.

Say whaaaaa??? How the heck does that prove that religious belief is not commonly the reason??? Particularly when the religious texts they hold to say things like forbidding "a man lying with a man" and so forth? Why would you NOT expect them to believe ANY gay relationship is morally wrong?

CLAFCLOW; I didn't SAY it was an issue of "contradicting". LOL!!! I JUST recognized it and JUST admitted it.

Clearly, you're gone back into argumentativeness mode again.

"Johnny hates Mary."

"What??? No, I don't have to actually PROVE that; Johnny just hates her."

That's what you don't get. To say someone is ANTI-GAY is an ACCUSATION. You're not going to be able to just get away with it without qualifying it. Then you even have the audacity to expect OTHERS to argue where it's being mis-used rather that using it with qualification to BEGIN WITH. You want to be able to accuse, but then make the accused prove how it's NOT true. Wrongo! Sorry; that's ain't how it works. [wagging finger at Foundit.]

__________________
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

You keep making illogical claims like this one...
While "I know what my opinion is" is true, the next part of "but you don't know what you consider it as" is blatantly false.
That second part would also be part of my perception. My understanding.

I can't fathom what sort of approach thinks your claim logical. I do know what I consider my opinion as.


This is false.
Furthermore, "truth" is a word YOU keep trying to interject into the conversation. It is not my word to describe the situation.


And thus Roesgen08 demonstrates a refusal to prove the claims made...

If I search for where I have said the word "right", it will give me PLENTY of meaningless examples for the ACTUAL issue you claimed. I talk about gay rights a lot.

But I have never claimed "disagreeing with me is a violation of my rights".


You think illogically.
Just because YOUR opinion is wrong does not automatically make another opinion as "truth".
If Jack has an opinion that the car should turn right, and Jill has an opinion that the car should go straight, the fact that Jack's desire would put the car in the lake does not make Jill's opinion "truth".

Furthermore, I have repeatedly explained that my OPINION is not a matter of truth. It is simply an analysis of constitutional law.
When SCOTUS rules on court cases, do you know their rulings are NOT labelled as "truth", but rather as "OPINIONS"???


Yes.
Not all forms of discrimination are illegal.
In fact, if you had ever bothered to READ a SCOTUS ruling on discrimination, there are tests which allow a judge to determine whether a discrimination is constitutionally valid or not.



You obviously don't know what an ANALOGY is.
Furthermore, I never claimed YOU said that.
That much should be obvious when I stated: "Suppose somebody wrote ..."
I did not say "Roesgen08 wrote ..."


QUOTE what I have actually misrepresented.


No. I am not "grappling" with anything.
If you read and understood what I said, I clearly stated that qualifications/discrimination against rights CAN LEGALLY EXIST IF and ONLY IF there is a legitimate state interest for such qualifications/discrimination existing.


Read Loving v Virginia.
The case clearly established that a state desired restriction on marriage (what you would call a "qualification") REQUIRED a legitimate state interest for existing.
Furthermore, it REJECTED the state's claim to a legitimate state interest, REMOVING the "qualification" from the law books.


If you could actually THINK about it, "democracy" alone is obviously NOT a legitimate state interest.
If it were, EVERY VOTED MEASURE of discrimination (like Jim Crow laws, miscegenation laws, segregation laws) would AUTOMATICALLY SURVIVE 14th amendment requirements.

The fact that I can EASILY point to these issues that SCOTUS REJECTED "democraticly elected laws" PROVES that democracy is not sufficient.

By your approach, it's two lions and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.



HOW do you think the government could possibly treat our two "beliefs" as "equal" when we both want the government to do different things.
Obviously the government CANNOT treat both beliefs "equally".

Furthermore, the government CANNOT treat our beliefs "equally" because it is BOUND BY THE CONSTITUTION which requires it observe EQUAL PROTECTION.
You want to ignore equal protection out of a desire for democratic discrimination.
It can't do that. Constitution won't allow it.


I admit you use talking points.
I admit you are acting hypocritically in accusing me of using talking points.

(When I talk about "YOUR CRITICISM" being "me using talking points", that is not me agreeing... )


No. That was my retort.
Frequently, you complain about your "democratic" rights losing out.
You refuse to recognize that if your "democratic" rights win out, my marriage rights lose.

You do this by disregarding my marriage rights and claiming they don't exist.
What you fail to recognize is that YOU HAVE NO RIGHT to vote discrimination against me without a legitimate state interest.

Please don't claim I "have no retort". It's glaringly false.


Rather than point out your error, I'm just going to rephrase your words since they apply just as well to you...
You made a false assumption, namely that I believe two rights are competing with each other (gay rights vs democracy). You have no right to discriminate against my rights without a legitimate state interest, so for me there is no conflict.


My reply was an analogy.
I have NO idea what you think your reply means...


Quite frankly, what you did was akin to saying "Jack didn't like his house. He bought gasoline. He poured gasoline in his living room, bedroom, and kitchen. He threw lit matches into the living room, bedroom, and kitchen which caused the house to burn down. The fire chief found out what Jack did and arrested him for arson.
Sine Jack had a bad idea, so is implementing democratic vote against people's rights without a legitimate state interest..."



That is blatantly false.
You call gays degenerate, and I did nothing against you.
Furthermore, you claim offense where none is present.


I never claimed you were tuned out.
I said: "RG, in your short posting time you have had a quick assembly of people identify you as a troll.
I challenge you to show me another poster who has identified me as a troll."

Furthermore, you have refused YET ANOTHER challenge.
I challenged you to show me another poster who has identified me as a troll.

You can't do it.


Quote and Link to that supposed list.
Post the names of those "5 people".

Let me guess. ANOTHER challenge you will refuse...
You need to just STOP making up junk.


That is patently dishonest.


False.
I have stated other people have identified you as a troll.
That isn't me calling you a troll.


This is an example of you claiming offense where none is present.
Not pitying another person is not something to take offense at.

Does the fact that I don't pity you somehow mean I am insulting myself?



This is also false.
I have not lied to you.


I am not rude to you.
And as for your last claim, when YOU PICKED THE FIGHT I am not going to criticize another person for employing your tactics back at you.

You get the respect you give...


I thought you claimed that you would lose "freedom of belief" if gay marriage was allowed.
Wait. Silly me.
You DROPPED that argument after I proved it grotesquely inaccurate.


That is grotesquely inaccurate.
You just called me a liar.
You have called gays "degenerate".
You quite frequently ARE "motivated to insult".


Where did he do that?

Regardless, you are once again CHANGING THE SUBJECT.
I am talking about people commenting on YOU. Not 'your comments'.

I repeat:
There has been one anti-gay marriage poster (jyoshu) to comment on you, and it was negative.
You responded by calling him an #####.
This is a factual account that you continue to fail to show inaccurate.

You called it a "lie", which is false.


QUOTE ME.
Your claims are repeatedly false, and when challenged you fail to respond to the ACTUAL challenge.


Marriage is a right for all people, as declared by the constitution.
That is not an issue of "truth". Other people can believe marriage is NOT a right.

But what you fail to realize is that when the government works off of legislation and the constitution, it is NOT ABOUT TRUTH.

YOU keep trying to insert that word, yet you fail to recognize when I tell you that my position is NOT about "truth".


Your claim is absurd.
While the presence of gay marriage being legal may "influence" children in some menial way, it does NOT "damage the right of people to believe what they wish".
Again, show me ANYBODY in Massachusetts (a state with legal gay marriage) that can't believe as they wish...


The government law not coinciding with popular belief IS NOT an infringement upon beliefs.
It IS NOT telling people's families that their beliefs are wrong.

The United States has freedom of religion. We are free (and protected) to believe anything we want.
But Christianity's FIRST COMMANDMENT says there is only one religion and one god that can be worshipped.
Obviously, the United States LAW is in violation with the first commandment (by your approach).
Ergo, by your way of thinking, this creates an "infringement on the beliefs of people's families"...

You struggle to claim a victimization cause you can't victimize others.


You refuse to quote what I have said that is supposedly insulting and/or "rude attitude".
AGAIN you refuse to substantiate your claims.
It's a recurring theme with you.


Prove that I do what you claim.
You can't.

In fact, if you knew anything about me you would know that I have a clear definition for "bigotry", and mere disagreement does not suffice.


This is absurdly false.
Anybody who has seen me post on this board has seen I find child molestation repugnant.

You are simply trying to insult with such baseless accusations.


So let's get this straight.
You ACCUSED me of calling Jyoshu a bigot WITH NO EVIDENCE to your claim.
AT least you admit you've done that ONCE so far.
Unfortunately, there are DOZENS MORE times you should admit to such behavior, but you won't.



If you look at the marriage rights and responsibilities, such a claim is nonsensical.
Furthermore, you cannot marry something that cannot consent.


There are multiple reasons for the laws against polygamy, one of which is how it diminishes the marital rights of marriage inhabitants.


And that's another insult.
You claim to insult me for me insulting you, yet you refuse to show ANY SINGLE INSULT I have given you...


ROFLMAO!
I swear. I wish I could get a moratorium on you claiming that something I did was "implied"...
Again, you being wrong does NOT automatically make me right.
NOR does it mean I am right just because I said I was right.


What's funny is that I have already explained this to you, and you gave some menial obfuscation that involved renaming "discrimination" as "qualification".

Maybe you can explain what YOU THINK is the difference between a "discrimination" and a "qualification".
Let me guess. Another challenge you refuse???


Is that true just cause you say it's true?
Or can you explain WHY analogies are "weak arguments.


Nothing anybody could say against you would be a "win" in your book.
You would insult people and insult gays, claiming other people are insulting you, and sweepingly declare other people as being not worth your time.

The thing with analogies is that if it is invalid, a person can EXPLAIN WHY it is invalid.
Here, all you did was CLAIM that analogies are "a weak argument" and you did nothing else.


What's really funny is that you have been responding to me all over the place.
I challenged you to QUOTE AN INSULT, and you can't do it.
That proves something about your claim...

__________________
"Speak up; for he that withholds his opinion shall inherit the winds of tyranny"
*** www.politicalwrinkles.com
"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
*** Jamie Raskin

Hi Roesgen08, It's time I officially welcomed you to the forum. But what is it about the questions rider asked which you find so partisan or offensive? Wasn't Perez's tirade against that contestant misogynistic and hateful, based on her giving an honest answer to a political question? And isn't it a fair question to ask where the outrage of the women's groups is?

I just want to say that I have enjoyed your posts and the arguments you have made in general, but find this criticism of Easyrider lacking in merit.

__________________
If god made human from dirt, how come there are still dirt around? ~ [obvious_child]

You know what, Archie is right. Evolution is a total scam. ~ [obvious_child]

If the universe were not as it is, it would be different. ~ [Penfold]

A great civilization is not conquered from without, until it destroys itself from within. ~ Durant

What the heck does the "gay pride movement" have to do with ANY of that junk?

I think you just justified me using "Roesgen08" as a way to summarize the entire "anti-gay marriage" movement...
Let me guess. If I did THAT, you would object???

__________________
"Speak up; for he that withholds his opinion shall inherit the winds of tyranny"
*** www.politicalwrinkles.com
"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
*** Jamie Raskin

Well I don't know ... does Roesgen08 have anywhere in even the same ballpark of clout in that movement that Perez Hilton does in yours? I doubt it.

__________________
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

And anti-black people didn't see the "black civil rights movement" as a means to invade their segregated territory???



Fine.
Name some.
Name some anti-gay marriage groups that "support CUs"...

Pony up and substantiate your claim.


Me summing up two groups is not claiming other groups don't exist.

By your logic, anybody who talked about the black civil rights movement and those that opposed it would be "over-simplifying" cause < insert all sorts of group positions here >.



If you would stop and think, I TYPICALLY ARGUE that "religious belief is commonly the reason".
Ergo, I was NOT arguing against that.

I am talking about the SECOND part of your claim: "view can't allow for marriage outside of being between one man and one woman"
I put forth that their opposition is MORE ACCURATELY recognized as opposition against GAYS, and "marriage only man + woman" is just an excuse to that ends.

If the MAJORITY opposition to gay marriage was JUST about "marriage only man + woman" with NO additional anti-gay elements, then they would easily have no problem with civil unions.
But as I pointed out, the MAJORITY of people who are against gay marriage ALSO oppose civil unions. Pointing to the fact that there opposition has MORE to do with gays than just "marriage only man + woman".



You are not listening. Read the SECOND SENTENCE which states what the issue ACTUALLY IS here...

It's not an issue of CONTRADICTING that gays are discriminated against as much as it is RECOGNIZING and ADMITTING that fact where relevant and pertinent. Like earlier in this post, where you concentrate on "just disagree" when there is a much larger issue at stake.

It's like saying that the Jews and Nazis "just disagree", ignoring the LARGER ISSUE that overwhelms simplistic observations on "just disagree".
The ISSUE that they disagreed on is more important to note.
If somebody assessed history and claimed "Jews and Nazis disagreed", that would be an incredible over-simplification!


Yeah. And when the Jews said the Nazis were "anti-gay", that was ALSO an accusation.

This gets back to my earlier request which I made of you.

I put forth this challenge: "What ACTUAL INSTANCE of "anti-gay" was seen that was treated one way, where you think it should have been treated differently? Frankly, I talk about a lot of the dregs of the issue. People who want to discriminate against gays in the worst ways. People who want to MALIGN gays, and often get paid to do it."

And you replied by giving me JAKE'S assessment...

If you have a problem with Jake's "accusation", then TAKE IT UP WITH HIM!
When I talk about people being anti-gay, you should be able to recognize by now that it is typically one of the following:
a) somebody espousing discrimination against gays,
b) somebody maligning gays with slurs.

My "accusations" are pretty straight-forward, as the PROOF ITSELF is provided in the THREAD that the accusation is made.
Sally Kerns? ANTI-GAY!
Do you need me to explain that one???

Allowing straight marriage to provide for U.S. citizenship, while gays have no option (marriage or civil union). ANTI-GAY.
Do you need me to explain that one???

If you refuse to give me an example THAT I DID, then don't complain to me about ponying up on my accusations.
Understand?



I can't believe you can't recognize that goes hand in hand.
You DEMAND others provide reasoning for assessment of "anti-gay" (or some hair splitting definition thereof), and then you REFUSE to show ANY ISSUE WHERE YOU DISPUTE these assessments in the past???


You know Jyoshu, maybe I should revive that "Religious" thread where you whined about Christianity being a popular victim of "anti-Christian" methods, and demand YOU provide a definition...

Or better yet, how about YOU provide a definition of "anti-gay"...



Wow.
Just WOW!

This gets back to my earlier challenge.
I will HAPPILY PROVE IT TRUE FOR EVERY TIME I have made that accusation.

THAT WAS PART OF THE POINT of my earlier challenge Jyoshu.

__________________
"Speak up; for he that withholds his opinion shall inherit the winds of tyranny"
*** www.politicalwrinkles.com
"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
*** Jamie Raskin

I welcome you to show how Perez Hilton has ANY clout in the "gay rights" movement...

I have no idea why people listen to Perez. He strikes me as a glorified troll.
His criticism of Miss America being an absolute PREMIUM example!
Calling the lady names???

He appeals to people who like the gossip and the claws of name-calling.

__________________
"Speak up; for he that withholds his opinion shall inherit the winds of tyranny"
*** www.politicalwrinkles.com
"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
*** Jamie Raskin

Nope. I didn't say that at all. I said humans are extremely social, and that's why we want acceptance for who we are, whether we identify as gay or straight.

Ha, ha! We're both trying to influence. I've never denied trying to influence. I'm talking about equality under the law. Having the right to same-sex marriage, doesn't mean you must personally accept it into your life, by having one. HOwever, saying I can't have one, is affecting the way I live.

You haven't made one yet. Calling me dishonest, and leaving it at that, isn't an argument.

I'd like to debate something of substance. You want to play semantic word games. No one is buying the junk you're peddling, so why don't you get lost?

Well, the government provides marraige. It makes sense that I'd want to influence it to accept equal marriage for same-sex couples, and you would want to influence it to not accept it. Trying to have what others have is not externalizing.

Maybe you should get a dictionary, and look up the words homosexuality and pedophilia. These are not the same things. The fact that you'd suggest this proves your ignorance and homophobia. It's a standard tactic of bigots to say a group they hate are a danger to those deemed vulnerable in society. Blood Libel myth has been used for centuries to suggest that Jews are a danger to Christian children. White racists in the U.S. southern states, thought or some still think, that black men are a threat to white women.

And why isn't heterosexual marriage an attempt by straight men to get closer to children? We know of men in heterosexual marriages, molest their daughters. This is very prevelent. Surely it implies a connection between heterosexuality and pedophilia. No? Do you know, that it's relatively recent that women have been allowed to refuse sex to their husbands? In Afghanistan they won't be able to do this. A study I posted in the Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing the Myths, showed that over 40% of straight men have thought of raping a woman. For the record, I am being facetious, and don't really believe this.

Becaue they teach about heterosexuality. Go back and read what I said, unless you have a comprehension problem. I was saying let teaching occur about both. Let that teaching be accurate. People already know about these things. Gays exist, just like straight people exist.

Ahhh...so profound-or not. What lesson would you like to be taught about homosexuality? People are going to know about it, and will be asking questions.

Okay, I agree. We're getting somewhere now.

That's a nice try. But there are good reasons to oppose Heroic Stalin day. Stalin did a lot of horrible things, we as a Constitutional democracy, a free society, with a Charter of Rights, cannot celebrate or endorse.

I prefer my children slow-roasted on a spit, thank you. To talk seriously about a serious matter, that's a very ignorant piece of propaganda on your part. My choice of perversion is Men's Workout magazine. There are definitely no kiddies there. It's all MEN!

That's obviously the opposite of what I said. But, I'll allow you a bit of leeway here. Perhaps you were confused by the way I said they have homosexuality or heterosexuality as their fundamental sexuality. I wasn't saying it's all the same or should be treated the same. I just meant that homosexuality and heterosexuality are themselves fundamental to the way one expresses one's self as a sexual human being. The paraphilias may not be. If a person represses his homosexuality or heterosexuality, that person totally represses themselves as a sexual human being. Even if pedophila could be proven just as fundamental, it is still harmful, and that need to be considered. I'll concede I could have been clearer on that point.

I don't appreciate being accused of wanting to molest children. Talk about a heinous attack! Naturally, it affects my personal life, and my status in society.

It's not all about sex acts, even if that's your personal issue(I don't know for sure). We discuss sex between a man and a man. There's nothing wrong with teaching that men and men have sex. It's important to teach about things like disease, relationships, just as they do with heterosexual sex. It's no more promoting for homosexuality than it is for heterosexuality. It's about providing accurate, unbiased, education.

Canada is kind of similar. Equal marriage for same-sex couples was decided on the provincial level. Then the federal government enacted legislation, when enough provinces had passed laws(actually just complied with legislation after court rulings). But popular votes on these issues are not allowed here. I realize that balance of power, that allows for free popular votes exists in the U.S. Marriage is a social and a civil issue.

Yeah, and your clout would be similar to Bo, Obama's new dog, since foundit has you trained so well.

You keep considering your opinion as fact, and repeating what I say to you like a parrot. Approaches don't think, so an approach can't think anything is logical. Given that you show no logic, by your thinking that your opinion is fact and you inability to little more than make strawman arguments, it is no surprise that you have reached the limit of what you can fathom.

Actually, you were the one who interjected the word truth, I just showed your hypocrisy in how you were doing exactly what you were accusing me of.

Thus foundit demonstrates he does not understand what he reads.

You believe that disagreeing with you is a violation of your rights.

You think illogically and you debate dishonestly. You copy my identification in the lack of your logic and repeat it back to me like a parrot would do. The fact that you would label an OPINION to be "wrong" shows that you do consider your opinion to be the truth. Unless someone's opinion is an opinion on the quantity, degree or details of a fact, then an opinion cannot be right or wrong.

You opinion is just an opinion, not the truth, nor a fact, nor right, just an opinion.

What you are doing now is another dirty debate trick called "weasel word." I am talking about opinion in the most common meaning of the word. You are now trying to disprove what I'm saying about your opinions by using a different definition of the word.

OK, then gays not being eligible for gay marriage is also a legal form of discrimination (as you use the term).

WRT SCOTUS rulings, it's too bad that you apparently didn't understand what you were reading, since you obviously can only say that the SCOTUS has tests, and you fail to actually show that there any of these tests prove your point.

You're obviously lying again and attacking me personally, since you are incapable of mustering an argument based on logic, law or principle. Analogies are not proof.

I have pointed out your misrepresentations of my argument every step along the way. If your reading comprehension is too feeble to see that and you will not invest the effort to read it when I point it out for you, then that is your problem.

Again, you accuse me of the failing that you had. You said that I used the foundation of an argument to avoid its superstructure. That makes absolutely no sense. You criticized me for bringing up qualifications to ignore that (according to you) qualifications are discriminatory. That's basically like saying that you brought up X, so that you could avoid X then Y. You can't discuss X then Y without first bringing up X. Again demonstrating your failure to use logic.

The opinion Loving V Virginia rejected miscegenation laws due to a violation of the 14th Amendment. I saw no mention of state interest.

If your ability to form intelligent thoughts was just half of your over-confidence, you would not rush to such over-simplified conclusions. Democracy is a state's interest. You imply that democracy must always come into conflict with the Constitution. It does not. Do I really have to break that down for you?

It treats our two beliefs as equal by assigning each of our beliefs one vote, which is then used in a popular referendum. That is treating beliefs equally. All beliefs that are constitutional have an equal chance at the ballot box.

You continue to lie because I do not agree with your gay marriage talking points. Here again, you conflate your opinion with facts. You also enable that with bad assumptions. It is your opinion that democracy must conflict with the Constitution. It does not. We regularly pass laws, we regularly have elections, we regularly create new policies. None of that would be possible if your belief of the irreconcilability of democracy and the Constitution were true.

You use talking points, you hypocritically accuse me of making the mistakes in method that you make, and you childishly repeat back to me what I have just told to you.

There is no retort for your mistaken assumption as to what I was arguing. You can either admit that you used a strawman tactic to say that I believe that gay marriage is a right, or you can be dishonest about it by not admitting your mistake and talking about a different disagreement we have. You have chosen the latter course.

You also state your opinion as facts by saying that I must "recognize" your opinion as a fact.

Your rephrasing of my words to describe what you believe is false. You have said that you believe gay rights and democracy are competing with each other, so for you to say that "You made a false assumption, namely that I believe two rights are competing with each other (gay rights vs democracy)" is false. You are saying that you did not argue what you are arguing. I think you proved your disavowal of logic again.

Analogies are not logical propositions on the subject. Anyone can make an analogy about anything. It has no value for determining truth. You have no idea what my reply means because you merely repeat talking points rather than logically thinking about if your methods in any way prove your conclusions.

Exactly. Again, if you actually could see one inch past your nose, you would see that not only does my little historical reference make no sense, it's just as irrelevant to the topic as yours.

You substitute your opinion for facts again. I made a number of inflammatory remarks about gays after such remarks were made about me. I even provided you a link with all of the personal attacks made by Jason. Your claim that no offense was present proves how I said that you are not capable of objective debate on this subject because you need gay marriage to be accepted so that you can sustain your self-esteem. You need this thing to break your way so desperately that you cannot be objective about it.

Actually you did claim people had tuned me out: "It isn't me that people have tuned out..." post #204

You're lying again. I didn't refuse your request, and it's a request not a challenge. I didn't see your request, as it is was packaged among some of your less intelligent remarks. I deny your request. I have no interest in reading any more of your posts than I have to. They have less intellectual content than a TV guide. Your behavior on this thread is trollish. That is sufficient.

Go and find it yourself. Your so-called "challenges" are stupid and thus they are the perfect job for you and you alone. You lie when you say I made stuff up. You chronically lie in discussions on gays.

It's painfully true, Mr. Chairman.

You have stated one fool calling me a troll. That is you calling me a troll.

Perhaps, the topic is too dumb to warrant further attention. Indulge yourself.

You have lied repeatedly.

Again, you employ your standards (and when I use that word, understand that having no standards is also a standard) selectively. When I mount reprisals, you take offense. When others mount reprisals, then you say that reprisals are acceptable if they are reciprocal. Again, you are not capable of being objective or showing any class.

You use strawman tactics again. The fact that people will lose some freedom of belief will not ruin my life (as having the government not assist you, would ruin yours). The fact that I would be fine does not mean that I dropped any arguments.

It is totally accurate. You continue to tell lies, make personal attacks and behave rudely. You employ filter out insults made by other Westboro bigots when discussing insults. You and your boys are motivated to insult since this issue is everything to you.

Find it yourself. You are quite bold in asserting your laziness and incompetence in observing a thread that you speak authoritatively on, but that does not mean I will comply.

I did not change the subject, you are making more personal attacks.

You - your comments, you are mincing words to dodge how you lied by omission.

You feign ignorance as to your own comments. I will not waste time quoting what you pretend to not know. You continually lie and your childish challenges merely show your inability to defend your opinions on this subject.

Again, you demonstrate considerable idiocy, failing to see that my use of the "truth" concept is the same as your use of the concept on me. Since you are merely regurgitating talking points, you fail to see that you are debunking your own argument.

Your claim is disingenuous. You either would like to see children influenced to accept gay marriage or you do not care. That does not make the matter less important. Many parents want their children to have their values. By having the state call domestic partnerships "marriage" it affects the beliefs of children against their parents wishes and without even their input through a vote.

Your comment on Massachusetts is another strawman argument.

That's exactly what it is.

The First Commandment governs individuals, not societies. An individual can follow the First Commandment with our Constitution. There is no conflict there.

You claim victimization so you CAN victimize others.

You dishonestly act rudely and then pretend that you are not. You ask me to waste my time proving to you, that which you know. Your dishonesty knows no bounds.

You first. You can't.

Prove it.

Yep, no doubt. Too bad you don't see the pattern of attack, counterattack. If your IQ was half the size of your ego you'd see it.

No, I believe you are lying again. I believe that I asked you, if I looked would I find you calling Jyoshu a bigot. In any case, prove that I accused you with no evidence to back my claim.

Again, WRT dozens of more times, you are merely lying again.

Provide proof.

Elaborate.

If you cannot see your own insults, then you are incredibly dishonest or incredibly deluded. Either way, that's your problem, not mine.

I wish I could get a moratorium on your dishonesty, strawman arguments, positing your opinion as facts and you accusing me of what you do. We can all dream.

Well that's you substituting your opinion for facts again, saying that qualification = discrimination.

Provide proof of your explanation.

As for you so-called challenge, it's not a challenge and I refuse, since you demonstrate your emotional instability by making a smarmy remark after your request. Maybe if I don't answer, it might upset you a bit more.

That is your methodology. Sure I can explain why analogies are weak arguments. I already did. Either you have a short memory or you did not read my explanation. I am sure you will also ask me to compensate for your problems as well as your sloth by asking me to go back and repeat the comments for you. You can do that yourself.

Well that's your dishonest assertion. You on the otherhand would just state that you are right and others are wrong. You would also misrepresent the other person's argument provide an analogy which proves nothing, throw in some insults and demonstrate a lack of class with rude remarks for good measure.

Sure they can. Actually, if you were literate you would see that I mentioned to you that I could make up any old analogy as well, which shows how worthless an analogy is, since you can just make up any random analogy.

It proves that you make insults and behave with little class, and then disavow knowledge of your behavior. This proves something about you and your claims: you are tiresome and there is no substance or logic to back up your opinions.

Hi Archangel. Nice to meet you. Thanks for the support. I appreciate that.

IMO, Perez's comments were very wrong. I think he deliberately targeted that girl because of her views and was therefore expressing his intolerance of conservative and moderate social issues. He then asked her a political question and then whined when he got a political answer. His conduct was disgraceful and one could even say it was anti-democratic, in that he opposed freedom of belief and expression.

As for my response to Easyrider, it seems that he was just looking for anything to bash Democrats with. His post made me think that in general, that he is just looking for any opportunity to just to blast Democrats, regardless of whether the event is even relevant to the Democrats. He saw a random event and said to himself hey, how can I use this to bash the Dems? I know, I can use it to bash MSNBC! They're liberal.

Secondly, I watched the video and found his comments to make no sense. Why would someone from MSNBC have to "distance" themselves from Hilton, as Easyrider claims? Is that due to an irrational identification of MSNBC with anything that goes wrong in the world? Secondly, the anchor (Norrah O'Donnell) did appear disgusted by Hilton's behavior. It was a little hard to see, but I think I saw it in her facial expression. So thus, Easyrider's partisan attack was baseless.

We'll have to disagree on that then. I maintain that you implied that I was opposed to the notion that humans are extremely social.

What you are saying is like me saying that the government not giving me $10,000 is affecting the way I live. True enough, but I'm not owed that money from the government. Neither are you owed the description of your union as "marriage" from the government.

Actually, I have and it's dishonest of you to deny that.

You don't want to debate, otherwise you would show some honesty. In any case, I'm glad you've taken my words to heart so now act on them and get lost.

So what you're saying is that you would like to get gay marriage in order to find some kids and bring them into some kind of relationship that is currently illegal?

No, I understood what you said the first time, though perhaps you were doing some drugs and cannot actually address what I said.

What lesson would I like to be taught about homosexuality? Hmmmm.....how often do you get beat up?

Still, Heroic Stalin day does not affect you, so then we should celebrate that. It's the same logic as the justification of gay marriage. Doesn't affect you, so it's all good.

So they don't have laws against pedophilia in your country?

Roesgen, at this stage, you keep saying some things over and over and over again which are not part of any argument, but part of your repeated summary that still remains unsubstantiated.
When challenged for substantiation, you habitually refuse / fail.
For brevity sake, I am cutting out all the junk I have previously refuted which you have no response to other than to insist how bad I am and how dishonest I am...

I was obviously saying that I don't understand how you could think your reply was meaningful.
Evidently you didn't get that, and instead I get this inane "approaches don't think" reply...


Quote me.
Show where I claimed my opinion was truth BEFORE you started claiming that I was saying my opinion was truth.
You can't.


This is ridiculously illogical.
I WROTE the items in question. You are claiming that I am saying "disagreeing with me is a violation of my rights", and then criticizing my comprehension when I tell you that I never said that???



That is utterly absurd.
If John has an opinion that Mark is guilty of murder, that can obviously be wrong.
I have repeatedly explained that I do not consider my opinion to be "truth", so your replies are just fruitlessly denying the obvious.


Much like you trying to say that the "discrimination" should be labeled as "qualification"...



Which brings me back to the logical thought process I have already laid out.
First you didn't know marriage was a right.
NOW you finally learned that SCOTUS has tests for evaluating rights.
Do you need me to repeat the next thing in my LOGICAL explanation of gay marriage rights?


They can be. They can help show the flaw in logic.
It is amusing that you criticize me on the subject of "logic", yet you fail to recognize such a fundamental aspect of logic as the use of analogies.


You have claimed "misrepresentation", and then misstated what I have EXPLICITLY told you I was not saying.


Your claim of what I said is false and makes no sense.


As is the recurring problem here, your summary of what I said is ridiculously fallacious.
Furthermore, I laugh at you USING AN ANALOGY (That's basically like saying ...) to refute me, just a few sentences after you insist analogies are not proof....

The TRUE analogy here is that you looked at X, said it was Y, and then insisted that my classification was wrong because you renamed it Y.
But the truth is that you haven't refuted the actual classification of X at all by giving it another name.


It didn't use that exact phrase, but it was there...
"In Naim, the state court concluded that the State's legitimate purposes were "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens," and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and "the obliteration of racial pride," obviously an endorsement of the doctrine of White Supremacy."

"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification."


Again, you fail at reading comprehension.
Typically, any time you say "you imply", what follows is something I AM NOT saying.
I am saying that democracy CAN come into conflict with the constitution. When democracy DOES come into conflict with the constitution, democracy loses.


That is summarily false.


I state my opinion which REFLECTS COURT RULINGS and INTERPRETATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION.


This is more of your fallacious interpretation.
It is my opinion that democracy CAN conflict with the constitution.
When courts look at VOTED LAWS and determine them unconstitutional, and thus REJECT the laws, THAT is the mechanism I am talking about.

You illogically take me talking about what CAN happen, and unintelligibly think I mean it ALWAYS happens.


Again, you fail at reading comprehension.
I never said that you believe gay marriage is a right.
I said: "You refuse to recognize that if your "democratic" rights win out, my marriage rights lose."

If John refuses to recognize Mary as his sister, stating that does not mean that John believes Mary is his sister.


There you go again. You. Talking about truth.
NOT me...


Another sign your reading comprehension is deficient.
So you seek to rephrase how I have assessed things, which doesn't actually contradict my assessment, and you formally refuse and/or deny my request...



I am challenging you to prove your claim.
The challenge is no more "stupid" than what you claim in the first place.

Furthermore, this last one is easy to do.
4Forums.com Political Debates and Polls - Search Results
If you go to the board search, you can find all instances where user "foundit66" posted the word "bigot".
Four uses since January.
Two in this thread, where I replied to YOU USING the word. I didn't have any list of five bigots.
One reply to Easyrider talking about bigots.
The final one over two weeks ago in a thread talking about a nurse student who was fired for being gay.

Your claim is proven false!



I leave it up to the viewing audience to judge the absurdity of that claim.


I never claimed it would ruin your life.
You confuse your already proven false opinion with "fact".


When you stopped responding to that issue, THAT is how you "dropped" the argument.


And again, Roesgen08 makes claims but refuses to substantiate them...


And again, Roesgen08 makes claims but refuses to substantiate them...


Except I have not used the concept of "truth" on you...


It is completely unimportant.
We have no "right" to be free from influence in this country.

And the children may very well have the parents' values. That is up to the children to decide, and parents do not have a right to demand reality bend to exclude anything they don't want to see.


Either marriage denies people's beliefs, and we can find examples of that occurring where gay marriage exists, or your assessment is false.
There is no "strawman" here. Simply a test to prove your claim invalid.


Gay marriage no more "governs" individuals or society than the first commandment does.
Again, you fail to recognize the logic of an analogy.



Of course I can't prove your inaccurate claim.
I never claimed I could prove your inaccurate claim.


You want me to prove I have a definition of bigotry that contradicts your false claims as to what I believe???

My definition of bigotry extends to people who want to discriminate against another group.


Your replies are nonsensical.
You want me to prove you can't marry a plant?


I frequently give reasons and logic, and you ignore it.
Here, I just gave you one example of the reasons, and you ignored it.
"Elaboration" would be a waste of my time...


I have already explained this.
You refused to address my explanation.

Furthermore, it is obvious that you are simply "parrotting" "proof!" "proof!" as retaliation cause you can't provide ANY evidence to believe your MANY claims.


You didn't explain squat. You claimed it was not proof, and gave no further explanation.


People can make up analogies, but are they GOOD analogies.
Do they accurately portray the important aspects of the situation for logical evaluation?

By a similar lack of logic as you just portrayed, the capability to form "any old" response demonstrates that responses cannot be used.

__________________
"Speak up; for he that withholds his opinion shall inherit the winds of tyranny"
*** www.politicalwrinkles.com
"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
*** Jamie Raskin