Gays blaming blacks for gay marriage ban in California

[Cecilie1200]

Did you guys hear Mark Foley's interview yesterday? What a scumbag. He says he isn't technically a pedophile because pedophilia is technically between a man and a pre pubesent child.

DUDE, they were in highschool you freakin perv!!!!

Well, he's right. TECHNICALLY, that makes him an ephibophile, not a pedophile.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Heterosexual couples can marry for love (they don't always, but they can). Homosexuals can't. Therefore they do not enjoy the same rights. Simple logic.

Where does the law say anything about love? How can you claim "simple logic" when you're talking about fuzzy emotion?

Curiouser and curiouser, as Lewis Carroll said.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Is it just me or are black people less angry since the election? I'm sensing pride and confidence.

Maybe they don't feel like white people are looking down on them anymore. Maybe they don't feel like second class citizens anymore.

Maybe they realize the man is keeping all of us broke asses down. Not just them.

Maybe their racism and bigotry isn't feeling quite so inflamed and irritated at the moment. Give it a few weeks.

Mind you, when I say "they", I'm referring to you and the sort of people you obviously associate with. I don't personally know any racists or bigots of any color, so no one of my acquaintance is wasting time on such nonsense.

 

[Cecilie1200]

LMAO. You post a blog as evidence of -- ANYTHING!!!!!!

LOL.

It is not a mental disorder. Only bigots think it is.

Actually, the blog is correct in this case. The American Psychiatric Association DID classify homosexuality as a mental disorder for a very long time. And as much as I'm sure you would like to simplistically dismiss that as "just ignorance and bigotry", I doubt even you really believe that. And they DID change the listing, not because of any new scientific evidence, but because of pure political pressure.

So you could quite fairly say that only those with extreme biases believe it's NOT a mental disorder, ie. those who pressured the APA and those who caved in to the pressure.

 

[Cecilie1200]

One disruption and a threat. Big deal. Even if the APA was bullied into changing its position, there are many other reputable organizations that have concluded that it is okay to be gay. They have even concluded that there is no significant difference in children raised by gay couples when compared to children raised by straight couples.

(Irrelevant erroneous, personal attacks ignored)

And they have concluded these things based on what evidence, exactly? Or could it just have been on the desire to be politically correct and not subject to ugly public attacks?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Shellfish, pork, sodomy (even opposite-sex sodomy) and the list goes on. Have you actually read the Bible?

I don't remember the Bible listing shellfish OR pork as "abominations". I DO, however, remember the New Testament reversing the eating and food preparation restrictions. Could you point me, oh Biblical scholar, to the place where the characterization of homosexuality as an abomination was rescinded? Thanks.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You're picking out one particular verse. Why don't you read this verse: "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Done To You."

You and the rest of you bigots are a waste of time, space, and bandwidth.

People like you should be banned from breathing regular air. You assholes should be forced to acquire your own private air supply if you are to live.

Silly, huh? Sorta like everything you've said.

Because you think we don't want others to also prevent US from marrying people of our own sex?

I must be missing the double standard you seem to think we're employing.

And why am I not surprised to see a leftist trying to lay a proprietary claim to something free and universally available like air?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I sufficiently argued my case. You asked for a list. I gave it to you. It is reasonable to conclude that those organizations that care for kids would not be readily bullied by a “gay mafia” or easily duped by faulty research. I am not going to waste my time on a scavenger hunt gathering examples of their evaluations and experiences.

WHY is that reasonable to conclude? Because organizations that claim to be "for the children" never make egregious mistakes concerning the welfare of those children? Because wonderful, caring child workers never leave kids in homes with abusive parents who subsequently kill them? They never place them in foster homes where they're molested and abused? Schoolteachers are never convicted of having sex with their students?

On what, exactly, am I basing the conclusion that because someone claims to care for children is omniscient and infallible and not at all subject to political agenda?

 

[Macintosh]

Actually, the blog is correct in this case. The American Psychiatric Association DID classify homosexuality as a mental disorder for a very long time. And as much as I'm sure you would like to simplistically dismiss that as "just ignorance and bigotry", I doubt even you really believe that. And they DID change the listing, not because of any new scientific evidence, but because of pure political pressure.

So you could quite fairly say that only those with extreme biases believe it's NOT a mental disorder, ie. those who pressured the APA and those who caved in to the pressure.

No, the blog is not correct. As I said, I'm more inclined to believe the APA in this case. I'm certainly not going to believe someone who has a rough time expressing themselves in clear, concise language (you); I'm not going to trust people who compare homosexuals to rats and mice; and I'm not going to trust a ******* blog.

Sorry, bigot. Keep your religion to yourself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, the blog is not correct. As I said, I'm more inclined to believe the APA in this case. I'm certainly not going to believe someone who has a rough time expressing themselves in clear, concise language (you); I'm not going to trust people who compare homosexuals to rats and mice; and I'm not going to trust a ******* blog.

Sorry, bigot. Keep your religion to yourself.

The blog is not correct because you choose to believe something else? Interesting evidentiary standards you have there.

I express myself very clearly, thank you very much. Perhaps you should investigate the difference between "clear and concise" and "dumbed down", and stop blaming me because you don't have the vocabularly to follow a conversation above the elementary school level.

I'll keep my religion to myself when you keep your atheism to yourself. As long as you feel free to exercise your Constitutional right to shove your beliefs in my face, right back atcha.

 

[Macintosh]

Because you think we don't want others to also prevent US from marrying people of our own sex?

I must be missing the double standard you seem to think we're employing.

And why am I not surprised to see a leftist trying to lay a proprietary claim to something free and universally available like air?

First of all, try and express yourself a little bit. Explain just what the first sentence is supposed to mean, then tell me why that is relevant to what I have said?

And I'm a conservative, BTW.

I don't remember the Bible listing shellfish OR pork as "abominations". I DO, however, remember the New Testament reversing the eating and food preparation restrictions. Could you point me, oh Biblical scholar, to the place where the characterization of homosexuality as an abomination was rescinded? Thanks.

Now you're operating under the assumption that every bigot here is a Christian and not a Jew; I don't make such assumptions. In the Old Testament, eating shellfish and pork were sins. For you Christians, I offered other verses. For example, I asked the one bigot if he thought Christ would approve of referring to homosexuals as rats and mice. I also quoted "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Done To You." I also quoted Corinthians and the chapter about love. I also mentioned heterosexual sodomy and wondered why you bigots weren't as voraciously against that.

You people just don't have an answer. You bigots and hypocrites are totally against homosexuality, or, sins you don't commit. But when it comes to sins and abominations you do commit, you're quiet as mice about them.

But let's just remember that this is not a Christian nation; it was not founded on the Christians faith, so let's quit legislating religious edict.

Civil marriage is a legal contract. Currently, it is discriminates on the basis of gender.

"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

 

[Macintosh]

The blog is not correct because you choose to believe something else? Interesting evidentiary standards you have there.

I express myself very clearly, thank you very much. Perhaps you should investigate the difference between "clear and concise" and "dumbed down", and stop blaming me because you don't have the vocabularly to follow a conversation above the elementary school level.

I'll keep my religion to myself when you keep your atheism to yourself. As long as you feel free to exercise your Constitutional right to shove your beliefs in my face, right back atcha.

No, because I choose to believe 30 years of objective research. I choose to believe science. You choose to believe trailer park trash.

And no, you don't express yourself clearly. Run-on sentences, words used out of context, et cetera... Why not go back to school? And I rather like your second response. Typical of people like you.

I'm not an atheist, so thank you for coming to another asinine conclusion. And my beliefs are consistent with the Constitution; yours are not.

And learn to spell.

 

[Sunni Man]

Talk around it all you want, but the bible says that homos are an abomination to him and should be stoned to death. Period

Any christian who sticks up for homos is going against god and the bible. Period

 

[Bass v 2.0]

No, the blog is not correct. As I said, I'm more inclined to believe the APA in this case. I'm certainly not going to believe someone who has a rough time expressing themselves in clear, concise language (you); I'm not going to trust people who compare homosexuals to rats and mice; and I'm not going to trust a ******* blog.

Sorry, bigot. Keep your religion to yourself.

You are in denial severe denial, the APA had to vote on the issue and almost half voted against removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. There's even a book out from a prohomosexual member of the APA that states that the decision was purely political and not scientific, for the purpose of reducing oppression against gays.

 

[Macintosh]

Talk around it all you want, but the bible says that homos are an abomination to him and should be stoned to death. Period

Any christian who sticks up for homos is going against god and the bible. Period

Oh, so you morons tell me that that Christ fulfilled the old law, so shellfish and pork are O.K. to eat. But yet killing homosexuals is still O.K.? Did you not catch the "If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also?" Ya know, the whole no killing bit.

And nice rep, Sunni. "*** lover!" Real mature, you putz.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

No, because I choose to believe 30 years of objective research. I choose to believe science. You choose to believe trailer park trash.

And no, you don't express yourself clearly. Run-on sentences, words used out of context, et cetera... Why not go back to school? And I rather like your second response. Typical of people like you.

I'm not an atheist, so thank you for coming to another asinine conclusion. And my beliefs are consistent with the Constitution; yours are not.

And learn to spell.

Where is the evidence of this 30 years worth of "objective" research? Just because its the APA doesn't mean its automatically objective. Nevertheless, where are the papers that document this 30 years worth of objective research?

 

[Macintosh]

You are in denial severe denial, the APA had to vote on the issue and almost half voted against removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. There's even a book out from a pro homosexual member of the APA that states that the decision was purely political and not scientific, for the purpose of reducing oppression against gays.

No, I'm not in denial. And the book was written by a bigot, too, I surmise. And of course you operate - ignorantly - under the assumption that the APA is only psychological organization claiming such things as, "Homosexuality is not a mental illness."

Ever hear of The Royal College?

 

[WillowTree]

FYI a sexual act between two people of the same sex does not make them homosexual.

what does it make them? Adventureous?

 

[Macintosh]

Where is the evidence of this 30 years worth of "objective" research? Just because its the APA doesn't mean its automatically objective. Nevertheless, where are the papers that document this 30 years worth of objective research?

Go to the APA website and have a look. I do believe I posted the link.

 

[WillowTree]

Talk around it all you want, but the bible says that homos are an abomination to him and should be stoned to death. Period

Any christian who sticks up for homos is going against god and the bible. Period

well, I personally ain't gonna stone nobody to death, I don't give a fig what the bible says.