Can Anti-Same Sex M Advocates Address These Facts?

[Qball]

You claimed the stats aren't legit so it is up to you to provide the evidence. It's that simple.

I didn't say your stats aren't legit. Your ARGUMENT isn't legit. You can't just pay attention to the two things you like and then act like you have the debate sown up. There's more to the social and economic institution of marriage and divorce than mere statistics.

Can you remember what you post? Let me help ya:


(qball)
"Not only are they empty statistics, they're falsely correlative. MA has some of the toughest divorce laws in the country. They always have. It's harder in MA than in most states to actually dissolve a marriage, which thus means, fewer people actually do so. Showing the rate of divorce without also showing the rate of marriage doesn't prove anything."


You said they are empty statistics. Now you want to pretend you didn't claim the numbers aren't legit? You sure are working hard to avoid supporting your claim. When will you provide evidence showing it is justified to ignore the data?

Any statistic out of context is empty. You weren't reporting the divorce rates in those states, you were using them to make an argument -- one that I've actually heard quite a few times before and have never been impressed with. Like I said, I could, but I wont, because you have no reason to think I'm lying, and you really haven't given me any reason to believe that proving what I just said (though I think if you're going to discuss marriage and divorce, an understanding social and economic factors in marriage should be something you have BEFORE trying to pwn people on the Internets, but maybe that's just me) will change your opinion in the least, nor have you even explained why you disagree with me.

Your hypocrisy is already in view. As shown above, you want marriage rates factored in. Setting that red herring aside for a moment, we can use your deflection technique and say

"There are a lot of factors regarding marriage so those numbers are empty until we know how much a half box of Cheerios weighs on the moon, how much pocket lint is in the laundry mats in LA, what kind of tires will Miss Evelyn Deirgo will buy, and exactly how close can you get to the sun in a can of corn (not creamed)?"

Actually, what I'd want is for you to drop this entire point altogether. Addressing divorce rates after five years still wouldn't be a very convincing argument for SSM, because 1) any social and cultural impact gay marriage would have, it likely wouldn't be apparent in less than a decade...social change takes longer than that and I think social conservatives, when they speak of the detrimental effects of gay marriage, are speaking in generational terms, and 2) you're acting like this addresses the main prediction about gay marriage, when really, it's one only a handful of people make.

But...since I doubt you will drop this bad argument, I'd say yes, marriage rates would be important to your overall points since nobody can divorce before they marry. You act like instituting gay marriage had something to do with the divorce rate, but it very likely didn't.

 

[CurveLight]

I didn't say your stats aren't legit. Your ARGUMENT isn't legit. You can't just pay attention to the two things you like and then act like you have the debate sown up. There's more to the social and economic institution of marriage and divorce than mere statistics.

Can you remember what you post? Let me help ya:


(qball)
"Not only are they empty statistics, they're falsely correlative. MA has some of the toughest divorce laws in the country. They always have. It's harder in MA than in most states to actually dissolve a marriage, which thus means, fewer people actually do so. Showing the rate of divorce without also showing the rate of marriage doesn't prove anything."


You said they are empty statistics. Now you want to pretend you didn't claim the numbers aren't legit? You sure are working hard to avoid supporting your claim. When will you provide evidence showing it is justified to ignore the data?

Any statistic out of context is empty. You weren't reporting the divorce rates in those states, you were using them to make an argument -- one that I've actually heard quite a few times before and have never been impressed with. Like I said, I could, but I wont, because you have no reason to think I'm lying, and you really haven't given me any reason to believe that proving what I just said (though I think if you're going to discuss marriage and divorce, an understanding social and economic factors in marriage should be something you have BEFORE trying to pwn people on the Internets, but maybe that's just me) will change your opinion in the least, nor have you even explained why you disagree with me.

Your hypocrisy is already in view. As shown above, you want marriage rates factored in. Setting that red herring aside for a moment, we can use your deflection technique and say

"There are a lot of factors regarding marriage so those numbers are empty until we know how much a half box of Cheerios weighs on the moon, how much pocket lint is in the laundry mats in LA, what kind of tires will Miss Evelyn Deirgo will buy, and exactly how close can you get to the sun in a can of corn (not creamed)?"

Actually, what I'd want is for you to drop this entire point altogether. Addressing divorce rates after five years still wouldn't be a very convincing argument for SSM, because 1) any social and cultural impact gay marriage would have, it likely wouldn't be apparent in less than a decade...social change takes longer than that and I think social conservatives, when they speak of the detrimental effects of gay marriage, are speaking in generational terms, and 2) you're acting like this addresses the main prediction about gay marriage, when really, it's one only a handful of people make.

But...since I doubt you will drop this bad argument, I'd say yes, marriage rates would be important to your overall points since nobody can divorce before they marry. You act like instituting gay marriage had something to do with the divorce rate, but it very likely didn't.

If you don't want to support claims then don't make them. You actually try to hide behind the "you have no reason to think I am lying" bullshit? You dumb bitch. Asking people to support their claims is not about accusing them of lying. It's common fucking sense. You also failed to grasp the OP as I pointed out MA has consistently had the lowest divorce rates for 20 years. Not five. I specifically pointed that out in response to the claims that equality for gays is done at the cost of morality and threatens hetero marriages. You can have the last word because I won't bother reading any other responses you have in this thread. You've proven yourself to being nothing but a fucking whiner that makes claims you cannot support. See ya!

Eta: forgot to point out another example of your arrogance. You claim:

"You act like instituting gay marriage had something to do with the divorce rate, but it very likely didn't."


You sooper stoopid fuck. Read the last couple of lines in the OP. The ones where I specifically say gay marriage did not cause divorce rates to drop. This is more evidence you are full of shit. If you can't read a simple op written by someone as dumb as me how can you possibly enter the arena of analyzing stats? Lol....

 

[Qball]

Oh, and one thing about this list I've seen people quote for years:

1.Joint parental rights of children
2.Joint adoption
3.Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4.Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5.Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6.Crime victims recovery benefits
7.Domestic violence protection orders
8.Judicial protections and immunity
9.Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10.Public safety officers death benefits
11.Spousal veterans benefits
12.Social Security
13.Medicare
14.Joint filing of tax returns
15.Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16.Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17.Child support
18.Joint Insurance Plans
19.Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20.Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21.Estate and gift tax benefits
22.Welfare and public assistance
23.Joint housing for elderly
24.Credit protection
25.Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

Let's clear a couple of large points up first: itemizing all the "benefits" gay couples could possibly receive if they could get married doesn't properly address the issue because there's more to every one of those benefits than just having a marriage license; itemizing all the benefits gay couples could possibly receive they could get married while completely ignoring any stipulations or mitigating factors that might preclude receiving those benefits even if you had a marriage license is intellectually dishonest and is meant to deceive people; perhaps liberals will sympathize because you show them a list of benefits gay couples wouldn't receive if they only got civil unions, but to many conservatives and libertarians, whining about government hand-outs is a turn-off, as there is no intrinsic right to them, and especially if you're asserting that the primary reason you deserve them is because somebody else gets them; people understand that civil unions and marriage will work fundamentally different, because they understand that heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships are fundamentally different, so this list is creating the illusion of "rights" without actually saying it, because there are no actual rights involved; the list generalizes (i.e. Medicare, Social Security) as if you need a marriage license to receive some of those benefits.

 

[mudwhistle]

Can you remember what you post? Let me help ya:


(qball)
"Not only are they empty statistics, they're falsely correlative. MA has some of the toughest divorce laws in the country. They always have. It's harder in MA than in most states to actually dissolve a marriage, which thus means, fewer people actually do so. Showing the rate of divorce without also showing the rate of marriage doesn't prove anything."


You said they are empty statistics. Now you want to pretend you didn't claim the numbers aren't legit? You sure are working hard to avoid supporting your claim. When will you provide evidence showing it is justified to ignore the data?

Any statistic out of context is empty. You weren't reporting the divorce rates in those states, you were using them to make an argument -- one that I've actually heard quite a few times before and have never been impressed with. Like I said, I could, but I wont, because you have no reason to think I'm lying, and you really haven't given me any reason to believe that proving what I just said (though I think if you're going to discuss marriage and divorce, an understanding social and economic factors in marriage should be something you have BEFORE trying to pwn people on the Internets, but maybe that's just me) will change your opinion in the least, nor have you even explained why you disagree with me.

Your hypocrisy is already in view. As shown above, you want marriage rates factored in. Setting that red herring aside for a moment, we can use your deflection technique and say

"There are a lot of factors regarding marriage so those numbers are empty until we know how much a half box of Cheerios weighs on the moon, how much pocket lint is in the laundry mats in LA, what kind of tires will Miss Evelyn Deirgo will buy, and exactly how close can you get to the sun in a can of corn (not creamed)?"

Actually, what I'd want is for you to drop this entire point altogether. Addressing divorce rates after five years still wouldn't be a very convincing argument for SSM, because 1) any social and cultural impact gay marriage would have, it likely wouldn't be apparent in less than a decade...social change takes longer than that and I think social conservatives, when they speak of the detrimental effects of gay marriage, are speaking in generational terms, and 2) you're acting like this addresses the main prediction about gay marriage, when really, it's one only a handful of people make.

But...since I doubt you will drop this bad argument, I'd say yes, marriage rates would be important to your overall points since nobody can divorce before they marry. You act like instituting gay marriage had something to do with the divorce rate, but it very likely didn't.

If you don't want to support claims then don't make them. You actually try to hide behind the "you have no reason to think I am lying" bullshit? You dumb bitch. Asking people to support their claims is not about accusing them of lying. It's common fucking sense. You also failed to grasp the OP as I pointed out MA has consistently had the lowest divorce rates for 20 years. Not five. I specifically pointed that out in response to the claims that equality for gays is done at the cost of morality and threatens hetero marriages. You can have the last word because I won't bother reading any other responses you have in this thread. You've proven yourself to being nothing but a fucking whiner that makes claims you cannot support. See ya!

Eta: forgot to point out another example of your arrogance. You claim:

"You act like instituting gay marriage had something to do with the divorce rate, but it very likely didn't."


You sooper stoopid fuck. Read the last couple of lines in the OP. The ones where I specifically say gay marriage did not cause divorce rates to drop. This is more evidence you are full of shit. If you can't read a simple op written by someone as dumb as me how can you possibly enter the arena of analyzing stats? Lol....

And you are a poster-baby for birth control.

 

[Qball]

Can you remember what you post? Let me help ya:


(qball)
"Not only are they empty statistics, they're falsely correlative. MA has some of the toughest divorce laws in the country. They always have. It's harder in MA than in most states to actually dissolve a marriage, which thus means, fewer people actually do so. Showing the rate of divorce without also showing the rate of marriage doesn't prove anything."


You said they are empty statistics. Now you want to pretend you didn't claim the numbers aren't legit? You sure are working hard to avoid supporting your claim. When will you provide evidence showing it is justified to ignore the data?

Any statistic out of context is empty. You weren't reporting the divorce rates in those states, you were using them to make an argument -- one that I've actually heard quite a few times before and have never been impressed with. Like I said, I could, but I wont, because you have no reason to think I'm lying, and you really haven't given me any reason to believe that proving what I just said (though I think if you're going to discuss marriage and divorce, an understanding social and economic factors in marriage should be something you have BEFORE trying to pwn people on the Internets, but maybe that's just me) will change your opinion in the least, nor have you even explained why you disagree with me.

Your hypocrisy is already in view. As shown above, you want marriage rates factored in. Setting that red herring aside for a moment, we can use your deflection technique and say

"There are a lot of factors regarding marriage so those numbers are empty until we know how much a half box of Cheerios weighs on the moon, how much pocket lint is in the laundry mats in LA, what kind of tires will Miss Evelyn Deirgo will buy, and exactly how close can you get to the sun in a can of corn (not creamed)?"

Actually, what I'd want is for you to drop this entire point altogether. Addressing divorce rates after five years still wouldn't be a very convincing argument for SSM, because 1) any social and cultural impact gay marriage would have, it likely wouldn't be apparent in less than a decade...social change takes longer than that and I think social conservatives, when they speak of the detrimental effects of gay marriage, are speaking in generational terms, and 2) you're acting like this addresses the main prediction about gay marriage, when really, it's one only a handful of people make.

But...since I doubt you will drop this bad argument, I'd say yes, marriage rates would be important to your overall points since nobody can divorce before they marry. You act like instituting gay marriage had something to do with the divorce rate, but it very likely didn't.

If you don't want to support claims then don't make them. You actually try to hide behind the "you have no reason to think I am lying" bullshit? You dumb bitch. Asking people to support their claims is not about accusing them of lying. It's common fucking sense. You also failed to grasp the OP as I pointed out MA has consistently had the lowest divorce rates for 20 years. Not five. I specifically pointed that out in response to the claims that equality for gays is done at the cost of morality and threatens hetero marriages. You can have the last word because I won't bother reading any other responses you have in this thread. You've proven yourself to being nothing but a fucking whiner that makes claims you cannot support. See ya!

Eta: forgot to point out another example of your arrogance. You claim:

"You act like instituting gay marriage had something to do with the divorce rate, but it very likely didn't."


You sooper stoopid fuck. Read the last couple of lines in the OP. The ones where I specifically say gay marriage did not cause divorce rates to drop. This is more evidence you are full of shit. If you can't read a simple op written by someone as dumb as me how can you possibly enter the arena of analyzing stats? Lol....

Well, since you wont be reading any more of my responses, I wont bother trying to explain myself any further. Take care!

 

[gautama]

What Abnormal Freaks can't accept is that no matter how NORMAL they want to be.........THEY ARE NOT NORMAL.

 

[CurveLight]

What Abnormal Freaks can't accept is that no matter how NORMAL they want to be.........THEY ARE NOT NORMAL.

Maybe if you got rid of your bigotry you would feel normal?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

What Abnormal Freaks can't accept is that no matter how NORMAL they want to be.........THEY ARE NOT NORMAL.

While you're in the closet, could you hand me my boots?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Today.....

Then even you shouldn't have a problem quoting it.

He did quote it in response to my pointing out he put words in your mouth. Basically, he failed to comprehend your point and continues to be ignorant even after it was explained.

Why do people do that? Do they think it works, debate-wise?

 

[gautama]

What Abnormal Freaks can't accept is that no matter how NORMAL they want to be.........THEY ARE NOT NORMAL.

Maybe if you got rid of your bigotry you would feel normal?

Bent,

What your twisted mind can't comprehend is that there isn't any bigotry involved.

Stating that "An Abnormal Freak is not NORMAL" is a statement of FACT.

It's like saying that a CHAIR is not an APPLE.

There isn't any bigotry involved.

Let's say 3% of America's population had Humanoid Creatures that had a predilection for fucking TURTLES. IOW, they were "TURTLE-FUCKERS".

Let's say the other 97% of the population of America were Religious. And, in their Religions, their Holy Books considered Turtle-fucking a Mortal Sin............YET, because they were "fair-minded". Or, because of the howling and whining of the Turtle-fuckers who were able to convince a sizable number of the Religious LIBRULS, enough laws were passed to give Turtle-fuckers equal rights but NOT the recognition of their MARRIAGE to turtles.

Doncha think that the Turtle-fuckers should leave it well enough alone ?????

Doncha think that the Turtle-fuckers by pushing their BIZARRENESS beyond this given point:

(1) Will NEVER get the RIGHT to Holy Matrimony.

(2) Will just get these ingrates a severe backlash that might revert any goodwill into HOSTILITY ?

DONCHA GEDDIT, YOU ABNORMAL FREAKS ??????

 

[CurveLight]

What Abnormal Freaks can't accept is that no matter how NORMAL they want to be.........THEY ARE NOT NORMAL.

Maybe if you got rid of your bigotry you would feel normal?

Bent,

What your twisted mind can't comprehend is that there isn't any bigotry involved.

Stating that "An Abnormal Freak is not NORMAL" is a statement of FACT.

It's like saying that a CHAIR is not an APPLE.

There isn't any bigotry involved.

Let's say 3% of America's population had Humanoid Creatures that had a predilection for fucking TURTLES. IOW, they were "TURTLE-FUCKERS".

Let's say the other 97% of the population of America were Religious. And, in their Religions, their Holy Books considered Turtle-fucking a Mortal Sin............YET, because they were "fair-minded". Or, because of the howling and whining of the Turtle-fuckers who were able to convince a sizable number of the Religious LIBRULS, enough laws were passed to give Turtle-fuckers equal rights but NOT the recognition of their MARRIAGE to turtles.

Doncha think that the Turtle-fuckers should leave it well enough alone ?????

Doncha think that the Turtle-fuckers by pushing their BIZARRENESS beyond this given point:

(1) Will NEVER get the RIGHT to Holy Matrimony.

(2) Will just get these ingrates a severe backlash that might revert any goodwill into HOSTILITY ?

DONCHA GEDDIT, YOU ABNORMAL FREAKS ??????

You kind of pulled the rug out from under your own feet with whole "freak" thing but thanks for playing.

 

[CurveLight]

Then even you shouldn't have a problem quoting it.

He did quote it in response to my pointing out he put words in your mouth. Basically, he failed to comprehend your point and continues to be ignorant even after it was explained.

Why do people do that? Do they think it works, debate-wise?

Those who do that aren't here for debate so it doesn't matter to them. When they are proven wrong they focus strictly on personal shit and derail the threads and sadly, there are enough of them around they circle the wagons whenever it happens.

 

[Father Time]

but to many conservatives and libertarians, whining about government hand-outs is a turn-off,

I've never seen a libertarian who wasn't for gay marraige or for removing most of those benefits from marraige entirely.

as there is no intrinsic right to them, and especially if you're asserting that the primary reason you deserve them is because somebody else gets them;

Well there's no good reason why heteros get them and homos don't.

 

[gautama]

Maybe if you got rid of your bigotry you would feel normal?

Bent,

What your twisted mind can't comprehend is that there isn't any bigotry involved.

Stating that "An Abnormal Freak is not NORMAL" is a statement of FACT.

It's like saying that a CHAIR is not an APPLE.

There isn't any bigotry involved.

Let's say 3% of America's population had Humanoid Creatures that had a predilection for fucking TURTLES. IOW, they were "TURTLE-FUCKERS".

Let's say the other 97% of the population of America were Religious. And, in their Religions, their Holy Books considered Turtle-fucking a Mortal Sin............YET, because they were "fair-minded". Or, because of the howling and whining of the Turtle-fuckers who were able to convince a sizable number of the Religious LIBRULS, enough laws were passed to give Turtle-fuckers equal rights but NOT the recognition of their MARRIAGE to turtles.

Doncha think that the Turtle-fuckers should leave it well enough alone ?????

Doncha think that the Turtle-fuckers by pushing their BIZARRENESS beyond this given point:

(1) Will NEVER get the RIGHT to Holy Matrimony.

(2) Will just get these ingrates a severe backlash that might revert any goodwill into HOSTILITY ?

DONCHA GEDDIT, YOU ABNORMAL FREAKS ??????

You kind of pulled the rug out from under your own feet with whole "freak" thing but thanks for playing.

Is this a new "gay" thing ?????

When cornered......DEFLECT (no matter how lamely) ?????

 

[Father Time]

What Abnormal Freaks can't accept is that no matter how NORMAL they want to be.........THEY ARE NOT NORMAL.

Maybe if you got rid of your bigotry you would feel normal?

Bent,

What your twisted mind can't comprehend is that there isn't any bigotry involved.

Stating that "An Abnormal Freak is not NORMAL" is a statement of FACT.

It's like saying that a CHAIR is not an APPLE.

There isn't any bigotry involved.

Let's say 3% of America's population had Humanoid Creatures that had a predilection for fucking TURTLES. IOW, they were "TURTLE-FUCKERS".

Let's say the other 97% of the population of America were Religious. And, in their Religions, their Holy Books considered Turtle-fucking a Mortal Sin............YET, because they were "fair-minded". Or, because of the howling and whining of the Turtle-fuckers who were able to convince a sizable number of the Religious LIBRULS, enough laws were passed to give Turtle-fuckers equal rights but NOT the recognition of their MARRIAGE to turtles.

Doncha think that the Turtle-fuckers should leave it well enough alone ?????

Doncha think that the Turtle-fuckers by pushing their BIZARRENESS beyond this given point:

(1) Will NEVER get the RIGHT to Holy Matrimony.

(2) Will just get these ingrates a severe backlash that might revert any goodwill into HOSTILITY ?

DONCHA GEDDIT, YOU ABNORMAL FREAKS ??????

Calling someone an abnormal freak when their condition is natural is bigotry.

I'm not even going to touch on your pathetic bandwagon fallacies.

Although would you stop comparing it to bestiality? Turtles cannot consent to any type of contract thus it would be impossible to marry them to anything (even another turtle).

Oh and under your logic if 3% of the population was let's say black, they'd be abnormal freaks.

 

[CurveLight]

Bent,

What your twisted mind can't comprehend is that there isn't any bigotry involved.

Stating that "An Abnormal Freak is not NORMAL" is a statement of FACT.

It's like saying that a CHAIR is not an APPLE.

There isn't any bigotry involved.

Let's say 3% of America's population had Humanoid Creatures that had a predilection for fucking TURTLES. IOW, they were "TURTLE-FUCKERS".

Let's say the other 97% of the population of America were Religious. And, in their Religions, their Holy Books considered Turtle-fucking a Mortal Sin............YET, because they were "fair-minded". Or, because of the howling and whining of the Turtle-fuckers who were able to convince a sizable number of the Religious LIBRULS, enough laws were passed to give Turtle-fuckers equal rights but NOT the recognition of their MARRIAGE to turtles.

Doncha think that the Turtle-fuckers should leave it well enough alone ?????

Doncha think that the Turtle-fuckers by pushing their BIZARRENESS beyond this given point:

(1) Will NEVER get the RIGHT to Holy Matrimony.

(2) Will just get these ingrates a severe backlash that might revert any goodwill into HOSTILITY ?

DONCHA GEDDIT, YOU ABNORMAL FREAKS ??????

You kind of pulled the rug out from under your own feet with whole "freak" thing but thanks for playing.

Is this a new "gay" thing ?????

When cornered......DEFLECT (no matter how lamely) ?????

How is it deflection when I responded to exactly what you posted?

 

[Oscar Wao]

Bent,

What your twisted mind can't comprehend is that there isn't any bigotry involved.

Stating that "An Abnormal Freak is not NORMAL" is a statement of FACT.

It's like saying that a CHAIR is not an APPLE.

There isn't any bigotry involved.

Let's say 3% of America's population had Humanoid Creatures that had a predilection for fucking TURTLES. IOW, they were "TURTLE-FUCKERS".

Let's say the other 97% of the population of America were Religious. And, in their Religions, their Holy Books considered Turtle-fucking a Mortal Sin............YET, because they were "fair-minded". Or, because of the howling and whining of the Turtle-fuckers who were able to convince a sizable number of the Religious LIBRULS, enough laws were passed to give Turtle-fuckers equal rights but NOT the recognition of their MARRIAGE to turtles.

Doncha think that the Turtle-fuckers should leave it well enough alone ?????

Doncha think that the Turtle-fuckers by pushing their BIZARRENESS beyond this given point:

(1) Will NEVER get the RIGHT to Holy Matrimony.

(2) Will just get these ingrates a severe backlash that might revert any goodwill into HOSTILITY ?

DONCHA GEDDIT, YOU ABNORMAL FREAKS ??????

You kind of pulled the rug out from under your own feet with whole "freak" thing but thanks for playing.

Is this a new "gay" thing ?????

When cornered......DEFLECT (no matter how lamely) ?????

What is "normal" anyway?! And that goes for anything in life, not just this issue.

 

[CurveLight]

You kind of pulled the rug out from under your own feet with whole "freak" thing but thanks for playing.

Is this a new "gay" thing ?????

When cornered......DEFLECT (no matter how lamely) ?????

What is "normal" anyway?! And that goes for anything in life, not just this issue.

It's generally a lie bigots create to justify their ignorance and subsequent hatred.

 

[gautama]

You kind of pulled the rug out from under your own feet with whole "freak" thing but thanks for playing.

Is this a new "gay" thing ?????

When cornered......DEFLECT (no matter how lamely) ?????

What is "normal" anyway?! And that goes for anything in life, not just this issue.

Are we back to the definition of the Clintonian "is".

Charming.

 

[gautama]

Is this a new "gay" thing ?????

When cornered......DEFLECT (no matter how lamely) ?????

What is "normal" anyway?! And that goes for anything in life, not just this issue.

It's generally a lie bigots create to justify their ignorance and subsequent hatred.

Hmmmmm.....let's see now:

I say: Abnormal is NOT normal.

One queer calls this "bigotry". And, insists that anyone not agreeing with him is an ignorant liar.

Another queer, goes thru life not knowing the difference between queers and straights......one who is devoted to the problem about this difference.

One wonders how the fuck these gay geniuses ever combined their unicelled brains to attempt a movement to PROVE that they are not Abnormal Freaks.

I suppose it's time to move on.

These Abnormal Freaks are too vapid to bother with.