fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
And it appears you like to have the last word, much like a woman. I'd rather be me.
"Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It's Bad"?!
- Thread starter shagdrum
- Start date
squidnomore
LVC Member
Nothing has been "discredited". An opinion has been stated. There is no "proof" either way, only statistics and actual nature. "Groundless spin"? No, it's actual reality, not fabricated harping.
"make specific, disprovable arguments" Huh? That's against the point isn't it? If it was "disprovable" then why state it? Opinions are one thing, reality is another.
More will oppose in writing or public things that in private they will download/enjoy.
"make specific, disprovable arguments" Huh? That's against the point isn't it? If it was "disprovable" then why state it? Opinions are one thing, reality is another.
More will oppose in writing or public things that in private they will download/enjoy.
squidnomore
LVC Member
It has not been discredited. If it had, there wouldn't be any discussion here or elsewhere. An differing opinion has been offered. Nothing more.
Do you wish to make love to someone of your own sex? Are you opposed to it due to religion/law, or because it doesn't excite you? So for another of the same sex to want to be with the same sex you say is just a decision they make, as with what they will have for dinner? Oy.
"Weather or not there is actual hypocrisy"? What rock are you living under? Look around. Google the Girls Gone Wild Videos, Penthouse, or the scores of mainstream (not to mention fetish) movies (adult or otherwise). Women together is hot and sells. And it's homosexual, yet approved. Even though some women find it nauseating, an overwhelming majority of men don't if the gals are good looking.
Do you wish to make love to someone of your own sex? Are you opposed to it due to religion/law, or because it doesn't excite you? So for another of the same sex to want to be with the same sex you say is just a decision they make, as with what they will have for dinner? Oy.
"Weather or not there is actual hypocrisy"? What rock are you living under? Look around. Google the Girls Gone Wild Videos, Penthouse, or the scores of mainstream (not to mention fetish) movies (adult or otherwise). Women together is hot and sells. And it's homosexual, yet approved. Even though some women find it nauseating, an overwhelming majority of men don't if the gals are good looking.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
And your point is that because Girls Gone Wild is a big seller, gay marriage should be sanctioned by the government? Wow, talk about a non sequitur. You win first prize in the "Most Logically Flawed Argument Contest."
Let us know if you're going to actually construct an argument. Otherwise I can just skim past your posts since they're nothing but "differiing opinions, nothing more."
You don't know the first thing about constructing a valid argument do you...
In order to make a logically valid argument in any case, on any issue is has be framed in such a way that it is possible for the argument to be disproven, especially if the "facts" cited supporting it are wrong or in doubt. Your arguments are constructed in such a way that they are not disprovable; basically sloppy, mindless rhetoric. It they are not disprovable then they are not valid arguments.
Ultimately, your argument is a logically fallacy called proof by assertion mixed with some ad hominem arguments; specifically the claims of "hypocrisy", which I have shown are irrelevant, and which you don't seem to grasp how they are irrelevant.
To make it clear, your arguments are fallacious, and thus invalid and irrelevant.
You also disingenuously attempt to downplay the facts cited which counter your claims, while providing no facts to back up your claims.
Yes, opinions and reality are two very different things, but your entire argument is based on nothing more then the assertion of an opinion. There are no facts in your argument to suggest it is more then just opinion and is in fact reality. All you can do is disingenuously downplay "inconvenient" facts that suggest that your view is wrong and doesn't reflect reality . Citing some perceived "hypocrisy" is irrelevant to the discussion (as has already been shown) as it says nothing about the truth or falseness of the issue being debated here, only about the people involved in the debate; again, ad hominem fallacious reasoning.
If this is all you have to offer, then don't bother as you are doing nothing but dragging down the debate.
When you grow up, gain some intellectual integrity, learn how to make a valid argument or counter-argument and are able to actually grasp opposing points of view, come back and we'll talk.
ford nut
Local nut case
Change is slow and takes time I stand by what I have said change is happening now.
LOL I think we just might agree on this one
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
In response to the "if it wasn't a choice, then homosexuality would have gone extinct long ago" argument:
Why Gays Don't Go Extinct
"If this scenario turns out to be true, it could help explain the seeming paradox of hereditary homosexuality. Since gay people are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals, many experts have wondered why, if homosexuality is caused by genetic factors, it wouldn't have been eliminated from the gene pool already.
But if the same genes create both homosexuality in men and increased fertility in women, then any losses in offspring that come about from the males would be made up for by the females of the family." -end snip
http://www.livescience.com/health/080617-hereditary-homosexuality.html
Why Gays Don't Go Extinct
"If this scenario turns out to be true, it could help explain the seeming paradox of hereditary homosexuality. Since gay people are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals, many experts have wondered why, if homosexuality is caused by genetic factors, it wouldn't have been eliminated from the gene pool already.
But if the same genes create both homosexuality in men and increased fertility in women, then any losses in offspring that come about from the males would be made up for by the females of the family." -end snip
http://www.livescience.com/health/080617-hereditary-homosexuality.html
That is a big "if", but an interesting idea.
Still, I question any scientific findings based on a "computer model". The whole global warming debate has shown the flaws in basing scientific findings on computer models. At best computer models suggest something is possible, not that it is probable or even likely, when it comes to scientific research, unless the research already fully understands all the factors involved, how they work, and how they interact. Ironically, if that is the case, then the whole basis for using a computer model to find conclusions is negated. In the case of homosexuality, they obviously don't understand fully how all the genes interact (which is what this study is looking for) and a computer model cannot in any way confirm their hypothesis.
It sounds like this is still in the hypothetical stage, though. The computer model may just be a way to verify if the hypothesis is possible. It needs more research and hard facts; testable, verifiable, repeatable data base on observations. It sounds like that would be the next step here.
While this research is hardly at a stage to draw any conclusion, it will be interesting to see where this study does go.
Still, I question any scientific findings based on a "computer model". The whole global warming debate has shown the flaws in basing scientific findings on computer models. At best computer models suggest something is possible, not that it is probable or even likely, when it comes to scientific research, unless the research already fully understands all the factors involved, how they work, and how they interact. Ironically, if that is the case, then the whole basis for using a computer model to find conclusions is negated. In the case of homosexuality, they obviously don't understand fully how all the genes interact (which is what this study is looking for) and a computer model cannot in any way confirm their hypothesis.
It sounds like this is still in the hypothetical stage, though. The computer model may just be a way to verify if the hypothesis is possible. It needs more research and hard facts; testable, verifiable, repeatable data base on observations. It sounds like that would be the next step here.
While this research is hardly at a stage to draw any conclusion, it will be interesting to see where this study does go.
squidnomore
LVC Member
Maybe you should look up that phrase you use too much in places it doesn't belong. Or you just like the comic.
The point is the hypocrisy. "Society doesn't support gays". Society most certainly does, with millions/billions of dollars when the chicks are hot. Mainstream society buying Hustler, paying to see Basic Instinct, and on and on.
As I said, and you so conveniently missed, the same abhorrent arguments were used not so very long ago for interracial and interfaith marriage. Same contrived "logic".
squidnomore
LVC Member
My, my, my. You pulled out the Thesaurus on that one. Feel all better?
"In order to make a logically valid argument in any case, on any issue is has be framed in such a way that it is possible for the argument to be disproven, especially if the "facts" cited supporting it are wrong or in doubt. Your arguments are constructed in such a way that they are not disprovable; basically sloppy, mindless rhetoric." What the hell was that? To disucss something you have to say it so it can be shown to be false? Where did you skip school?
You haven't shown anything to be irrelevant. You've pretended things aren't as they are. It's a nice fantasy world but that is all it is. Walk outside and get a dose of actual reality.
What "facts" did you cite? An opinion. A study. Let me tell you about studies so you'll be better informed. They involve a sample, and only the sample. Someone decides how large it is, and what is kept and tossed. They also decide where the sample is taken. And then how to present the results.
Now, since you aren't talking about identifiable markers, but assertions as to how someone feels they are one way or another, there will never be a locked down scientific data presentation. It's conjecture.
My statements are based in the real world. If that's too much for you to handle, it's not my fault. Keep your head in the sand and pretend it's not there.
"In order to make a logically valid argument in any case, on any issue is has be framed in such a way that it is possible for the argument to be disproven, especially if the "facts" cited supporting it are wrong or in doubt. Your arguments are constructed in such a way that they are not disprovable; basically sloppy, mindless rhetoric." What the hell was that? To disucss something you have to say it so it can be shown to be false? Where did you skip school?
You haven't shown anything to be irrelevant. You've pretended things aren't as they are. It's a nice fantasy world but that is all it is. Walk outside and get a dose of actual reality.
What "facts" did you cite? An opinion. A study. Let me tell you about studies so you'll be better informed. They involve a sample, and only the sample. Someone decides how large it is, and what is kept and tossed. They also decide where the sample is taken. And then how to present the results.
Now, since you aren't talking about identifiable markers, but assertions as to how someone feels they are one way or another, there will never be a locked down scientific data presentation. It's conjecture.
My statements are based in the real world. If that's too much for you to handle, it's not my fault. Keep your head in the sand and pretend it's not there.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Once again, you're using a false comparison. You're using the sales of pornography to illustrate support for gays. That's a red herring. Men who watch pornography want to see girl on girl not because of the gayness of it, but because of the nudity and the sex. It's about naked women, and two are better than one, and three are better than two, and so on. Men aren't watching that thinking, "Wow this is so gay, I love it. Way to go gays!" If you're claiming that, then you're more ignorant than I originally thought.
Fossten, I'm on your side on this, I'm Christian raised, and believe that the acceptance of gay marriage is a show of the times, as it says that at the end of times, that Homosexual relations would be accepted, and that the anti-Christ would himself be a Homosexual, and whether America shows support for gay marriage is up to the individual people in each state, either way you look at it, almost every religion on Earth, is against gay marriage. The Holy Bible its self, which is used in most Heterosexual marriages, says that Homosexuality is an abomination of god, as so marriage is "HOLY MATRIMONY" since it was created at the beginning of all, NT: (1 Corinthians 7:2) “… each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.” there is nothing holy about gay anything in any of the major religions, (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." And in regards to the porn bit, Fossten is correct, men in regards to the normal perameters of a Hetero male, are usually infatuated with the female body, and most women in these pornographys do not go by this "Lifestyle choice" they do it for the money, and men buy it. I personally think that America has taken big steps allowing Gay relations, instead of following the old ways of the death penalty if you were found to be gay in colonial times, gays are allowed and no one messes with them, but now they DEMAND marriage rights, a little greedy if you ask me, it took 250 years for Blacks to get to where they are, and they still aren't fully accepted, gays have been really proclaiming themselves for maybe, 50-60 years, I think they are doing well to be disliked by the majority of the world. And please stop using the word Homophobia, a phobia implies you are scared of that particular thing or idea, my cousin is gay, doesn't mean i was afraid to bust his mouth wide open and knock him out 3 months ago when he called his mom a B**ch in front of me for not letting his boyfriend come over, I'm not scared of Homosexuals/ality, I just dislike it, and openly display disdain for it. And its not hereditary, it is a choice of whether you like whats between a woman's legs, or behind a man's.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Halo, welcome to the forum. I appreciate your viewpoint on this issue.
I encourage you to use paragraphs to avoid "Wall of Text" and "tl;dr" comments.
Again, welcome.
I encourage you to use paragraphs to avoid "Wall of Text" and "tl;dr" comments.
Again, welcome.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Welcome.
I have a few questions if you don't mind.
Where does it state that the Anti-Christ will be a homosexual? That's a new one for me.
If you take Leviticus at face value in regards to homosexuality, why do you not take the Leviticus' or Deuteronomy's account on blasphemy and stoning? Or not obeying the Sabbath? etc. etc. etc.
For an argument to be valid it has to be provable or disprovable. That is basic knowledge if you have ever had any course in logic. "Disprovable" doesn't mean that the statement is false, it means that it is capable of being criticized and disproven or proven by objective facts and sound arguments.
If you make an argument that is framed in such a way that it is not disprovable, then it is not valid. It is also an underhanded rhetorical tactic to avoid criticism of your position.
Ad hominem arguments inherently focus on the irrelevant (aspects of the person making the argument) to illogically draw a conclusion about the argument being made. Your claims of "hypocrisy" are nothing more then ad hominem reasoning; illogical and thus, invalid.
So...no scientific study is valid? You can believe anything you want, basing you beliefs in reality through facts be damned? And you attack me for arguing from conjecture?!
You do realize that in your dishonest attempt to move the goalposts here, you have raised the bar to such a high degree that no proposition can be validated. Under the burden of proof you spelled out, my argument is nothing but conjecture, and yours is nothing but conjecture.
You then claim to be arguing from reality?! You have moved the bar so high that you cannot demonstrate that with any facts (not that you offered any relevant facts in the first place). This is obviously just a disingenuous attempt to dismiss the facts I have cited numerous times in this thread, since you cannot disprove them or cite any relevant facts of your own.
So the argument is still your assertion against my assertion. You have only offered irrelevant claims of guys liking "girls gone wild" which says nothing about redefining marriage to allow for homosexuality, or homosexuality in general. On the other hand, I have offered a number of facts to back up my arguments.
Wow. There's a huge leap. Say it with me "non sequitur".
You move the goalposts to illogically, and disingenuously dismiss the facts I have shown, and now I am making mere assertions, not backed up with facts as to how someone feels that are nothing more then conjecture? That is a lot of effort to set up a straw man argument, there.
You have yet to disprove the facts I laid out (moving the burden of proof doesn't do that, BTW). On the other hand, you have offered no relevant facts of your own.
The truth is, I am talking about identifiable markers. You are simply claiming I am not after dishonestly dismissing (not disproving, or showing to be irrelevant) the facts I laid out to show those markers.
more proof by assertion.
You have yet to offer any valid evidence that suggests that. All you have offered is the irrelevant fact of guys getting turned on through watching two women make out on "girls gone wild", which only says anything about their views on gay marriage through spin and ad hominem reasoning.
In fact, lets look at that example for a minute...
Most young hetero guys are turned on by watching two chicks go at it. Obviously that says that they are heterosexual and reflects their carnal sexual urges. It is a huge leap to say it in any way reflects their moral or social views regarding homosexuality, or redefining marriage, or actual logical thought process in any way. Are these same guys going out and buying gay porn? No. In fact, most will act with disgust at seeing two guys even kiss.
Your example is nothing more then an affirmation of a straight man's heterosexuality. You are reaching to draw conclusions about their moral and social views. And then, through ad hominem reasoning and jumping to a conclusion, saying that most of society accepts homosexuality, when all you have show is that heterosexual men are attracted to women. Who is arguing from conjecture?
Have you looked in a mirror lately?
You accuse me of arguing from conjecture, when it is in fact you are doing so. You are making illogical arguments and spinning to provide any "proof" for your argument. You are dishonestly making more illogical arguments, spinning, distorting and misrepresenting to dismiss (not logically disprove) my arguments and the facts I cite to back them up.
It seems you are the one working pretty hard to avoid reality and "keep your head in the sand".
You have aptly demonstrated that you have no intellectual integrity on this issue, and are only distracting from any real debate on this issue here.
Some of us want to discuss and debate this issue. You come in here and start misrepresenting people's arguments and "preaching" to them, when it is obvious you don't know much of what you are talking about, or how to make a decent, logically valid argument.
I reiterate; grow up, gain some intellectual integrity here and learn how to validly construct an argument. Then come back and we can discuss. Until then, please, buzz off. You are only distracting from the debate here.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Hmm. Actually, I was enjoying the smackdown rather immensely.
ford nut
Local nut case
OMG its the end of the world AGAIN
WOW the antichrist is gay :bowrofl:
LOL what happened to turn the other cheek....and I wonder if jesus would bust his cuz in the chops
If that is christan raised you can keep it.
Funny how you bring race into the debate I guess we have to accept other races before we can ever accept homos huh ?
Daniel 11:37 "Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all." Though not a stand in you face way of saying "GAY!!!" The ant-christ is the devil in human form, represent all that is evil, I highly doubt he would over look Lust.
So if he Lusts, but has no desire to women, what does he Lust for, logically it would be other men. Though this can't be proven, like much of the bible, but can't be disproven either.
Though I did say I was a born and raised Christian, I admit I fall short of the Holy standard, and that though I follow the religion and believe in it very much, I am a sinner, but these sins can be forgiven. Though it was wrong to hit him, it was wrong of him to dishonor his mother, and he goes without any disipline since his father die several years ago, not my place to do anything I admit, but he has yet to curse at her again in the past few months.
Also, the reason for my bringing up racial issues, is to show that society has yet to fully accept other races, and I beleive it will take a lot longer to accept something that has been against one of our cardinal rules for the past 2,000 or more years, and the gays rushing it with their "Here, queer, get use to it" rallys and stuff isn't helping, it offends people who are highly traditional by making it seem that they are forcfully making society accept them, in which, on some level they are.
It is a step in society that doesn't need to be rushed.
Oh, and thanks for the "Welcomes", most forums you immediately get cursed at for expressing any differing opinion, at least you guys have some ability to comprehend that others have opinions that are different from your own.
ford nut
Local nut case
OpsDaniel 11:37 "Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all." Though not a stand in you face way of saying "GAY!!!" The ant-christ is the devil in human form, represent all that is evil, I highly doubt he would over look Lust.
So if he Lusts, but has no desire to women, what does he Lust for, logically it would be other men. Though this can't be proven, like much of the bible, but can't be disproven either.
Maybe dogs and cats ?
Though I did say I was a born and raised Christian, I admit I fall short of the Holy standard, and that though I follow the religion and believe in it very much, I am a sinner, but these sins can be forgiven. Though it was wrong to hit him, it was wrong of him to dishonor his mother, and he goes without any disipline since his father die several years ago, not my place to do anything I admit, but he has yet to curse at her again in the past few months.
ah the old stand by...but yet I am a sinner, its the ez out good christains always take. I also guess two wrongs make a right seeing how the gay dude has been watching his tonuge.
Also, the reason for my bringing up racial issues, is to show that society has yet to fully accept other races, and I beleive it will take a lot longer to accept something that has been against one of our cardinal rules for the past 2,000 or more years, and the gays rushing it with their "Here, queer, get use to it" rallys and stuff isn't helping, it offends people who are highly traditional by making it seem that they are forcfully making society accept them, in which, on some level they are.
It is a step in society that doesn't need to be rushed.
It was not that long ago a black man was hung from a tree for saying I DO to a white woman. Society changed, and it will again, and I dare to think the world wont go down in flames because of it, but I bet a few white men in white hoods thought it would.
Oh, and thanks for the "Welcomes", most forums you immediately get cursed at for expressing any differing opinion, at least you guys have some ability to comprehend that others have opinions that are different from your own.
forgot to do that sorry.fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Dude...I'm tempted to let this go, considering it's OFF TOPIC, but...nah, once you've got the fish on the hook, might as well reel the sucker in.LOL what happened to turn the other cheek....and I wonder if jesus would bust his cuz in the chops
Also, if you read the part in the Bible (I know, I know, you don't read the Bible, but hey) about turning the other cheek, it's not difficult to see that Jesus was not preaching pacifism to Christians.
The Bible and Gun Control
ford nut
Local nut case
OMG you got me fossten
but I hope you have your drag set But I am surprised you went new testament
I guess I started with the turn your cheek comment your right I know little from the Sermon on the Mount. I pictued you being a old skool guy why didnt you go with exodus 21:23 ?fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Because you would have tried to use the "Old Testament is outdated" argument. I simply avoided that argument altogether.OMG you got me fossten
But I am surprised you went new testament
The New Testament taken in context with the OT does produce surprising consistency.
And, for the record, I generally live by the "eye for an eye" principle when it comes to my family or my country. If I'm doing something specifically for the cause of Christ, I adopt the "turn the other cheek" principle.
squidnomore
LVC Member
squidnomore
LVC Member
squidnomore
LVC Member
Stop it! My sides are hurting from laughing so much at you and boy wonder and the “watching homosexuality affirms your heterosexuality” stance.
Here’s what you two used as a defense;
Men who watch pornography want to see girl on girl not because of the gayness of it, but because of the nudity and the sex. It's about naked women, and two are better than one, and three are better than two, and so on. Men aren't watching that thinking, "Wow this is so gay, I love it. Way to go gays!"
Most young hetero guys are turned on by watching two chicks go at it. Obviously that says that they are heterosexual and reflects their carnal sexual urges…Your example is nothing more then an affirmation of a straight man's heterosexuality. You are reaching to draw conclusions about their moral and social views. And then, through ad hominem reasoning and jumping to a conclusion, saying that most of society accepts homosexuality, when all you have show is that heterosexual men are attracted to women.
Two girls kissing/fondling/groping/sucking/licking is HOMOSEXUAL behavior. Some find it as nauseating as you’ve stated with two guys doing it (or ugly chicks). A guy I work with dumped his wife after finding her with another woman (then again, the other woman resembled Cynthia Nixon’s GF, not Ellen DeGeneres’s). A high statistical majority finds female HOMOSEXUALTY erotic. To the tune of billions of dollars a year. If Brokeback Mountain featured Jessica Alba and Halle Berry like the spoof posters for part II, there would have been nary a protest.
It’s still HOMOSEXUAL behavior. Condoned, enjoyed, and urged on, but still HOMOSEXUAL. As with Farrakhan decrying racism against blacks yet espousing his against Jews. You either support it or you don’t.
ho•mo•sex•u•al•i•ty [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-al-i-tee]–noun sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex.
Your hypocritical bigotry is laughable as you attempt to portray yourself as Mensa candidates. You both portray the same characteristics of the closet drinking Baptist or molesting priest. Rail against something publicly while supporting/indulging in the “perversion”. And then attempt to legitimize your hypocrisy with your twisted attempt of the men only watch because there is nudity. HOMOSEXUAL actions are always HOMOSEXUAL. They are watching HOMOSEXUALITY. Or do you prefer to think of them as bi-sexual? What’s that? Part time HOMOSEXUAL? Is that possible? Is it experimenting, or just gay? Can you recover from it? Or is your heterosexuality like a bubble; one prick and it’s gone?
People like you, thinking they were so bright and right, protested interfaith and interracial marriages for years before the laws or “morals” were finally changed. Or rather, were stopped from denying rights to the citizens. No more rights than me, but no less either. Too bad the EEOC policies don’t follow that mantra.
Gay marriage doesn’t adversely affect either of you. Actually, it adds money to the state with marriage/divorce fees. Adds to the community with the weddings and lawyers used. Adds to the federal coffers with the marriage penalty.
Reality class is over. You’re both dismissed. Take you hypocritical bigotry and run along.
You’ve more than made my point for me.
Here’s what you two used as a defense;
Men who watch pornography want to see girl on girl not because of the gayness of it, but because of the nudity and the sex. It's about naked women, and two are better than one, and three are better than two, and so on. Men aren't watching that thinking, "Wow this is so gay, I love it. Way to go gays!"
Most young hetero guys are turned on by watching two chicks go at it. Obviously that says that they are heterosexual and reflects their carnal sexual urges…Your example is nothing more then an affirmation of a straight man's heterosexuality. You are reaching to draw conclusions about their moral and social views. And then, through ad hominem reasoning and jumping to a conclusion, saying that most of society accepts homosexuality, when all you have show is that heterosexual men are attracted to women.
Two girls kissing/fondling/groping/sucking/licking is HOMOSEXUAL behavior. Some find it as nauseating as you’ve stated with two guys doing it (or ugly chicks). A guy I work with dumped his wife after finding her with another woman (then again, the other woman resembled Cynthia Nixon’s GF, not Ellen DeGeneres’s). A high statistical majority finds female HOMOSEXUALTY erotic. To the tune of billions of dollars a year. If Brokeback Mountain featured Jessica Alba and Halle Berry like the spoof posters for part II, there would have been nary a protest.
It’s still HOMOSEXUAL behavior. Condoned, enjoyed, and urged on, but still HOMOSEXUAL. As with Farrakhan decrying racism against blacks yet espousing his against Jews. You either support it or you don’t.
ho•mo•sex•u•al•i•ty [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-al-i-tee]–noun sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex.
Your hypocritical bigotry is laughable as you attempt to portray yourself as Mensa candidates. You both portray the same characteristics of the closet drinking Baptist or molesting priest. Rail against something publicly while supporting/indulging in the “perversion”. And then attempt to legitimize your hypocrisy with your twisted attempt of the men only watch because there is nudity. HOMOSEXUAL actions are always HOMOSEXUAL. They are watching HOMOSEXUALITY. Or do you prefer to think of them as bi-sexual? What’s that? Part time HOMOSEXUAL? Is that possible? Is it experimenting, or just gay? Can you recover from it? Or is your heterosexuality like a bubble; one prick and it’s gone?
People like you, thinking they were so bright and right, protested interfaith and interracial marriages for years before the laws or “morals” were finally changed. Or rather, were stopped from denying rights to the citizens. No more rights than me, but no less either. Too bad the EEOC policies don’t follow that mantra.
Gay marriage doesn’t adversely affect either of you. Actually, it adds money to the state with marriage/divorce fees. Adds to the community with the weddings and lawyers used. Adds to the federal coffers with the marriage penalty.
Reality class is over. You’re both dismissed. Take you hypocritical bigotry and run along.
You’ve more than made my point for me.