Edit Preferences
Logout
mercury613's Comments (856)
View Comments:
Sort:
1 - 25 of 856
Gay Rights and the Natural Law Farce
Commented Dec 23, 2009 at 17:58:39 in Politics
“"This is about gay marriage in the united states..."
OK. Take a look at this then:
http://en.
http://art
http://www
http://www
http://www
http://art
Five minutes of searching yielded those results.
-------------------
"… allowing women to vote wont lead to children voting? … either way, there is a clear line… one is age based discrimination, which as a society, we allow."
No, that was never used as an argument back then. Sounds ridiculous, huh? That's because it is. And it's the same logic you’re using whenever you bring up polygamy (or incest, or whatever) as a reason to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.
-------------------
“secondly im not contending allowing gays to marry will lead to polygamy. but im not completely convinced it wont either...”
So we shouldn’t allow free speech because people might engage in hate speech? No freedom of religion because dangerous cults might result? If people in polyamorous relationships want to start a movement to legalize polygamy, they will do so no matter how same-sex marriage is legalized.”
OK. Take a look at this then:
http://en.
http://art
http://www
http://www
http://www
http://art
Five minutes of searching yielded those results.
-------------------
"… allowing women to vote wont lead to children voting? … either way, there is a clear line… one is age based discrimination, which as a society, we allow."
No, that was never used as an argument back then. Sounds ridiculous, huh? That's because it is. And it's the same logic you’re using whenever you bring up polygamy (or incest, or whatever) as a reason to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.
-------------------
“secondly im not contending allowing gays to marry will lead to polygamy. but im not completely convinced it wont either...”
So we shouldn’t allow free speech because people might engage in hate speech? No freedom of religion because dangerous cults might result? If people in polyamorous relationships want to start a movement to legalize polygamy, they will do so no matter how same-sex marriage is legalized.”
Gay Rights and the Natural Law Farce
Commented Dec 23, 2009 at 13:35:29 in Politics
“Luke 12:47, 48, "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."
The fact that Jesus did not call out slavery as a great moral evil -- a concept on which today the vast majority of the world agrees -- in this instance is a clear indicator that he did not view it as evil. And this is only an example from the new testament. The old testament if rife with additional examples.
It is *you* who misrepresents.”
The fact that Jesus did not call out slavery as a great moral evil -- a concept on which today the vast majority of the world agrees -- in this instance is a clear indicator that he did not view it as evil. And this is only an example from the new testament. The old testament if rife with additional examples.
It is *you* who misrepresents.”
Gay Rights and the Natural Law Farce
Commented Dec 23, 2009 at 13:27:29 in Politics
“Because no reasonable proof exists to the contrary.”
Gay Rights and the Natural Law Farce
Commented Dec 22, 2009 at 20:25:56 in Politics
“GOPfreedSlaves: the difference here is you find it analogous to compare race discrimination to a perceived sexual orientation discrimina
---------------
There is no "perceived" in this discussion. We *do* face discrimination, all the time, all over the world, usually at the hands of religious fanatics. One only has to read about what's going on in Uganda right now for proof.
And please explain, in detail and using examples, exactly *why* it is dangerous to abolish discrimination on sexual orientation. (Without the slippery slope silliness. Allowing homosexuals to marry will not lead to polygamy and incest any more than allowing women to vote led to allowing children to vote. It's a ridiculous argument.)
We already have outlawed discrimination based on certain behaviors, namely *religion*. This is nothing new.”
---------------
There is no "perceived" in this discussion. We *do* face discrimination, all the time, all over the world, usually at the hands of religious fanatics. One only has to read about what's going on in Uganda right now for proof.
And please explain, in detail and using examples, exactly *why* it is dangerous to abolish discrimination on sexual orientation. (Without the slippery slope silliness. Allowing homosexuals to marry will not lead to polygamy and incest any more than allowing women to vote led to allowing children to vote. It's a ridiculous argument.)
We already have outlawed discrimination based on certain behaviors, namely *religion*. This is nothing new.”
Gay Rights and the Natural Law Farce
Commented Dec 22, 2009 at 17:50:43 in Politics
“It also condones slavery.”
JeremiahA replied on Dec 23, 2009 at 11:13:14
“Everyone has the freedom to reject the Bible or its teachings, but please do not misrepresent what it says by taking pieces out of context.”
Gay Rights and the Natural Law Farce
Commented Dec 22, 2009 at 17:05:13 in Politics
“GOPfreedSlaves: to say a black man can marry beyonce and i cant doesnt apply the law evenly...s
-----------
That's absolutely ridiculous. Saying that any man is free to marry any woman (discrimination based on sexual orientation) is absolutely analogous to saying that any white person is free to marry any other white person, and any black person is free to marry any other black person (discrimination based on race).
That you choose to ignore this fact does not change it.”
-----------
That's absolutely ridiculous. Saying that any man is free to marry any woman (discrimination based on sexual orientation) is absolutely analogous to saying that any white person is free to marry any other white person, and any black person is free to marry any other black person (discrimination based on race).
That you choose to ignore this fact does not change it.”
Gay Rights and the Natural Law Farce
Commented Dec 22, 2009 at 15:48:33 in Politics
“You're trying to use reason and logic with people who have relinquished their intellects in order to accept nonsensical dogma, so that they don't have to think for themselves or take responsibility for their own actions.”
Gay Rights and the Natural Law Farce
Commented Dec 22, 2009 at 15:43:45 in Politics
“I never called you a racist; I said that you are using an argument that was used by racists -- one that was debunked a long time ago. That's a fact. And back then, those racists thought they were as right as you think you are now. You can only make the statement "Discrimination based on race is not allowed in the united states" in hindsight. Back when your argument was used against interracial couples, racial discrimination was, in fact, allowed.
And please, spare me the "party that freed the slaves" nonsense. Today's Republican party bears little, if any, resemblance to the Republican party of Lincoln's time. Anyone with rudimentary knowledge of history is aware of that.”
And please, spare me the "party that freed the slaves" nonsense. Today's Republican party bears little, if any, resemblance to the Republican party of Lincoln's time. Anyone with rudimentary knowledge of history is aware of that.”
mercury613 replied on Dec 23, 2009 at 17:58:39
“"This is about gay marriage in the united states..."
OK. Take a look at this then:
http://en.
http://art
http://www
http://www
http://www
http://art
Five minutes of searching yielded those results.
-------------------
"… allowing women to vote wont lead to children voting? … either way, there is a clear line… one is age based discrimination, which as a society, we allow."
No, that was never used as an argument back then. Sounds ridiculous, huh? That's because it is. And it's the same logic you’re using whenever you bring up polygamy (or incest, or whatever) as a reason to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.
-------------------
“secondly im not contending allowing gays to marry will lead to polygamy. but im not completely convinced it wont either...”
So we shouldn’t allow free speech because people might engage in hate speech? No freedom of religion because dangerous cults might result? If people in polyamorous relationships want to start a movement to legalize polygamy, they will do so no matter how same-sex marriage is legalized.”
OK. Take a look at this then:
http://en.
http://art
http://www
http://www
http://www
http://art
Five minutes of searching yielded those results.
-------------------
"… allowing women to vote wont lead to children voting? … either way, there is a clear line… one is age based discrimination, which as a society, we allow."
No, that was never used as an argument back then. Sounds ridiculous, huh? That's because it is. And it's the same logic you’re using whenever you bring up polygamy (or incest, or whatever) as a reason to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.
-------------------
“secondly im not contending allowing gays to marry will lead to polygamy. but im not completely convinced it wont either...”
So we shouldn’t allow free speech because people might engage in hate speech? No freedom of religion because dangerous cults might result? If people in polyamorous relationships want to start a movement to legalize polygamy, they will do so no matter how same-sex marriage is legalized.”
GOPfreedSlaves replied on Dec 22, 2009 at 20:35:30
“this is about gay marriage in the united states, not uganda.
first off allowing women to vote wont lead to children voting? was this even an argument used back then? either way, there is a clear line, one is an adult, one isnt. one is age based discrimination, which as a society, we allow.
secondly im not contending allowing gays to marry will lead to polygamy. but im not completely convinced it wont either, especially if it's done through the courts. legislatively a clear line can be drawn. but if a judge were to rule a person's sexual behavior is a protected group, then why wouldnt polygamy be protected? what would the line be on acceptable sexual behavior to be protected, and what wouldnt? would it purely be consent of the individuals involved? if yes, then polygamy would be protected. if not, why not. and where is this line getting drawn?”
first off allowing women to vote wont lead to children voting? was this even an argument used back then? either way, there is a clear line, one is an adult, one isnt. one is age based discrimination, which as a society, we allow.
secondly im not contending allowing gays to marry will lead to polygamy. but im not completely convinced it wont either, especially if it's done through the courts. legislatively a clear line can be drawn. but if a judge were to rule a person's sexual behavior is a protected group, then why wouldnt polygamy be protected? what would the line be on acceptable sexual behavior to be protected, and what wouldnt? would it purely be consent of the individuals involved? if yes, then polygamy would be protected. if not, why not. and where is this line getting drawn?”
mercury613 replied on Dec 22, 2009 at 20:25:56
“GOPfreedSlaves: the difference here is you find it analogous to compare race discrimination to a perceived sexual orientation discrimina
---------------
There is no "perceived" in this discussion. We *do* face discrimination, all the time, all over the world, usually at the hands of religious fanatics. One only has to read about what's going on in Uganda right now for proof.
And please explain, in detail and using examples, exactly *why* it is dangerous to abolish discrimination on sexual orientation. (Without the slippery slope silliness. Allowing homosexuals to marry will not lead to polygamy and incest any more than allowing women to vote led to allowing children to vote. It's a ridiculous argument.)
We already have outlawed discrimination based on certain behaviors, namely *religion*. This is nothing new.”
---------------
There is no "perceived" in this discussion. We *do* face discrimination, all the time, all over the world, usually at the hands of religious fanatics. One only has to read about what's going on in Uganda right now for proof.
And please explain, in detail and using examples, exactly *why* it is dangerous to abolish discrimination on sexual orientation. (Without the slippery slope silliness. Allowing homosexuals to marry will not lead to polygamy and incest any more than allowing women to vote led to allowing children to vote. It's a ridiculous argument.)
We already have outlawed discrimination based on certain behaviors, namely *religion*. This is nothing new.”
GOPfreedSlaves replied on Dec 22, 2009 at 20:10:06
“the difference here is you find it analogous to compare race discrimination to a perceived sexual orientation discrimination. to put someone's skin color in the same protective category as a sexual behavior is not only insane, it's downright dangerous. discrimination based on behavior is something that has been practiced since the dawn of human kind. to now all of a sudden declare discrimination based on a behavior (yes it is a sexual behavior) as the same as discrimination on race opens a pandora's box. where exactly is this line getting drawn? what other sexual behaviors will be tolerated? polygamy? what else?
if you want gay marriage, pass it through congress, or state legislators. at least let society agree that a behavior can now be deemed a protected class.”
if you want gay marriage, pass it through congress, or state legislators. at least let society agree that a behavior can now be deemed a protected class.”
mercury613 replied on Dec 22, 2009 at 17:05:13
“GOPfreedSlaves: to say a black man can marry beyonce and i cant doesnt apply the law evenly...s
-----------
That's absolutely ridiculous. Saying that any man is free to marry any woman (discrimination based on sexual orientation) is absolutely analogous to saying that any white person is free to marry any other white person, and any black person is free to marry any other black person (discrimination based on race).
That you choose to ignore this fact does not change it.”
-----------
That's absolutely ridiculous. Saying that any man is free to marry any woman (discrimination based on sexual orientation) is absolutely analogous to saying that any white person is free to marry any other white person, and any black person is free to marry any other black person (discrimination based on race).
That you choose to ignore this fact does not change it.”
GOPfreedSlaves replied on Dec 22, 2009 at 16:43:20
“to say a black man can marry beyonce and i cant doesnt apply the law evenly. so if someone were to use this logic as a justification of not allowing mix race marriages, they would be wrong. the law isnt applied evenly.
saying you have to marry someone of the opposite sex does apply evenly to everyone.”
saying you have to marry someone of the opposite sex does apply evenly to everyone.”
GOPfreedSlaves replied on Dec 22, 2009 at 16:36:11
“You are wrong 3 ways:
1) The argument im using, is that the law is applied to everyone evenly. Even if racist did use it to prevent mix race marriages, the law in and of itself was racist, which is wrong. However, you are now trying to compare a racial discriminatory law, with a behaviorally discriminatory law. Discrimination based on behavior (and yes sexual behavior) is allowed in our society, and should be. The same argument you make now for gay marriages can be made for polygamy. Should that be legal? Is that a violation of civil rights?
2) Saying a blackman can marry beyonce and i cant, does NOT apply the law equally to everyone. So even if a racist were to say the law is applied evenly, it isnt and they would be misusing this argument.
3) The GOP party did free the slaves. The party was founded on 3 principals, free man, free labor, free land. the original party wanted to give government land to small business (free market over government control sounds GOP still), the wanted to expand the United States to include both coasts (imperialism is which party?), and they wanted to free the slaves. The early GOP was a protectionist group (see the tariff acts of the 1890s). The GOP is the party that freed the slaves and voted for civil rights at a far higher % than the dems. the dems party has the K.K. K. member, not us.”
1) The argument im using, is that the law is applied to everyone evenly. Even if racist did use it to prevent mix race marriages, the law in and of itself was racist, which is wrong. However, you are now trying to compare a racial discriminatory law, with a behaviorally discriminatory law. Discrimination based on behavior (and yes sexual behavior) is allowed in our society, and should be. The same argument you make now for gay marriages can be made for polygamy. Should that be legal? Is that a violation of civil rights?
2) Saying a blackman can marry beyonce and i cant, does NOT apply the law equally to everyone. So even if a racist were to say the law is applied evenly, it isnt and they would be misusing this argument.
3) The GOP party did free the slaves. The party was founded on 3 principals, free man, free labor, free land. the original party wanted to give government land to small business (free market over government control sounds GOP still), the wanted to expand the United States to include both coasts (imperialism is which party?), and they wanted to free the slaves. The early GOP was a protectionist group (see the tariff acts of the 1890s). The GOP is the party that freed the slaves and voted for civil rights at a far higher % than the dems. the dems party has the K.K. K. member, not us.”
Gay Rights and the Natural Law Farce
Commented Dec 22, 2009 at 14:37:58 in Politics
“"it is applied to every person evenly."
Please. That's called the Equal Application theory, and it was used by racists to claim that anti-miscegenation laws weren't discriminatory. It was also debunked a long time ago. Nice company you keep.”
Please. That's called the Equal Application theory, and it was used by racists to claim that anti-miscegenation laws weren't discriminatory. It was also debunked a long time ago. Nice company you keep.”
GOPfreedSlaves replied on Dec 22, 2009 at 15:28:30
“wrong. not allowing mix race couples is discriminatory. to say jay-z can marry beyonce but i cant, is racially discriminatory, and does set a different standard amongst citizens based on race. Discrimination based on race is not allowed in the united states.
in interest of full disclosure, i am in a mixed race marriage and im from the party that freed the slaves, trying to label me a racist because i dont believe every argument the left says about gay marriage is juvenile at best.”
in interest of full disclosure, i am in a mixed race marriage and im from the party that freed the slaves, trying to label me a racist because i dont believe every argument the left says about gay marriage is juvenile at best.”
Gay Rights and the Natural Law Farce
Commented Dec 22, 2009 at 10:54:51 in Politics
“If same-sex marriage affected anyone else's marriage in any way, you might have a point. But it doesn't, so you don't.”
Gay Rights and the Natural Law Farce
Commented Dec 22, 2009 at 10:47:46 in Politics
“"I have read most of the responses and Mr Franks article itself. None, including Mr. Frank seem to poses any understanding of natural law arguments to begin with."
That's because the whole thing is a sham -- phony logic and semantic acrobatics designed to disguise the fact that there's nothing there to understand in the first place.
It didn't work for you with "Intelligent Design", and it's not working with "Natural Law" either.”
That's because the whole thing is a sham -- phony logic and semantic acrobatics designed to disguise the fact that there's nothing there to understand in the first place.
It didn't work for you with "Intelligent Design", and it's not working with "Natural Law" either.”
Gay Rights and the Natural Law Farce
Commented Dec 22, 2009 at 10:39:42 in Politics
“The bible is a fictional storybook and does not apply to those of us who don't believe in it.”
JeremiahA replied on Dec 23, 2009 at 11:04:18
“How did you come to the conclusion that the Bible is fictional?”
Bobby Milford replied on Dec 22, 2009 at 12:57:05
“Absolutely correct and FANNED!”
David Kaufman's Misguided, Race-Based Rant on LGBT Rights -- and 'Homo-Toms'
Commented Dec 22, 2009 at 10:35:44 in Politics
“1) There is no comparison of same-sex marriage to white supremacy in this decision.
2) Courts have been wrong before. Many, many times.
Once again, you are misrepresenting the facts.”
2) Courts have been wrong before. Many, many times.
Once again, you are misrepresenting the facts.”
Gay Rights and the Natural Law Farce
Commented Dec 22, 2009 at 10:20:19 in Politics
“"Certain animal species eat their young!"
You mean such as how is condoned in Deuteronomy 28?”
You mean such as how is condoned in Deuteronomy 28?”
Gay Rights and the Natural Law Farce
Commented Dec 22, 2009 at 10:13:45 in Politics
““AnimalMother: “21% of lesbians die of murder..."
I see you've copied and pasted from the "Everyone Should Know these Statistics on Homosexuals" web site. Yeah, *that's* legit evidence. LOL!
Dr. E.R. Fields of Marietta, GA? That wouldn't be the same Dr. Fields that published "The Truth At Last" (formerly called "The Thunderbolt", a white supremacist paper), now, would it?
Got any other "evidence"?”
I see you've copied and pasted from the "Everyone Should Know these Statistics on Homosexuals" web site. Yeah, *that's* legit evidence. LOL!
Dr. E.R. Fields of Marietta, GA? That wouldn't be the same Dr. Fields that published "The Truth At Last" (formerly called "The Thunderbolt", a white supremacist paper), now, would it?
Got any other "evidence"?”
Gay Rights and the Natural Law Farce
Commented Dec 21, 2009 at 20:20:54 in Politics
“Thank you! Why is this so hard for some people to understand?”
Gay Rights and the Natural Law Farce
Commented Dec 21, 2009 at 20:10:24 in Politics
“AnimalMother: "21% of lesbians die of murder..."
By the way, here's the link to your esteemed Dr. Fields' publication:
http://www
By the way, here's the link to your esteemed Dr. Fields' publication:
http://www
Gay Rights and the Natural Law Farce
Commented Dec 21, 2009 at 19:19:29 in Politics
“If you're going to use procreation as the basis for granting marriage licenses, then you must deny marriage to heterosexual couples who can't or don't want to have children. By your definition, they are also "meaningless to the rest of us."”
Silas Barnaby replied on Dec 22, 2009 at 10:39:05
“We can make you a constable and you can go around investigating childless marriages!
By the way, Infertility is already grounds for divorce and in my opinion any man who gets married knowing he'll never have children is an idiot.”
By the way, Infertility is already grounds for divorce and in my opinion any man who gets married knowing he'll never have children is an idiot.”
David Kaufman's Misguided, Race-Based Rant on LGBT Rights -- and 'Homo-Toms'
Commented Dec 21, 2009 at 19:06:11 in Politics
“LOL! Here we go again: the conservative strategy of comparing anything you don't like to fascism. What's next? Claiming Hitler supported same-sex marriage?
(P.S. if you're going to cut and paste from a law journal, the least you can do is give credit.)”
(P.S. if you're going to cut and paste from a law journal, the least you can do is give credit.)”
Fitz67 replied on Dec 21, 2009 at 20:58:41
“Indeed Mercury, rather than being some far -fetched "far -right" argument - this argument was forewarded by nothing less than the deep blue very liberal and very influential New York Supreme Court in it's recent decision.
"Thus, because Perez and Loving refused to allow the marriage institution to be appropriated for nonmarriage ends, to use those two cases to advance just such an appropriative project is to betray them. In other words, the Perez/Loving argument advances a superficial analogy that masks a deep disanalogy. That disanalogy is between the intention of Perez and Loving to protect marriage from appropriation for nonmarriage purposes and the intention of the present marriage project to make such an appropriation. Thus, those who deploy the Perez/Loving argument, whether advocates or judges, are misleading people, including perhaps themselves
Hernandez, 805 N.Y.S.2d at 379–81, 381 n.3, 382
Now that type of language used by a State Supreme Court is so powerfull and blunt that (If people knew anything of the law) Its very existance in such a prominent and indeed direct case on the merits for same-sex "marriage" would (or should) give even the most ardent same-sex "marriage" enthusiast real cause for concern.
That fact that it does not shows the ideological nature of such claims for re-difineing marriage.
However such language will not be lost on the Federal or Cupreme court(s).”
"Thus, because Perez and Loving refused to allow the marriage institution to be appropriated for nonmarriage ends, to use those two cases to advance just such an appropriative project is to betray them. In other words, the Perez/Loving argument advances a superficial analogy that masks a deep disanalogy. That disanalogy is between the intention of Perez and Loving to protect marriage from appropriation for nonmarriage purposes and the intention of the present marriage project to make such an appropriation. Thus, those who deploy the Perez/Loving argument, whether advocates or judges, are misleading people, including perhaps themselves
Hernandez, 805 N.Y.S.2d at 379–81, 381 n.3, 382
Now that type of language used by a State Supreme Court is so powerfull and blunt that (If people knew anything of the law) Its very existance in such a prominent and indeed direct case on the merits for same-sex "marriage" would (or should) give even the most ardent same-sex "marriage" enthusiast real cause for concern.
That fact that it does not shows the ideological nature of such claims for re-difineing marriage.
However such language will not be lost on the Federal or Cupreme court(s).”
Gay Rights and the Natural Law Farce
Commented Dec 21, 2009 at 18:09:58 in Politics
“I don't believe in your god or your bible; thus, they are irrelevant in my life, as they are to an increasing number of people.”
Gay Rights and the Natural Law Farce
Commented Dec 21, 2009 at 17:15:37 in Politics
“But the fact remains that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with being left-handed, so there is no reason to even try to be right handed. The same thing goes with homosexuality.
You and people like Robert George can pontificate all you want on this phony "natural law" nonsense, but the *only* proof you have that homosexuality is bad is that which is contained in the bible.”
You and people like Robert George can pontificate all you want on this phony "natural law" nonsense, but the *only* proof you have that homosexuality is bad is that which is contained in the bible.”
Gay Rights and the Natural Law Farce
Commented Dec 21, 2009 at 17:06:52 in Politics
“That is merely your opinion, as you have *zero* evidence to back up your statement.”
AnimalMother replied on Dec 22, 2009 at 12:43:13
“No, actually, I found that at free republic. I wasn't aware that fields was a neo-nazi..
mercury613 replied on Dec 22, 2009 at 10:13:45
““AnimalMother: “21% of lesbians die of murder..."
I see you've copied and pasted from the "Everyone Should Know these Statistics on Homosexuals" web site. Yeah, *that's* legit evidence. LOL!
Dr. E.R. Fields of Marietta, GA? That wouldn't be the same Dr. Fields that published "The Truth At Last" (formerly called "The Thunderbolt", a white supremacist paper), now, would it?
Got any other "evidence"?”
I see you've copied and pasted from the "Everyone Should Know these Statistics on Homosexuals" web site. Yeah, *that's* legit evidence. LOL!
Dr. E.R. Fields of Marietta, GA? That wouldn't be the same Dr. Fields that published "The Truth At Last" (formerly called "The Thunderbolt", a white supremacist paper), now, would it?
Got any other "evidence"?”
mercury613 replied on Dec 21, 2009 at 20:10:24
“AnimalMother: "21% of lesbians die of murder..."
By the way, here's the link to your esteemed Dr. Fields' publication:
http://www
By the way, here's the link to your esteemed Dr. Fields' publication:
http://www
mercury613 replied on Dec 21, 2009 at 20:00:48
“AnimalMother: “21% of lesbians die of murder..."
I see you've copied and pasted from the "Everyone Should Know these Statistics on Homosexuals" web site. Yeah, *that's* legit evidence. LOL!
Dr. E.R. Fields of Marietta, GA? That wouldn't be the same Dr. Fields that published "The Truth At Last" (formerly called "The Thunderbolt", a white supremacist paper), now, would it?
By all means, keep posting links to your "evidence". It's kinda like shooting fish in a barrel. (Except that in contrast to feeling bad about shooting fish in a barrel, I'm quite enjoying this.)”
I see you've copied and pasted from the "Everyone Should Know these Statistics on Homosexuals" web site. Yeah, *that's* legit evidence. LOL!
Dr. E.R. Fields of Marietta, GA? That wouldn't be the same Dr. Fields that published "The Truth At Last" (formerly called "The Thunderbolt", a white supremacist paper), now, would it?
By all means, keep posting links to your "evidence". It's kinda like shooting fish in a barrel. (Except that in contrast to feeling bad about shooting fish in a barrel, I'm quite enjoying this.)”
AnimalMother replied on Dec 21, 2009 at 19:32:58
““21% of lesbians die of murder, suicide or traffic accident, which is at a rate of 534 times higher than the number of white heterosexual females aged 25-44 who die of these things (Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA)
Depending on the city, 39-59% of homosexuals are infected with intestinal parasites like worms, flukes and amoebae, which is common in filthy third world countries (ibid)
50% of the calls to a hotline to report "queer bashing" involved domestic violence (i.e., homosexuals beating up other homosexuals) (Newsweek, 4 October 1993)
Dr. Daniel Capron, a practicing psychiatrist, says, "Homosexuality by definition is not healthy and wholesome. The homosexual person, at best, will be unhappier and more unfulfilled than the sexually normal person" (Kaifetz, J. "Homosexual Rights Are Concern for Some," Post-Tribune, 18 December 1992)
Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States. They make up only 1-2% of the population ("Changes in Sexual Behavior and Incidence of Gonorrhea.
Depending on the city, 39-59% of homosexuals are infected with intestinal parasites like worms, flukes and amoebae, which is common in filthy third world countries (ibid)
50% of the calls to a hotline to report "queer bashing" involved domestic violence (i.e., homosexuals beating up other homosexuals) (Newsweek, 4 October 1993)
Dr. Daniel Capron, a practicing psychiatrist, says, "Homosexuality by definition is not healthy and wholesome. The homosexual person, at best, will be unhappier and more unfulfilled than the sexually normal person" (Kaifetz, J. "Homosexual Rights Are Concern for Some," Post-Tribune, 18 December 1992)
Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States. They make up only 1-2% of the population ("Changes in Sexual Behavior and Incidence of Gonorrhea.
Gay Rights and the Natural Law Farce
Commented Dec 21, 2009 at 17:05:12 in Politics
“You just revealed your true nature.”
Gay Rights and the Natural Law Farce
Commented Dec 21, 2009 at 16:04:38 in Politics
“"This is philosophically unassailab
It's very *easily* assailable. Couples who cannot (or will not) have children are allowed to marry, and one does not have to be married in order to bear children.
"it is called respectfully ...the conjucal act..."
No heterosexual couple I know has *ever* turned into a single organism from having had sexual intercourse. You are confusing the bible with biology.”
It's very *easily* assailable. Couples who cannot (or will not) have children are allowed to marry, and one does not have to be married in order to bear children.
"it is called respectfully ...the conjucal act..."
No heterosexual couple I know has *ever* turned into a single organism from having had sexual intercourse. You are confusing the bible with biology.”
dryrock replied on Dec 21, 2009 at 16:35:18
“My brother and his wife chose not to have children. They made the decision before they were married. They were not denied a license.
We all know people like this:
If you are a straight couple sans progeny, and not every sex act is for procreation - you, too, are ineligible for marriage under the procreation meme.
Lastly, historically, women have been property, marriages were arranged, and men of wealth and power has multiple wives and concubines. Charlemagne had 5 wives (some say 6) and a dozen or so concubines - so uncontroversial that the pope made him Holy Roman Emperor; or King David, anyone?), any claim that every sex act was intended to produce a child is ahistorical, for a number of reasons.
Any scholar of history knows marriage does not have the elevated history uninformed people assign to it today to defend discrimination against gay people.”
We all know people like this:
If you are a straight couple sans progeny, and not every sex act is for procreation - you, too, are ineligible for marriage under the procreation meme.
Lastly, historically, women have been property, marriages were arranged, and men of wealth and power has multiple wives and concubines. Charlemagne had 5 wives (some say 6) and a dozen or so concubines - so uncontroversial that the pope made him Holy Roman Emperor; or King David, anyone?), any claim that every sex act was intended to produce a child is ahistorical, for a number of reasons.
Any scholar of history knows marriage does not have the elevated history uninformed people assign to it today to defend discrimination against gay people.”
Gay Rights and the Natural Law Farce
Commented Dec 21, 2009 at 15:41:24 in Politics
“And you're still lost.”
MOCONSERVATIVE replied on Dec 21, 2009 at 15:46:58
“Actually, I went straight to St. Louis and had a great time. I think I might move there permanently.”
1 - 25 of 856
