Wendy's Supports Chick-Fil-A

[Seawytch]

CDC said it.

On what page of the CDC report YOU CITED did it say:

Homosexuality, for most, is a phase

1. Must we continue to beat this dead horse?
You can simply read the report...it isn't that long.


2. Afterwards, you can claim it doesn't mention you by name, so it can't apply to you.
Fine with me....especially since, although the 'phase' concept did speak of the majority...it didn't claim 100%.
Does that satisfy you?


3. Or...you can read the following from a reliably Left-leaning source, and accept it:

In fact, numbers show huge majorities of those who "ever had same sex sexual contact" do not identify long-term as gay. Among women 18-44, for instance, 12.5% report some form of same sex contact at some point in their lives, but among the older segment of that group (35-44), only 0.7% identify as homosexual and 1.1% as bisexual.
In other words, for the minority who may have experimented with gay relationships at some juncture in their lives, well over 80% explicitly renounced homosexual (or even bisexual) self-identification by age of 35. For the clear majority of males (as well as women) who report gay encounters, homosexual activity appears to represent a passing phase, or even a fleeting episode, rather than an unshakable, genetically pre-determined orientation.
Column: Does it matter if only 1.4% of people are gay? - USATODAY.com

Again?
"...homosexual activity appears to represent a passing phase, or even a fleeting episode,..."

Can I stipulate 'but not for you'!
OK?


4. I realize that this is of personal importance to you....but why not simply accept the truth as it applies to "other" gays.

Can we move on?

A simple "it isn't in the report" would have sufficed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

On what page of the CDC report YOU CITED did it say:

1. Must we continue to beat this dead horse?
You can simply read the report...it isn't that long.


2. Afterwards, you can claim it doesn't mention you by name, so it can't apply to you.
Fine with me....especially since, although the 'phase' concept did speak of the majority...it didn't claim 100%.
Does that satisfy you?


3. Or...you can read the following from a reliably Left-leaning source, and accept it:

In fact, numbers show huge majorities of those who "ever had same sex sexual contact" do not identify long-term as gay. Among women 18-44, for instance, 12.5% report some form of same sex contact at some point in their lives, but among the older segment of that group (35-44), only 0.7% identify as homosexual and 1.1% as bisexual.
In other words, for the minority who may have experimented with gay relationships at some juncture in their lives, well over 80% explicitly renounced homosexual (or even bisexual) self-identification by age of 35. For the clear majority of males (as well as women) who report gay encounters, homosexual activity appears to represent a passing phase, or even a fleeting episode, rather than an unshakable, genetically pre-determined orientation.
Column: Does it matter if only 1.4% of people are gay? - USATODAY.com

Again?
"...homosexual activity appears to represent a passing phase, or even a fleeting episode,..."

Can I stipulate 'but not for you'!
OK?


4. I realize that this is of personal importance to you....but why not simply accept the truth as it applies to "other" gays.

Can we move on?

A simple "it isn't in the report" would have sufficed.

Of course it is.

Where do you think USAToday got it?

There's none so blind as he who will not see.

I get it....you won't apologize for misquoting me, nor will you admit that the study shows homosexuality to be a passing phase for most....unless you get a notarized affidavit from the government itself.


OK....you're self-identified as ill-mannered, weak-willed, and truth-avoiding.
It's a free country....

...now be on your way.

 

[JoeB131]

You lying pile of regurgitation, I've never changed any 'story.'

I think you are just talking out of both sides of your mouth that you probably don't know what your story is anymore.

Okay, without trying to hide behind any studies that you'll misrepresent and then, tell us in your own words why you think discrmination against gay folks is right and just?

Thanks.

Just what you think... not some OCD numbering crap like you usually do that just annoys people.

In his 1855 book "Table Talk," John Doran recounts the story of a curate at Basse Bretagne, noted for his wit, who found that his duty at the confessional interfered with a number of invitations to dine. Seeking to indulge his stomach, the curate declared from the pulpit:

“In order to avoid confusion, my brethren, I have to announce that tomorrow, Monday, I will receive at confession the liars only; on Tuesday, the misers; on Wednesday, the slanderers; on Thursday, the thieves; Friday, the libertines; and Saturday, the women of evil life.”
Looks like you can pick Monday, Wednesday, or Saturday.

Admit you've done nothing but lie about what I've said....go ahead, confession is good for the soul.

When did he take confessions from Lying scumbags using religion to push other people around.

And why do you keep avoiding the question? Are you infavor of bigotry against gays or not?

It's a pretty simple question, you never want to answer...

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think you are just talking out of both sides of your mouth that you probably don't know what your story is anymore.

Okay, without trying to hide behind any studies that you'll misrepresent and then, tell us in your own words why you think discrmination against gay folks is right and just?

Thanks.

Just what you think... not some OCD numbering crap like you usually do that just annoys people.

In his 1855 book "Table Talk," John Doran recounts the story of a curate at Basse Bretagne, noted for his wit, who found that his duty at the confessional interfered with a number of invitations to dine. Seeking to indulge his stomach, the curate declared from the pulpit:

“In order to avoid confusion, my brethren, I have to announce that tomorrow, Monday, I will receive at confession the liars only; on Tuesday, the misers; on Wednesday, the slanderers; on Thursday, the thieves; Friday, the libertines; and Saturday, the women of evil life.”
Looks like you can pick Monday, Wednesday, or Saturday.

Admit you've done nothing but lie about what I've said....go ahead, confession is good for the soul.

When did he take confessions from Lying scumbags using religion to push other people around.

And why do you keep avoiding the question? Are you infavor of bigotry against gays or not?

It's a pretty simple question, you never want to answer...

Change your lying posts, pustule.

 

[JoeB131]

In his 1855 book "Table Talk," John Doran recounts the story of a curate at Basse Bretagne, noted for his wit, who found that his duty at the confessional interfered with a number of invitations to dine. Seeking to indulge his stomach, the curate declared from the pulpit:

“In order to avoid confusion, my brethren, I have to announce that tomorrow, Monday, I will receive at confession the liars only; on Tuesday, the misers; on Wednesday, the slanderers; on Thursday, the thieves; Friday, the libertines; and Saturday, the women of evil life.”
Looks like you can pick Monday, Wednesday, or Saturday.

Admit you've done nothing but lie about what I've said....go ahead, confession is good for the soul.

When did he take confessions from Lying scumbags using religion to push other people around.

And why do you keep avoiding the question? Are you infavor of bigotry against gays or not?

It's a pretty simple question, you never want to answer...

Change your lying posts, pustule.

Oh, please, first you claimed gayness was a phase, then you didn't, then you blamed the CDC, then you blamed US Today.

I'm not even bothering to keep track of that part.

Do you think people should be discriminated against due to their sexual orientation?

It's a very simple question. Embrace your bigotry and be proud of it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

When did he take confessions from Lying scumbags using religion to push other people around.

And why do you keep avoiding the question? Are you infavor of bigotry against gays or not?

It's a pretty simple question, you never want to answer...

Change your lying posts, pustule.

Oh, please, first you claimed gayness was a phase, then you didn't, then you blamed the CDC, then you blamed US Today.

I'm not even bothering to keep track of that part.

Do you think people should be discriminated against due to their sexual orientation?

It's a very simple question. Embrace your bigotry and be proud of it.

"Oh, please, first you claimed gayness was a phase, then you didn't, then you blamed the CDC, then you blamed US Today.


Where, bacterium....?

Where have I said anything but the quote in post #732?


Amazing....the only explanation for one to lie as blatantly, knowing full well that the lie will be exposed...is that you are so very lonely that even contumely is better to you than being locked up with only your own thoughts for company.

Pathetic, you piece of trash.

 

[JoeB131]

Still dodging the question... when everyone has called you on your lies..

One more time- Do you think gays should be discriminated against, and if so, why?

 

[ima]

You lying pile of regurgitation, I've never changed any 'story.'

I think you are just talking out of both sides of your mouth that you probably don't know what your story is anymore.

Okay, without trying to hide behind any studies that you'll misrepresent and then, tell us in your own words why you think discrmination against gay folks is right and just?

Thanks.

Just what you think... not some OCD numbering crap like you usually do that just annoys people.

In his 1855 book "Table Talk," John Doran recounts the story of a curate at Basse Bretagne, noted for his wit, who found that his duty at the confessional interfered with a number of invitations to dine. Seeking to indulge his stomach, the curate declared from the pulpit:

“In order to avoid confusion, my brethren, I have to announce that tomorrow, Monday, I will receive at confession the liars only; on Tuesday, the misers; on Wednesday, the slanderers; on Thursday, the thieves; Friday, the libertines; and Saturday, the women of evil life.”
Looks like you can pick Monday, Wednesday, or Saturday.



Admit you've done nothing but lie about what I've said....go ahead, confession is good for the soul.

Confession is for telling dirty little secrets to pedophiles. I bet the priest whacks off when he listens to yours.

 

[JoeB131]

I think you are just talking out of both sides of your mouth that you probably don't know what your story is anymore.

Okay, without trying to hide behind any studies that you'll misrepresent and then, tell us in your own words why you think discrmination against gay folks is right and just?

Thanks.

Just what you think... not some OCD numbering crap like you usually do that just annoys people.

In his 1855 book "Table Talk," John Doran recounts the story of a curate at Basse Bretagne, noted for his wit, who found that his duty at the confessional interfered with a number of invitations to dine. Seeking to indulge his stomach, the curate declared from the pulpit:

“In order to avoid confusion, my brethren, I have to announce that tomorrow, Monday, I will receive at confession the liars only; on Tuesday, the misers; on Wednesday, the slanderers; on Thursday, the thieves; Friday, the libertines; and Saturday, the women of evil life.”
Looks like you can pick Monday, Wednesday, or Saturday.



Admit you've done nothing but lie about what I've said....go ahead, confession is good for the soul.

Confession is for telling dirty little secrets to pedophiles. I bet the priest whacks off when he listens to yours.

nah.. I'll bet even her sins are boring.

 

[WillowTree]

 

[ima]

In his 1855 book "Table Talk," John Doran recounts the story of a curate at Basse Bretagne, noted for his wit, who found that his duty at the confessional interfered with a number of invitations to dine. Seeking to indulge his stomach, the curate declared from the pulpit:

“In order to avoid confusion, my brethren, I have to announce that tomorrow, Monday, I will receive at confession the liars only; on Tuesday, the misers; on Wednesday, the slanderers; on Thursday, the thieves; Friday, the libertines; and Saturday, the women of evil life.”
Looks like you can pick Monday, Wednesday, or Saturday.



Admit you've done nothing but lie about what I've said....go ahead, confession is good for the soul.

Confession is for telling dirty little secrets to pedophiles. I bet the priest whacks off when he listens to yours.

nah.. I'll bet even her sins are boring.

Dunno, she sounds like she could have all kinds of whips and chains, paddles and prods, dildos and strap-ons... I know her kind.

 

[philsphan04]

So are the passages regarding homosexuality...and?

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

That's one of the passages taken out of context and is mistranslated. It has nothing to do with rape. Did you read the article?

It's an opinion piece in which the author wants to make a claim that the passage was mistranslated. I can provide a number of articles claiming the same about homosexuality. So?

It's an "opinion piece" that provides a thorough exegesis of a passage that scholars almost universally recognize as mistranslated. If you want to explain what you think is wrong with the author's exegesis, then please explain. Otherwise, are you willing to retract your statement?

The Bible's passages concerning homosexuality are another matter. You made a claim stating that the Bible condones rape in certain situations, and I'd like some justification for this or else a retraction. Don't you think this is reasonable?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Still dodging the question... when everyone has called you on your lies..

One more time- Do you think gays should be discriminated against, and if so, why?

You again, Stench?

Ready to admit that you lied?

 

[Gadawg73]

And Gaddawg, you've been spanked on this particular lie before...

People DO choose to be gay:

"
"For me, it is a choice," Nixon says in a New York Times Magazine profile. "I understand that for many people it’s not, but for me it’s a choice, and you don’t get to define my gayness for me."

Cynthia Nixon: I'm gay by choice - NBC News Entertainment

Queer by Choice dot com

I am sure one in a million do.
Tell us how long you contemplated snatch before you "chose" you were straight.
Choice means you were thinking about all of your choices before you decided.
How long?
Did not happen that way to me and 99.9% of the population.

 

[Gadawg73]

That's one of the passages taken out of context and is mistranslated. It has nothing to do with rape. Did you read the article?

It's an opinion piece in which the author wants to make a claim that the passage was mistranslated. I can provide a number of articles claiming the same about homosexuality. So?

It's an "opinion piece" that provides a thorough exegesis of a passage that scholars almost universally recognize as mistranslated. If you want to explain what you think is wrong with the author's exegesis, then please explain. Otherwise, are you willing to retract your statement?

The Bible's passages concerning homosexuality are another matter. You made a claim stating that the Bible condones rape in certain situations, and I'd like some justification for this or else a retraction. Don't you think this is reasonable?

Read Isiah where they captured prisoners and were commanded to violate the wives.
Read Zechariah where the Lord is coming and the city will be ransacked and the women raped.
Read Samuel where The Lord says he will come into a household and give them to someone close to be raped.

Now I am ready for YOUR interpretation on that.
The entire Bible can be interpreted, and was many times in many, many translations over thousands of years, in many ways.

 

[JoeB131]

Still dodging the question... when everyone has called you on your lies..

One more time- Do you think gays should be discriminated against, and if so, why?

You again, Stench?

Ready to admit that you lied?

One more time- Do you think gays should be discriminated against, and if so, why?

Come on, Bizarro Girl... you can form a coherent thought. If you are going to embrace hate, be man enough to admit it.

 

[ima]

Still dodging the question... when everyone has called you on your lies..

One more time- Do you think gays should be discriminated against, and if so, why?

You again, Stench?

Ready to admit that you lied?

One more time- Do you think gays should be discriminated against, and if so, why?

Come on, Bizarro Girl... you can form a coherent thought. If you are going to embrace hate, be man enough to admit it.

Polchic is too embarrassed to answer truthfully because she realizes what a homophobe she is.

 

[JoeB131]

You again, Stench?

Ready to admit that you lied?

One more time- Do you think gays should be discriminated against, and if so, why?

Come on, Bizarro Girl... you can form a coherent thought. If you are going to embrace hate, be man enough to admit it.

Polchic is too embarrassed to answer truthfully because she realizes what a homophobe she is.

Well, that's progress. When they have to try to put a disguise on their hate, it means deep down, they know its wrong.

 

[Seawytch]

That's one of the passages taken out of context and is mistranslated. It has nothing to do with rape. Did you read the article?

It's an opinion piece in which the author wants to make a claim that the passage was mistranslated. I can provide a number of articles claiming the same about homosexuality. So?

It's an "opinion piece" that provides a thorough exegesis of a passage that scholars almost universally recognize as mistranslated. If you want to explain what you think is wrong with the author's exegesis, then please explain. Otherwise, are you willing to retract your statement?

The Bible's passages concerning homosexuality are another matter. You made a claim stating that the Bible condones rape in certain situations, and I'd like some justification for this or else a retraction. Don't you think this is reasonable?

It's rather amusing that you are missing the point while making it for me. Here you are insisting the passages about rape are "misinterpretations" while steadfastly defending the passages about homosexuality.

 

[Seawytch]

It's an opinion piece in which the author wants to make a claim that the passage was mistranslated. I can provide a number of articles claiming the same about homosexuality. So?

It's an "opinion piece" that provides a thorough exegesis of a passage that scholars almost universally recognize as mistranslated. If you want to explain what you think is wrong with the author's exegesis, then please explain. Otherwise, are you willing to retract your statement?

The Bible's passages concerning homosexuality are another matter. You made a claim stating that the Bible condones rape in certain situations, and I'd like some justification for this or else a retraction. Don't you think this is reasonable?

Read Isiah where they captured prisoners and were commanded to violate the wives.
Read Zechariah where the Lord is coming and the city will be ransacked and the women raped.
Read Samuel where The Lord says he will come into a household and give them to someone close to be raped.

Now I am ready for YOUR interpretation on that.
The entire Bible can be interpreted, and was many times in many, many translations over thousands of years, in many ways.

Heck, read about Sodom...didn't the "hero" of Sodom, Lott, try to send his daughters out to be raped by the angry crowd?