Wendy's Supports Chick-Fil-A

[ConservaDerrps]

"Us"???

You were elected to speak for what group?


Since the post never states that "human sexuality is a phase," you have descended to your usual level of veracity....

...true?

Well excuse me Ms. Acting Dumb and Avoiding The Question.
Explain to ME.
Homosexuality is a form of human sexuality. I do not believe you are ignorant so why the show to act as if you are?
Tell us about the homosexual phase YOU went through.

As a general rule, I try to be minimally involved with those who I've found to be less than honest in posts....i.e., you.

Let's see if there is a continued consistency in that vein...

1. "Explain to us how human sexuality is a phase."
You have yet to admit that I never said human sexuality was a phase.


2. "Tell us about the homosexual phase YOU went through."
I have never said that everyone went through such a phase....have I.
Your implication is less than truthful, isn't it.


3. Is your post an example of 'Acting Dumb'?
Can you answer that honestly...or, will you retreat to your usual dissembling?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Seawytch]

Let's see if there is a continued consistency in that vein...

1. "Explain to us how human sexuality is a phase."
You have yet to admit that I never said human sexuality was a phase.

You did say it...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5777261-post.htm

"Homosexuality, for most, is a phase."

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's see if there is a continued consistency in that vein...

1. "Explain to us how human sexuality is a phase."
You have yet to admit that I never said human sexuality was a phase.

You did say it...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5777261-post.htm

"Homosexuality, for most, is a phase."

Never.

Post #?


Your link says "Page not found"

 

[ConzHateUSA]

not this crap again hating on Gay folks...

I had a family member tell me that someone told him that young Gay men who act flamboyant do that only for show and that it isnt natural

morans

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Let's see if there is a continued consistency in that vein...

1. "Explain to us how human sexuality is a phase."
You have yet to admit that I never said human sexuality was a phase.

You did say it...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5777261-post.htm

"Homosexuality, for most, is a phase."

Never.

Post #?


Your link says "Page not found"

Here *****, take your medicine:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/237802-wendys-supports-chick-fil-a-31.html#post5777261

You've listed three problems/damages.
If those were ameliorated, are you saying that 'civil unions' are acceptable?

Look at that...STILL not a single answer to the questions posed and yet here you are AGAIN asking yet another question yourself.

I will be happy to answer your Civil Union question when you answer my two simple question I posed.

Number one...Since interracial marriage was so unpopular, should it have been ruled on by the SCOTUS, yes or no.

Number two...What is the societal harm in allowing me the rights, benefits and protections of legal, civil marriage?

Well, Sandwich....I will state that I understand your upset, and personal angst in this matter.

Let me try to make my belief clear.

1."What is the societal harm in allowing me the rights, benefits and protections of legal, civil marriage?"
None, in that I wouldn't know whether the couple next door is 'married' or in a civil union.
But isn't the same true in reverse....i.e., if you were accorded the financial benefits that you see as being denied, why change the definition of marriage?

And I would vote for a bill that gave you said benefits.


2. Interracial marriage is in no way related to this question.
One reason is that folks are born into a race, and have no way to change same.
Homosexuality, for most, is a phase.

a. "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

b. "Also interesting was the finding that by the time they get to middle age, the rate of self-identified homosexuality among women plummets well below 1%. Furthermore, between 92% of women self-identifying as homosexual and 70% of men self-identifying as homosexual have had sexual intercourse with members of the opposite sex, while only 6% of self-identified heterosexuals have had sex with a member of the same sex."
American Population: 1.4 Percent Homosexuals, TrySexuals, Who Knows? | DBKP - Death By 1000 Papercuts - DBKP

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf

c. "This study asks us to consider is whether impressionable young people could be persuaded by seductive others that they are “genetically” homosexual, when in fact they are not–..." Ibid.



3. That being said, I see the solution as a political question, not a religious nor racial one.
If the people of a state vote in favor of gay marriage...it should be a reality. If a constitutional amendment is passed, either for or against...then,I would support the result.



I understand that you would vote for, while I, with no wish to see you unhappy, would vote to keep the traditional definition.
I wish you the best.

No go sit down, shut the **** up and quit blocking progress you bigoted, ignorant ****.

 

[Seawytch]

let's see if there is a continued consistency in that vein...

1. "explain to us how human sexuality is a phase."
you have yet to admit that i never said human sexuality was a phase.

you did say it...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5777261-post.htm

"homosexuality, for most, is a phase."

never.

Post #?


Your link says "page not found"

#462 (where you referred to me as Sandwich")

 

[PoliticalChic]

You did say it...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5777261-post.htm

"Homosexuality, for most, is a phase."

Never.

Post #?


Your link says "Page not found"

Here *****, take your medicine:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/237802-wendys-supports-chick-fil-a-31.html#post5777261

Look at that...STILL not a single answer to the questions posed and yet here you are AGAIN asking yet another question yourself.

I will be happy to answer your Civil Union question when you answer my two simple question I posed.

Number one...Since interracial marriage was so unpopular, should it have been ruled on by the SCOTUS, yes or no.

Number two...What is the societal harm in allowing me the rights, benefits and protections of legal, civil marriage?

Well, Sandwich....I will state that I understand your upset, and personal angst in this matter.

Let me try to make my belief clear.

1."What is the societal harm in allowing me the rights, benefits and protections of legal, civil marriage?"
None, in that I wouldn't know whether the couple next door is 'married' or in a civil union.
But isn't the same true in reverse....i.e., if you were accorded the financial benefits that you see as being denied, why change the definition of marriage?

And I would vote for a bill that gave you said benefits.


2. Interracial marriage is in no way related to this question.
One reason is that folks are born into a race, and have no way to change same.
Homosexuality, for most, is a phase.

a. "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

b. "Also interesting was the finding that by the time they get to middle age, the rate of self-identified homosexuality among women plummets well below 1%. Furthermore, between 92% of women self-identifying as homosexual and 70% of men self-identifying as homosexual have had sexual intercourse with members of the opposite sex, while only 6% of self-identified heterosexuals have had sex with a member of the same sex."
American Population: 1.4 Percent Homosexuals, TrySexuals, Who Knows? | DBKP - Death By 1000 Papercuts - DBKP

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf

c. "This study asks us to consider is whether impressionable young people could be persuaded by seductive others that they are “genetically” homosexual, when in fact they are not–..." Ibid.



3. That being said, I see the solution as a political question, not a religious nor racial one.
If the people of a state vote in favor of gay marriage...it should be a reality. If a constitutional amendment is passed, either for or against...then,I would support the result.



I understand that you would vote for, while I, with no wish to see you unhappy, would vote to keep the traditional definition.
I wish you the best.

No go sit down, shut the **** up and quit blocking progress you bigoted, ignorant ****.

1. Each and every day you find new, and greater ways to prove how profoundly stupid you are!

I can't begin to tell you how pleased I am that you represent the Left!!

Yippee!



2. Now to eviscerate you.

a. The phrase in question: "Human sexuality, for most, is a phase."

b. The phrase you, in your blind ignorance, have provided:
"Homosexuality, for most, is a phase."

3. Based on your limited intelligence....let's take this v-e-r-y slowly....

Get your magnifying glass and observe the keyboard....you know where to find that, don't you, dunce?

Do you see that there are a number of different letters?
Good.

Now, unlike you, folks with a modicum of intelligence use the letters in very specific order...
...I certainly do; I try to be precise. Learn from your betters.



Thus, when I write "Human"...I don't mean to write "homo"

Beginning to see your error?



4. Q.E.D....I did not write the phrase that you claim I did.

And, as a corollary....you are truly a dim-wit.

A stupid, ill-mannered, inarticulate dim-wit.

True story.



Now....be sure to write soon!!

I need a good laugh!

 

[Seawytch]

You said it, quite clearly. Are you really trying to deny that you implied homosexuality is a phase?

 

[PoliticalChic]

you did say it...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5777261-post.htm

"homosexuality, for most, is a phase."

never.

Post #?


Your link says "page not found"

#462 (where you referred to me as Sandwich")

Since it annoyed you enough to mention it twice, I'll avoid...retract 'Sandwich'..

...but PLEASE don't tell me that you are as much a dim-wit as the jerk who supported you above!!!!


PLEASE!


This is the item from #462

2. Interracial marriage is in no way related to this question.
One reason is that folks are born into a race, and have no way to change same.
Homosexuality, for most, is a phase.


Homosexuality, for most, is a phase.


Not the false misquote of the pretender who wrote that I said "human sexuality is, for most, a phase."


Read my response to that idiot above...and I await your post.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

never.

Post #?


Your link says "page not found"

#462 (where you referred to me as Sandwich")

Since it annoyed you enough to mention it twice, I'll avoid...retract 'Sandwich'..

...but PLEASE don't tell me that you are as much a dim-wit as the jerk who supported you above!!!!


PLEASE!


This is the item from #462

2. Interracial marriage is in no way related to this question.
One reason is that folks are born into a race, and have no way to change same.
Homosexuality, for most, is a phase.


Homosexuality, for most, is a phase.


Not the false misquote of the pretender who wrote that I said "human sexuality is, for most, a phase."


Read my response to that idiot above...and I await your post.

So are you claiming that homosexuality is not human sexuality? You're arguing semantics, and you are clearly out of touched and outmatched here, you dummy. Honestly, seeing how easily you can just lie about your very obvious intent and implication in your post means I'm totally through with you. You've been shown to be an arrogant ****, completely incapable of honest discussion, and when called on your own bullshit you run and hide behind semantics.

You said homosexuality was a phase, yes. And since the homosexuals in question are humans, guess what? You lose PoliticalDick. And your "evisceration" of me was weak-sauce. Boy howdy you are dumb. I never said you said human sexuality is a phase. You said you never said homosexuality is a phase, and I quoted you where you said exactly that. But just one more time, I'll do it again.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Let's see if there is a continued consistency in that vein...

1. "Explain to us how human sexuality is a phase."
You have yet to admit that I never said human sexuality was a phase.

You did say it...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5777261-post.htm

"Homosexuality, for most, is a phase."

Never.

Post #?


Your link says "Page not found"

Here *****, take your medicine:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/237802-wendys-supports-chick-fil-a-31.html#post5777261

You've listed three problems/damages.
If those were ameliorated, are you saying that 'civil unions' are acceptable?

Look at that...STILL not a single answer to the questions posed and yet here you are AGAIN asking yet another question yourself.

I will be happy to answer your Civil Union question when you answer my two simple question I posed.

Number one...Since interracial marriage was so unpopular, should it have been ruled on by the SCOTUS, yes or no.

Number two...What is the societal harm in allowing me the rights, benefits and protections of legal, civil marriage?

Well, Sandwich....I will state that I understand your upset, and personal angst in this matter.

Let me try to make my belief clear.

1."What is the societal harm in allowing me the rights, benefits and protections of legal, civil marriage?"
None, in that I wouldn't know whether the couple next door is 'married' or in a civil union.
But isn't the same true in reverse....i.e., if you were accorded the financial benefits that you see as being denied, why change the definition of marriage?

And I would vote for a bill that gave you said benefits.


2. Interracial marriage is in no way related to this question.
One reason is that folks are born into a race, and have no way to change same.
Homosexuality, for most, is a phase.

a. "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

b. "Also interesting was the finding that by the time they get to middle age, the rate of self-identified homosexuality among women plummets well below 1%. Furthermore, between 92% of women self-identifying as homosexual and 70% of men self-identifying as homosexual have had sexual intercourse with members of the opposite sex, while only 6% of self-identified heterosexuals have had sex with a member of the same sex."
American Population: 1.4 Percent Homosexuals, TrySexuals, Who Knows? | DBKP - Death By 1000 Papercuts - DBKP

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf

c. "This study asks us to consider is whether impressionable young people could be persuaded by seductive others that they are “genetically” homosexual, when in fact they are not–..." Ibid.



3. That being said, I see the solution as a political question, not a religious nor racial one.
If the people of a state vote in favor of gay marriage...it should be a reality. If a constitutional amendment is passed, either for or against...then,I would support the result.



I understand that you would vote for, while I, with no wish to see you unhappy, would vote to keep the traditional definition.
I wish you the best.

**** you're stupid.

 

[philsphan04]

Which definition? The biblical one that says you can have multiple wives and must marry your rapist?

The alleged "rape" passages are based on mistranslations. You might read this article.

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?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You said it, quite clearly. Are you really trying to deny that you implied homosexuality is a phase?

"You said it..."

No I didn't.


"...you implied..."
I say what I mean, and mean what I say.


Your post is a sleazy way to try to worm out of admitting your mistake.
I had hoped better for you.

This is what you should post:"You're right...I misread the phrase."

When I make a mistake I send a rep to apologize.
Not you?

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Gee, why is PoliticalDick not in here anymore? Got her ass handed to her and she ran out. That's neg worthy.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

You said it, quite clearly. Are you really trying to deny that you implied homosexuality is a phase?

"You said it..."

No I didn't.


"...you implied..."
I say what I mean, and mean what I say.


Your post is a sleazy way to try to worm out of admitting your mistake.
I had hoped better for you.

This is what you should post:"You're right...I misread the phrase."

When I make a mistake I send a rep to apologize.
Not you?

Dear Dummy,

Twice now I have quoted you DIRECTLY as saying that homosexuality was a phase. Which is what you were accused of saying. You continuing to deny that you said it makes you a cowardly little intellectual midget. Please **** off.

Regards,

Col. Mustard

 

[PoliticalChic]

#462 (where you referred to me as Sandwich")

Since it annoyed you enough to mention it twice, I'll avoid...retract 'Sandwich'..

...but PLEASE don't tell me that you are as much a dim-wit as the jerk who supported you above!!!!


PLEASE!


This is the item from #462

2. Interracial marriage is in no way related to this question.
One reason is that folks are born into a race, and have no way to change same.
Homosexuality, for most, is a phase.


Homosexuality, for most, is a phase.


Not the false misquote of the pretender who wrote that I said "human sexuality is, for most, a phase."


Read my response to that idiot above...and I await your post.

So are you claiming that homosexuality is not human sexuality? You're arguing semantics, and you are clearly out of touched and outmatched here, you dummy. Honestly, seeing how easily you can just lie about your very obvious intent and implication in your post means I'm totally through with you. You've been shown to be an arrogant ****, completely incapable of honest discussion, and when called on your own bullshit you run and hide behind semantics.

You said homosexuality was a phase, yes. And since the homosexuals in question are humans, guess what? You lose PoliticalDick. And your "evisceration" of me was weak-sauce. Boy howdy you are dumb. I never said you said human sexuality is a phase. You said you never said homosexuality is a phase, and I quoted you where you said exactly that. But just one more time, I'll do it again.

I LOVE how you project every hallmark of the Left!!!

LOVE IT!

You're not merely stupid....you have no class, no character....simply a low-level mouth breathing invertebrate!!!


I love smashing you, pulverizing you and exposing just what you are!!!

Don't ever change...message-board Eunuch!!

Let's review.

1. The first fabricated post is #464, in which the prevaricator claims I wrote this:
"Explain to us how human sexuality is a phase."


2. I called him out in post #465:
Since the post never states that "human sexuality is a phase," you have descended to your usual level of veracity....

...true?


3. I repeated same in post #540:
"Explain to us how human sexuality is a phase."
You have yet to admit that I never said human sexuality was a phase.


4. Then Seawytch claimed the same in post #542
You did say it...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5777261-post.htm

"Homosexuality, for most, is a phase."

5. Then the biggest fool of all, you, use giant font to make sure everyone knows you are
a dolt...in post #545:
Homosexuality, for most, is a phase.


6. Now....best of all...you compound your stupidity with this, post #550:
"So are you claiming that homosexuality is not human sexuality?"

But...surprise,surprise....you almost redeem yourself with this:
"You said homosexuality was a phase, yes."

That should have been followed with your apology.
If you had character.

 

[Seawytch]

Since it annoyed you enough to mention it twice, I'll avoid...retract 'Sandwich'..

...but PLEASE don't tell me that you are as much a dim-wit as the jerk who supported you above!!!!


PLEASE!


This is the item from #462

2. Interracial marriage is in no way related to this question.
One reason is that folks are born into a race, and have no way to change same.
Homosexuality, for most, is a phase.


Homosexuality, for most, is a phase.


Not the false misquote of the pretender who wrote that I said "human sexuality is, for most, a phase."


Read my response to that idiot above...and I await your post.

So are you claiming that homosexuality is not human sexuality? You're arguing semantics, and you are clearly out of touched and outmatched here, you dummy. Honestly, seeing how easily you can just lie about your very obvious intent and implication in your post means I'm totally through with you. You've been shown to be an arrogant ****, completely incapable of honest discussion, and when called on your own bullshit you run and hide behind semantics.

You said homosexuality was a phase, yes. And since the homosexuals in question are humans, guess what? You lose PoliticalDick. And your "evisceration" of me was weak-sauce. Boy howdy you are dumb. I never said you said human sexuality is a phase. You said you never said homosexuality is a phase, and I quoted you where you said exactly that. But just one more time, I'll do it again.

I LOVE how you project every hallmark of the Left!!!

LOVE IT!

You're not merely stupid....you have no class, no character....simply a low-level mouth breathing invertebrate!!!


I love smashing you, pulverizing you and exposing just what you are!!!

Don't ever change...message-board Eunuch!!

Let's review.

1. The first fabricated post is #464, in which the prevaricator claims I wrote this:
"Explain to us how human sexuality is a phase."


2. I called him out in post #465:
Since the post never states that "human sexuality is a phase," you have descended to your usual level of veracity....

...true?


3. I repeated same in post #540:
"Explain to us how human sexuality is a phase."
You have yet to admit that I never said human sexuality was a phase.


4. Then Seawytch claimed the same in post #542
You did say it...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5777261-post.htm

"Homosexuality, for most, is a phase."

5. Then the biggest fool of all, you, use giant font to make sure everyone knows you are
a dolt...in post #545:
Homosexuality, for most, is a phase.


6. Now....best of all...you compound your stupidity with this, post #550:
"So are you claiming that homosexuality is not human sexuality?"

But...surprise,surprise....you almost redeem yourself with this:
"You said homosexuality was a phase, yes."

That should have been followed with your apology.
If you had character.

You said "homosexuality is a phase". Do you stand by your statement or not?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So are you claiming that homosexuality is not human sexuality? You're arguing semantics, and you are clearly out of touched and outmatched here, you dummy. Honestly, seeing how easily you can just lie about your very obvious intent and implication in your post means I'm totally through with you. You've been shown to be an arrogant ****, completely incapable of honest discussion, and when called on your own bullshit you run and hide behind semantics.

You said homosexuality was a phase, yes. And since the homosexuals in question are humans, guess what? You lose PoliticalDick. And your "evisceration" of me was weak-sauce. Boy howdy you are dumb. I never said you said human sexuality is a phase. You said you never said homosexuality is a phase, and I quoted you where you said exactly that. But just one more time, I'll do it again.

I LOVE how you project every hallmark of the Left!!!

LOVE IT!

You're not merely stupid....you have no class, no character....simply a low-level mouth breathing invertebrate!!!


I love smashing you, pulverizing you and exposing just what you are!!!

Don't ever change...message-board Eunuch!!

Let's review.

1. The first fabricated post is #464, in which the prevaricator claims I wrote this:
"Explain to us how human sexuality is a phase."


2. I called him out in post #465:
Since the post never states that "human sexuality is a phase," you have descended to your usual level of veracity....

...true?


3. I repeated same in post #540:
"Explain to us how human sexuality is a phase."
You have yet to admit that I never said human sexuality was a phase.


4. Then Seawytch claimed the same in post #542
You did say it...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5777261-post.htm

"Homosexuality, for most, is a phase."

5. Then the biggest fool of all, you, use giant font to make sure everyone knows you are
a dolt...in post #545:
Homosexuality, for most, is a phase.


6. Now....best of all...you compound your stupidity with this, post #550:
"So are you claiming that homosexuality is not human sexuality?"

But...surprise,surprise....you almost redeem yourself with this:
"You said homosexuality was a phase, yes."

That should have been followed with your apology.
If you had character.

You said "homosexuality is a phase". Do you stand by your statement or not?

Did I say "human sexuality is a phase"?

Yes or no?

 

[Seawytch]

The alleged "rape" passages are based on mistranslations. You might read this article.

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?

 

[Seawytch]

I LOVE how you project every hallmark of the Left!!!

LOVE IT!

You're not merely stupid....you have no class, no character....simply a low-level mouth breathing invertebrate!!!


I love smashing you, pulverizing you and exposing just what you are!!!

Don't ever change...message-board Eunuch!!

Let's review.

1. The first fabricated post is #464, in which the prevaricator claims I wrote this:
"Explain to us how human sexuality is a phase."


2. I called him out in post #465:
Since the post never states that "human sexuality is a phase," you have descended to your usual level of veracity....

...true?


3. I repeated same in post #540:
"Explain to us how human sexuality is a phase."
You have yet to admit that I never said human sexuality was a phase.


4. Then Seawytch claimed the same in post #542
You did say it...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5777261-post.htm

"Homosexuality, for most, is a phase."

5. Then the biggest fool of all, you, use giant font to make sure everyone knows you are
a dolt...in post #545:
Homosexuality, for most, is a phase.


6. Now....best of all...you compound your stupidity with this, post #550:
"So are you claiming that homosexuality is not human sexuality?"

But...surprise,surprise....you almost redeem yourself with this:
"You said homosexuality was a phase, yes."

That should have been followed with your apology.
If you had character.

You said "homosexuality is a phase". Do you stand by your statement or not?

Did I say "human sexuality is a phase"?

Yes or no?

You said, and I quoted, "homosexuality (which IS human sexuality). Do you stand by your statement, yes or no?