Conservatives lost the battles in the past they fought against women’s rights, minority rights, and they will lose when it comes to gay rights.
Breaking News
Hurricane Ida Targets US Gulf Coast
Oliver Willis
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
-
-
Topics
Kristy Sanchez-Trujillo
T-Mobile Outage
T-Mobile
Megan Gale
Sylvie Van Der Vaart
Clash Of The Titans
Ashley Neufeld
Afton Williamson
Kyrstin Gemar
Tesla Coil
Xperia X10
Cany Vossough
Reza Vossough
Ninel Conde
Julia Louis Dreyfus
Guardians of Childhood
Botox
Chase Utley
Prince Of Persia Sands Of Time
Cherokee
Christopher Lee
Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince Harry
Cleveland Browns
Ernie Accorsi
Reina Flynn
Reid Gray
Cole Hamels
Brett Myers
Quinn Gray
SEPTA
Burlington Northern
Star Wars The Old Republic
Nightmare On Elm Street
Gerard Butler
Amrit Dhaliwal
Louise Linton
Gwen Stefani
Curtis Lavelle Vance
Anne Pressly
H1N1 Vaccine
Melody Ross
Oasis Of The Seas
Disney Cruise
Selita Ebanks
Anthony Sowell
JJ Redick
Axe Body Spray
Christopher Walken
Dragon Age Origins
Mmmkay … which president signed the “Defense of Marriage Act?” Which vice presidential candidate tried to make an issue out of Mary Cheney?
Republicans are the only ones playing politics on the gay rights issue? You’ve got to be kidding me.
Clinton was dumb to sign the DOMA, and Edwards was paying Cheney the rarely deserved compliment. I didn’t say only Reps play politics with the issue. Look right above your words. I never said that, you simply made that up in your head.
So Ignorant Of History
ODub says, “Conservatives lost the battles in the past they fought against women’s rights, minority rights, and they will lose when it comes to gay rights.” Let’s see. Which party opposed giving women the right to vote? The Democrats. Which…
In the long run, it’s almost impossible to keep hatred of gays stoked up among people who actually have friends and acquaintances who are openly gay
But it is apparently not impossible to pretend Republicans are opposed to it. I guess that would include Republicans “who actually have friends and acquaintances who are openly gay”, hmm?
But it is apparently not impossible to pretend Republicans are opposed to it
Assuming “it” means “hatred of gays” (as that would be the only contextually logical interpetation), you’re saying that all republicans hate gays? Wow, I have just been punked [/rolleye]
And I’d like to take this time to make an offer to the conservatives here. Here’s the deal. You let us legalize gay marrriage in the entire country, and if it ends up destoying all of western society as we know it, we’ll take just as much responsability for it as you guys have for the Iraq war. No takers so far. How peculiar.
Assuming “it” means “hatred of gays” would be the wrong assumption. “It” means “being gay”. So you haven’t been punked, and you can unroll your eyes.
I’ll take your deal on two conditions: The alliance stays in Iraq until the job is done, with no further badmouthing from the left, and the gays stop asking for more and more rights sometime between now and the end of the world.
And I took your offer in 11 minutes. And, yes, you are peculiar.
Not all republicans are opposed to being gay, but most republicans are opposed to equal rights for gays.
Pretty soon “Lysander” or some other wingnut will pipe up with the same sort of rationalization that was used by those opposed to equal rights for blacks, women, etc.
most republicans are opposed to equal rights for gays.
You have absolutely no idea if that is true.
There are a lot of things to consider before one even defines “equal rights for gays”.
Defining a “civil union” as a marriage, and allowing that for couples of the same sex, is only the beginning.
A side note: Constantly repeating the false information that Republicans “fought against civil rights” (and, no, I am not talking about Lincoln. I am talking about 1960 to 1965) is not boosting your credibility.
No-one “tried to make an issue of Mary Cheney”. She was brought up and instantaneously everyone on the right started shrieking about it. Because they have no shame.
You have absolutely no idea if that is true.
Sure I do. Visit this site and scroll down to the sections that offer breakdown by party. In every single case republicans are above 50% for the anti-equal-rights position.
Constantly repeating the false information that Republicans “fought against civil rights” … is not boosting your credibility.
Oliver did not say that. He said “conservatives… fought against civil rights.”
Conservative racist assh*les of both parties fought against civil rights in the 50’s and 60’s. Your confusion stems from the fact that nowadays the vast majority of conservative racist assh*les are republicans.
A side note: Constantly repeating the false information that Republicans “fought against civil rights” (and, no, I am not talking about Lincoln. I am talking about 1960 to 1965) is not boosting your credibility.
You can’t make the blanket statement that all Republicans fought against civil rights in the 50’s and 60’s. However, in 2007, it’s as irrelevant as “the party of Lincoln”.
Re the Republicans and civil rights, it’s true: Southern racists stuck with the Democrats until the party opened up more fully to liberal ideas. Then revanchist Confederates moved permanently to the Republican Party, moving their barcalounger comfortably there.
Similarly, good Republicans like Maryland’s Aris T. Allen would not remain Republicans today. The Republican Party that got the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed probably regrets it now; more than a few Republicans voted to terminate and sunset that law in a recent Congressional vote including Maryland REPUBLICAN Roscoe Coltrane Bartlett.
Robert Byrd is pretty much the only exception to this; he stayed a Democrat and may perhaps not be a racist any more, or may be. But Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, Rush Limbaugh, George Allen, take your pick. Pick your nose, for all I care.
I specifically said conservatives because I will not play the game modern conservatives do when they try to claim that the current Democratic party is racist because of pre-1960s policies. It was conservatives who supported racism and sexism, and it is conservatives that support discrimination against gays.
“I specifically said conservatives” because that definition is more nebulous. It leads to the following tautology: Conservatives oppose civil tights for gays. Who are conservatives? Those who oppose civil rights for gays. Where can conservatives be found? In the Republican Party, of course.
I will not play the game modern conservatives do.
No, but you will play the game modern liberals play.
You know as well as I do, that there are plenty of libertarian conservatives that are opposed to discrimination against gays, of any type.
But, of course, if they don’t favor equal rights for gays, then — Presto! Chango! — they turn into conservatives.
How conveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenient!
You got it backwards. He didn’t say all conservatives oppose equality for homosexuals, he said everyone who opposes equality for homosexuals is a conservative. The former isn’t accurate. The second, by and large, is.
Plus the fact that no one really gives a shit what libertarians think anyway.
Whatever the Republican party is today, it is not an expression of a libertarian conservative philosophy. The proof of that is the presidential campaign of Ron Paul, whom I believe would probably poll better among Democrats than Republicans.
Exactly my point, Zed.
Ron Paul is a well documented racist asshole. True libertarians (both of them) are silly suburban sophomores. Pseudo-Libertarians (think Glenn Reynolds or fratboys) claim to be libertarian yet somehow support teh Iraq War, the Patriot Act, and gay bashing. They’re the worst.
You know as well as I do, that there are plenty of libertarian conservatives that are opposed to discrimination against gays, of any type.
Plenty? There are probably more black Republicans.
“…and the gays stop asking for more and more rights sometime between now and the end of the world.”
Yeah, how dare those uppity gays ask for the same rights straights have! What nerve.
Frank, you’re an idiot.
“there are plenty of libertarian conservatives that are opposed to discrimination against gays, of any type”
How many, and who are they voting for?
I’ll take your deal on two conditions: The alliance stays in Iraq until the job is done, with no further badmouthing from the left, and the gays stop asking for more and more rights sometime between now and the end of the world.
Accept a compromise from a neo-conservative? Do you really think I’m that stupid?
Will the people out there who no longer believe that there are any libertarian conservatives (almost a redundancy) please tell me where you think they went?
frameone: will you ever learn that your name calling just enhances everyone’s impression of your stupidity?
Do you ever have an idea?
You’re the fucking idiot…
Especially if you are naïve enough to believe that all over America there are suffering gays living in squalid housing because they can’t rent an apartment, or starving because they can’t be employed.
This whole gay marriage thing is the trojan horse for all kinds of requests to follow, that have nothing to do with civil rights. Most people couldn’t care less what gay people do in the privacy of their own home; and most people couldn’t care less if homosexuals want to legitimize their relationships.
Personally, I take it as a good sign that they choose to make a public statement of their commitment.
A personal note to you, frameone: How do you feel knowing that you make a living as a writer, with a vocabulary that is inferior to my son’s vocabulary when he was in the fifth grade?
Yes, Zython, I think you’re pretty stupid.
a) You offered a deal, not me.
b) I’m not even a neo – conservative.
Usually, about here, frameone, writes: Classic.
a) You offered a deal, not me.
True, but you offered additions to that deal, which is what I was refering to.
b) I’m not even a neo – conservative.
Fine, ultra-conservative, is that better?
This whole gay marriage thing is the trojan horse for all kinds of requests to follow, that have nothing to do with civil rights.
Have any examples? Or are you pulling stuff out of your ass again?
Zython, I’m not here at your convenience…
Why don’t you contribute something to this blog occasionally?
Or are you just pulling questions out of your ass again?
Zython, I’m not here at your convenience…
Why don’t you contribute something to this blog occasionally?
Or are you just pulling questions out of your ass again?
So you’re admitting that you’re making up excuses to oppose giving equal rights to homosexuals. Gotcha.
“Which vice presidential candidate tried to make an issue out of Mary Cheney?”
That would be Dick Cheney, the person who first mentioned she was a lesbian during the election. The Republicans then freakout out when someone on the left repeated that fact.
“This whole gay marriage thing is the trojan horse for all kinds of requests to follow, that have nothing to do with civil rights.”
Adjust your medication, you paranoid freak. Gay marriage is legal in several places now, surely you can come up with more than vague warnings. How has gay marriage damaged Canada, for instance?
CSS:
I don’t know what it has “done to Canada”. I’m sure if there were any problems, we wouldn’t hear what they are from you, you sniveling liar.
And here’s a news flash for you: Canada is not the United States. Never was. Never will be.
Forget veiled warnings. What are some of the issues involved in homosexual relationships that have yet to be discussed in the forums of the general public?
If you can’t name three, then you don’t know jack shit about this issue. You all just want to be the first to say, “I like gays… I want civil rights for gays…” You’re like children who want candy before dinner. You need adults to step in, and think for you.
This isn’t about two gay guys heading down the aisle together, and having a party afterwards. This isn’t going to disrupt marriages and families as much as it is going the legal and economic aspects of married life. But let’s not think about that now.
Let’s just let the lovebirds walk down the aisle.
“This whole gay marriage thing is the trojan horse for all kinds of requests to follow, that have nothing to do with civil rights.”
What kind of rights are you talking about Frank?
Either you think homosexuality is no big deal or think there’s something wrong and icky with it — at least enough so that gays should not be allowed some rights that heterosexuals are allowed solely because they are gay.
If you think homosexuality is icky, whatever, that’s your problem. The second you think social policy should be based on your icky feeling, you become an idiot.
But please, frank, tell us all the rights that gays are trying to sneak in through the back door, ahem, via the marriage issue.
Then tell us all why straights who dig transexuals should not be denied the same rights.
I have a better idea, frameone. Why don’t you tell me what rights homosexuals want and why it doesn’t matter if they have them. (And please, don’t tell me, “The same rights as straight people”. Then I’ll just say,”Yes”)
I’ve never said homosexuality is evil, sinful, nor suggested that it should be considered illegal. Is that what you mean by “icky”?
I don’t remember exactly what that word means. I haven’t heard it since my children were little and came to me with chocolate or ice cream on their hands.
Your last sentence is absolutely meaningless, on several levels. Perhaps you’d care to elaborate.
This isn’t about two gay guys heading down the aisle together, and having a party afterwards. This isn’t going to disrupt marriages and families as much as it is going the legal and economic aspects of married life. But let’s not think about that now.
Then WHAT IS IT ABOUT? You’ve been so goodamned busy acting like a smug asshole pretending to know the consequences of treating homosexuals like human being that you haven’t even told us WHAT those consequences ARE. Enlighten us, oh “great” one.
And here’s a news flash for you: Canada is not the United States. Never was. Never will be.
No, but homosexuals are homosexuals. And the problems, or lack thereof that they cause there would also be caused here.
Frank,
Anytime you want to actually state your beliefs and defend them is fine with me. Spewing vague idiocies such as:
or this:
without actually explaining what the fuck it is you have a problem with just gives everyone a headache. Seriously.
Are we supposed to buy that there are at least three aspects of gay relationships so horrifying that gays will do anything to keep them from being discussed in “forums of the general public”?
Would you care to enlighten us?
But again, where someone who has has sexual predelictions that are not typically dicussed in “fourms of the general public” gets off criticing gay relationships is beyond me. Or does this constitute “a forum of the general public”:
http://profiles.urnotalone.com/72986
You know, frameone, there are people who call themselves liberals who would say that that you just revealed information that was no one’s business.
And there are people who would insist that only a Republican or a conservative would do something so foul.
So, for those of you that haven’t zipped over there yet, I’ll tell you exactly what it is: It is a site for transgendered individuals and people who like them, in various ways. It is not a “pick up” site, and I have not personally met met one person as a result of my visits there. I have learned a lot about the Varieties of Human Sexuality, and the problems that adhere to it.
Apparently, there are people here who have not (Was that URL taped to your computer, frameone?)
Here’s a few issues for you, since you seem to be desperately in need of education on many levels.
Survivors on insurance policies, where the policy is described as “next of kin”.
“First” and “second” wife for purposes of Social Security.
Custody issues, when a lesbian couple splits up (what is the father’s position)
“Life partner’s” position ‘in line of succession’ when someone dies intestate with a substantial amount of assets.
without actually explaining what the fuck it is you have a problem with just gives everyone a headache.
Advice for those wishing to avoid headaches (spoken by a former headache sufferer):
Give “Lysander” one (1) chance to express himself cogently. If instead he responds with pretentious portentious pugnacious pythian pronouncements like the ones above, turn off the lights and tune him out.
Of course, some of you may like having headaches. If so, proceed.
Survivors on insurance policies, where the policy is described as “next of kin”.
“First” and “second” wife for purposes of Social Security.
Custody issues, when a lesbian couple splits up (what is the father’s position)
“Life partner’s” position ‘in line of succession’ when someone dies intestate with a substantial amount of assets.
In all of those circumstances, the spouse’s gender doesn’t matter. In those circumstances, the spouse should be treated the same under the circumstances of a hetrosexual marriage. If anything, the LACK of gay marriage makes those situations more complex than they have to be.
In short, the solution is Life Partner = Spouse, then go from there as you would in case of opposite genders.
You are wrong, Zython.
I don’t feel like pursuing your nonsense any further, so I will give you one example:
Survivors on insurance policies, where the policy is described as “next of kin”.
In all of those circumstances, the spouse’s gender doesn’t matter.
No, it doesn’t. But marital status does. A man’s wife is “next of kin”; his roomate is not.
Now, go look at the URL, and dig up a few cool one liners for tomorrow, You need your nummy – nums.
No, it doesn’t. But marital status does. A man’s wife is “next of kin”; his roomate is not.
So…what you seem to be saying is that we shouldn’t legalize gay marriage because some people might use it get insurance money? What preventing people of opposite gender from doing the same thing now?
Now, go look at the URL, and dig up a few cool one liners for tomorrow, You need your nummy – nums.
Do your children know you write this crap in your free time?
Zython, I am not. You don’t know what I am talking about, do you?
These are ISSUES to be discussed, not roadblocks, are clear?
Which crap are you referring to, Zython?
Please hurry with the answer. I’m getting tired, but I reaaly want to read it.
If so, proceed.
OR Without attempting to employ any politeness or courteousness, wait until the proper moment to reveal something about him that is, in your view, so embarrassing that he will answer your demands, or go whimpering home.
That’s the liberal way!
Lysander is right that some things will have to change if legal recognition is given to same-sex marriages or civil unions.
Currently, for instance, according to next-of-kin laws in certain jurisdictions, a person who has been in a monogamous same-sex relationship for 30 years can watch from the afterlife while his bequest to his life partner is challenged by a brother who never spoke to him except to call him a filthy butt-pirate.
Apparently Lysander is worried that such challenges might not be possible in the strange new world of teh gay.
Seeing the prospect of minor statutory adjustments as a troubling issue when it comes to recognizing the rights that people are born with – that’s the conservative way!
“I don’t know what it has “done to Canada”. I’m sure if there were any problems, we wouldn’t hear what they are from you, you sniveling liar.”
And a hearty fuck you, to you.
If you want to call me a liar, you’d better back it up. So tell me something horrible that’s happened in Canada as a result.
“And here’s a news flash for you: Canada is not the United States. Never was. Never will be.”
And if you are an average American, I can only thank god for that.
“You know, frameone, there are people who call themselves liberals who would say that that you just revealed information that was no one’s business.”
Two points:
1.) I guess you really are Frank. I was hoping that wasn’t the case. I thought you left, forever. Forever. I’m not sure you know what that word even means anymore.
2.) We don’t care what you’re into Frank. But guess what, the people who are trying to ban gay marriage do care. They are the ones who think you are a sinner and are going to go to hell forever. Maybe that’s why you are so pissed off.
(On a side note, from the small thumbnail, the second picture makes you look like James Doohan. That’s not an insult in the slightest, just an off-topic comment.)
Wow, Frank’s really being a jerk, even by his own standards. He used to at least attempt to make some kind of point, but now he’s just wildly stabbing people with his word knife.
“Wow, Frank’s really being a jerk, even by his own standards.”
I’d say he’s lost it, but that would imply he had it at some point.
So ignore him. That will get him to leave and maybe he will seek the help he needs. I don’t have any hate or disdain for him anymore, just pity.
Apparently Lysander is worried that such challenges might not be possible in the strange new world of the gay.
Actually, no. Life is more complicated than simply handing people their rights.
We haven’t sorted out the 13th , 14th, and 15th Amendments yet, and it’s been nearly 150 years. Rather than 15 decades of wasted litigiousness — yeah, let’s do it the conservative way!
Aside from that, Does anyone have a comment?
We don’t care what you’re into Frank
Which is why you brought it up — because you don’t care. And you did make sure to check out the site, didn’t you?
And who is this damn “we”? Editorial, imperial, or are you once again assuming the role of ambassador from OliverLand?
I don’t have any hate or disdain for him anymore, just pity.
Aren’t you special? Because I hate you… You know why? Because you’re an ignorant, unprincipled hypocrite.
Nimrod: You’re just Nimrod. A pathetic excuse for a human being who disgraces my grandparents’ blood by assigning himself the mission of silencing me. Why, Nimrod?
Is it because you’re a chav wanker?
Whatever he may have had, he has lost. Bye, Frank. Hope your IP gets blocked.
We haven’t sorted out the 13th , 14th, and 15th Amendments yet…
Or the 1st through the 10th for that matter. What’s your point?
Give people their rights. Work out the details later. That’s the liberal way.
Continue to deny people their rights until you’ve figured out how to avoid every possible inconvenience. That’s the conservative way.
Thank God I’m a liberal.
“I don’t feel like pursuing your nonsense any further, so I will give you one example:”
And there we have it. Frank think’s gays shouldn’t be treated like everyone else, just cuz. But naturally his sexuality and sexual interests are no one’s business (which is why he posts using his own on name and photo on the internet) and his legal rights to have custody of his children shouldn’t be effected in anyway by them.
Rank hypocrisy, Frank. Rank hypocrisy.
There is a method in the Constitution already. It is the Amendment method.
Let each state ratify an Amendment to the Constitution. This way, the people have an input,and their respective States’ deliberative bodies discuss the issue as well.
That’s what President Bush wanted long ago. But the activists among the gays had no patience for such a process. That’s where the analogy of the “Trojan horse” comes in: Get ALL your rights snuck in by allowing gay marriage.
My question for you is: What “rights” are being denied?
Frank, You just pointed out a few right above, did you not?
There are custody issues, insurance issues, adoption issues, tax issues, etc. etc. that all change with marital status.
I understand that a hypocrite idiot such as yourself would rather characterize the impact of marriage laws on these other rights as a “trojan horse” tactic. That’s what makes you such a dishonest hack.
It’s also clear that you have a problem with gay people having these rights for some reason, reasons you seem unwilling or unable to articulate. All you’ve said so far is that gay people should be treated like straight people because they’re gay.
That’s no reason not to give people equal treatment under the law.
frameone: It was unlikely that you could be a bigger asshole than you already have been, but you have done it.
I get tired at 4 in the morning and you accuse me of bigotry — what a fucking idiot you are!
BTW, Paul Malcolm, I started out posting as FrankD. It was the detective work of bottom feeders like you that got my name all over this blog.
You’re a useless piece of shit (I added “useless” so as not to defame shit). You call me a hypocrite. You reveal information that no one knew about me — twice — and call it public. Then you pretend you’re concerned about people’s rights.
And if you’re a believer in the idea that a person’s sexual preferences shouldn’t change what their rights are, then why even mention my “sexual predilections”?
But I’m the hypocrite. You’re a bigot, a liar, and a hypocrite, and there’s no way you can deny it.
“It was the detective work of bottom feeders like you that got my name all over this blog.”
Detective work? Dude, you published your fucking home address in a thread
Bottom line is frank you want to restrict the rights of some for whom they choose to love but expect nothing only respect and privacy and all your rights no matter who you do.
Hypocrite.
Now if you want to actually explain why gays shouldn’t have full custody rights but tranny chaser should, go for it.
“You call me a hypocrite. You reveal information that no one knew about me — twice — and call it public.”
Oh and frank, we all knew about it, trust me …
It’s also clear that you have a problem with gay people having these rights for some reason, reasons you seem unwilling or unable to articulate.
Considering I’ve said I have no such problem on many an occasion, and as you have so gleefully pointed out, my own predilections make it unlikely that I would have such objections, perhaps the burden is upon you to illuminate the “problems I seem unwilling or unable to point out”.
Until then, I am calling you a liar, a hypocrite, and a bigot, who is simply harassing me to cover his own sins.
Oh and frank, we all knew about it, trust me …
That’s what I meant by “twice”, idiot. I had already heard about the first time — and that it was you that had revealed it.
The psychopathic “s” repeated it over and over, but it was you who revealed it first.
um, what? Now i’m supposed to read your mind?
You’re losing it, man. Totally losing it.
I do recognize that in you flurry of insanity in this thread you’ve thrown out some kind of constitutional objection to it. Care to elaborate or is the nonsense above all were going to get/
“…and that it was you that had revealed it.”
Um, wrong on that score frank. I first saw that link in a thread here.
but please, don’t let me stand in the way of your persecution complex …
“Give people their rights. Work out the details later. That’s the liberal way.”
The very same way that has worked increasingly well for the US for the last quarter millennium; some of us even call it the “Bill of Rights”.
Frank publishes his home address on this blog in a fit of testosterone-fueled rage and regularly reveals intimate details of his personal life to assist with the context of his comments and no one’s supposed to notice.
Then he denies ever publishing this personal information and anyone who proves him wrong is a psychopathic bottom feeder.
Hello? It is public, you imbecile. It’s on the freaking Internet…dumbass. Under your real name even.
Let each state ratify an Amendment to the Constitution. This way, the people have an input,and their respective States’ deliberative bodies discuss the issue as well.
Because South Carolina doesn’t have the right altitude for gay marriage?
I get tired at 4 in the morning and you accuse me of bigotry — what a fucking idiot you are!
Wait…you’re a bigot because it’s 4 A.M….what?
Considering I’ve said I have no such problem on many an occasion, and as you have so gleefully pointed out, my own predilections make it unlikely that I would have such objections,
Then why do you oppose gays getting married?
Zython: I don’t.
Would any else like to say it, so I can say I don’t?
Wait…you’re a bigot because it’s 4 A.M….what?
Ask frameone — it was his accusation, not mine.
Frank if you don’t have a problem with legalizing gay marriage, just WTF do you have a problem with? What on earth would prompt you to write something such as this:
“This whole gay marriage thing is the trojan horse for all kinds of requests to follow, that have nothing to do with civil rights.”
You are suggesting some kind of subterfuge on behalf of the gay rights movement that simply doesn’t exist. At the same time, how do adoption, insurance, tax and custody issues have nothing to do with civil rights when gays are currently treated differently than straights under the law, simply because they are gay?
Ultimately, you have no idea what you’re talking about but since Catholic school in the 50s has fucked you up so bad you feel compelled to say something, anything to get attention. Am I close?
frameone: No, you are not close. You don’t really expect me to have a substantive dialog with someone as disgusting as you, do you?
How could you possibly pretend that you are concerned about the rights of others, after how you’ve acted?
Stop telling me what I’m “implying”, because you don’t have whatever it takes to ask a question.
Can’t you carry on a conversation without an adversarial and contentious tone?
I am really tired of answering your questions, only to have it followed by denials that I was telling the truth.
When you are willing to engage me in a serious discussion on this issue,instead of engaging in a fruitless attempt to prove your own superiority, let me know. I’ll be waiting.
Personally,I don’t care what gays do. But, pretending that they are the “new black” is going to get them nowhere, in my opinion.
If they attempt to follow the same path as blacks, i.e., via the Supreme Court, it will not work. Every one has different opinions about affirmative action, set asides, and quotas. To pretend otherwise is worse than utopian — it is juvenile.
To pretend that there are no gay rights advocates who want far more freedoms than the average gay guy or gal is incredibly naive.
On a personal note, it takes a giant pair of cojones to say anything about a “tranny chaser’s” custody rights while advocating custody rights for gays. But that’s just my opinion. I didn’t make this thread about me. That was frameone.
The fact that my name is on the Internet doesn’t mean you get to research it and publicize it here; considering I’ve never seen it done in the case of anyone else.
Lysander Spooner II | Jun 17, 2007 9:13:36 PM
“The fact that my name is on the Internet doesn’t mean you get to research it and publicize it here”
No, Frank, you published your name and your home address all by yourself. No one else had that information or the details of your personal life that you reveal on a regular basis.
I can’t believe I am so late to this party… all I can say is, this whole thread is absolutely delicious.
I remember seeing your profile on URNotalone sometime a while back, Frank, but thought it was a joke someone was playing on you. Tell us, how does it feel to support a party that would just as soon spit on you for your sexual proclivities?
Oh, and Frank… interesting MySpace page. Seriously… you have ADD or something? You’re all over the place. Get help.
“To pretend that there are no gay rights advocates who want far more freedoms than the average gay guy or gal is incredibly naive.”
Frank, the question is are there gay rights activists advocating for more rights than the average American citizen? The answer is no. They want the same rights that straights have. For some reason, as yet undeclared, you seem to have a problem with this.
If you just have a problem with the way gay activists are going aboout acquiring their just rights, through the courts as opposed to some kind of constitutional amendment, well, tough shit. The system is set up for them to pursue their rights as they see fit. The judicial system is their as a counter to the legislative system to counteract the tyrrany of the masses in precisely these kinds of civil rights situations.
The Founders of this country did not advocate a “majority rules” philosophy. They created a system of checks and balances to ensure that minorities did not have their rights trampled under by the popular will. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Founders.
“On a personal note, it takes a giant pair of cojones to say anything about a “tranny chaser’s” custody rights while advocating custody rights for gays.”
Coupla things about this:
1. Why?
2. Why do you put tranny chaser in quotes when it’s clearly how you have IDd yourself on your profile and th urnotalone site has an actual, official definition of the term?
Why do you put tranny chaser in quotes when it’s clearly how you have IDd yourself
That is not true.
Once again I am answering your erroneous conclusions. They supply the labels, hence the quotes.
Why does it take balls to raise the issue of my having “custody” [don't forget to ask me why I put custody in quotes ] of my children, when you undoubtedly favor gay adoption?
Are you suggesting that because I participate in a Transgendered chat room, that I shouldn’t have “custody” of my own children.
There actually is more to the story than that, but of course, you can make jokes about it and mock me for it, for years to come; all the while congratulating yourselves for your openmindedness and compassion — that takes balls.
If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Founders.
Surely you can direct me to the essays in the Federalist Papers on how to deal with the issues of gays. My guess is you’ll find it right next to “Abortion on demand, Permission for”
Tell us, how does it feel to support a party that would just as soon spit on you for your sexual proclivities?
You mean, as opposed to you liberals, who have been so kind and accepting of me?
Puhleeeeeeeeze!
You mean, as opposed to you liberals, who have been so kind and accepting of me?
If your reception here has not been kind, it is not because of your sexual proclivities, but because you are a sententious, pretentious, ignorant, hypocritical asshole.
The references to your published proclivities only serve to demonstrate the penultimate term. I still wish people would stop bringing it up – it only gives you the chance to play wounded cow – as if you needed one.
it is not because of your sexual proclivities
Perhaps you need to re-read the thread. I was not referring to anything else. I’m sure you were.
I still wish people would stop bringing it up
So do I. But you’re clever. You can provide them with a rationalization that will no doubt exonerate them of any responsibility.
That seems to be of such great importance to you, that you have “turned the lights back on”.
So, where we stand right now is: I shouldn’t have custody of my children, because I belong to a transgendered chat room (a bit of information that I never revealed, until now, because it has become the subject of nearly half of this thread).
Gay folks should have custody of their children and / or be allowed to adopt, because they should have the same rights as straight people.
I, who am straight, should not be entitled to those rights, because anything to do with transgendered individuals, is WAY ickier than anything to do with gays.
Also, all this talk about about my personal life (again, revealed by others, not me) has come about because I revealed OTHER information about myself, and,in some way, opened the door to this invasion of my privacy.
Of course, if this had happened to you favorite President, it would be totally irrelevant and nobody’s business.
Finally, I at no time expressed any opposition to gay rights, or any ill will towards gays, yet I have been asked about six times (more?) why I oppose it.
Then, the coup de grace: We don’t have any problem with the stuff we’ve been grilling you about since yesterday, it’s YOU we hate.
Ah, the liberal mindset…
Mooooooooooo-owwwwwwwwwwww!
Wilbur: I guess that’s your cogent comment, eh?
Let’s make this simple, shall we?
Aside from my immediate departure, what do you want?
Will this ever end?
You’re all convinced I have brought this upon myself.
OK. Fine. Then you are required to do nothing. I am.
Now, what is it?
Short of my immediate departure, what will make your lives easier?
Frank,
1. Show me in this thread where I’ve mocked you for belonging to that site?
2. You selected the label yet you put in quotes as if it’s a derogatory term. Why?
3. Please show me where I said you should not have custody of your kids because you dig transexuals? I never said that and don’t believe it. That’s simply something you made up in your head because you haven;t got answer to my question.
4. The Founders did not have to mention gays specifically just like they didn’t have to mention cell phones, air travel or genetic testing or any of the other countless things that the government regulates which came about or were invented after their time. It’s ridiculous to suggest that because the Founders didn’t mention gay rights that the constitutional system they devised has nothing to say on gay rights or the ability of gsys to pursue their rights as American citizens. I mean it;s so ridiculous I wonder why I’m even taking it seriously enough to respond to it. Do you really think that this is how the government works? If the founders didn’t mention it specifically then it doesn’t exist? Are you that stupid?
5. I can only answer yes. Who in their right mind would write some of the things you’ve posted here, such as this:
And then turn around and say that you don’t oppose gay rights. So Frank, if you don’t oppose gay rights, why the fuck do you have a problem with them pursuing their rights in court? It’s their right to do that as citizens isn’t it?
“You’re all convinced I have brought this upon myself.”
I’ve found in my travels that if 50 people think that someone is an @ssh@le, most of the time its because that person is, well, an @ssh@le.
“Short of my immediate departure, what will make your lives easier?”
You just answered your own question. If we even agree with the premise of your question, which is that anyone gives enough of a damn about you to have made their life harder.
You selected the label yet you put in quotes as if it’s a derogatory term. Why?
Why do you keep doing this?
I didn’t choose the label — I said that already. How does one use quotes “as if the word is a derogatory term”. I used quotes, because it was someone else’s term. Is that an incorrect usage?
Did you say this:
Now if you want to actually explain why gays shouldn’t have full custody rights but tranny chaser should, go for it.
frameone, who said, “If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Founders”?
Was that me?
I never said I “have a problem with them pursuing their rights in court?”
I said that of they pursued that route, they would have problems with popular opinion.
Accomplishing things politically requires a majority consensus. You will not acquire it the way blacks did 50 something years ago.
No, I don’t care if they try; no, I don’t care if they marry; no, I don’t care if they adopt children.
And, enlightened liberal, you cared enough to add your detritus to the pile, didn’t you?
So the answer is, you derisively refer to me as someone who calls himself a victim, when either he is not, or he has brought it upon himself; yet there is no evidence that I brought it on myself, and no evidence that I “fired the first shot”.
Not that I really care, but you belie the name “Liberal” whether it is defined in the 1776 fashion, the 1966 fashion, or the 1986 fashion.
ok. you’re an idiot. but we knew that already. moving on …
Frank, you’re an idiot.
Posted by: frameone | Jun 16, 2007 6:17:01 PM
Exactly where it began. Where it always begins.
The idiocy began when you published your home address.
Yes, squirrel, that’s it. I sure was asking for it then, eh?
“I said that of they pursued that route, they would have problems with popular opinion. Accomplishing things politically requires a majority consensus. You will not acquire it the way blacks did 50 something years ago.”
I just wanna touch upon something here, before bowing out of this bullshit finally.
Do you really believe that there was a majority consensus in the South for integration and the end of Jim Crow laws during the Civil Rights era? Seriously? You believe this?
At the same time, the courts are there as a remedy for when the majority of popular opinion is blocking the civil rights of a minority group. That’s how the system was designed! To suggest that there is something wrong with it and so should be discouraged — oh heavens to betsy you’ll upset the bigots — is simply ridiculous.
So to sum up you apparently support the idea that gays should have all the rights that straights have but you don’t like the way they are going about trying to achieve this simple equality — even though they are acting well within the system set up by the Constitution. That’s pretty much it right? It’s hard to see how asking a minority group to just settle down and wait for people to accept them is any different from simply prolonging inequality for no good reason other than to make concessions to hate. How awesome of you, frank.
Again, you’ve had numerous chances to state your case and all you’ve done is prove yet again, you are a total idiot.
The idiocy began when you published your home address.
Lysander Spooner II | Jun 18, 2007 4:35:17 PM
“Yes, squirrel, that’s it. I sure was asking for it then, eh?”
You’re right, Frank. Most people would agree that publishing your home address on the internet is smart. Wonder why more people don’t do it?
Squirrel: Whatever is mistaken about publishing one’s address on the Internet, in no way excuses the rudeness and crudities to which I have been subjected.
In view of the fact that what has been discussed has nothing whatever to do with my home address, you are trying to make a connection like the rapist who says, “She was asking for it, wearing that tight skirt”.
Whether or not it matters to you, or any of your compadres, you are personally responsible for your own actions.
BTW, Squirrel, you should try checking around the Internet for names, and see just how many people publish their names on the WWW.
Try William Smith, for example: 104,000,000 hits.
John Harrigan: 1,010,000 hits
All taking their lives in their hands.
Try as you might, you and your ilk were wrong to do what you did. No two ways about it.
Frank, you’re missing the point we’re trying to make.
Why is it OK for someone who is attracted to transgendered individuals to have custody of children, but it’s not OK for a steady gay couple to do the same? You have yet to answer that question*.
*Not the first time for that, though.
It’s hard to see how asking a minority group to just settle down and wait for people to accept them is any different from simply prolonging inequality for no good reason other than to make concessions to hate. How awesome of you, frank.
Bob Oblong: The best way to gain acceptance is by doing absolutely nothing over a very long period of time.
Why’d they cancel that show?
“Why is it OK for someone who is attracted to transgendered individuals to have custody of children, but it’s not OK for a steady gay couple to do the same?”
Exactly the point all along. Naturally, of course, frank chose to respond as if he’d been attacked for digging transexuals instead for his rank hypocrisy … he is, afterall, an idiot.
Lysander Spooner II | Jun 18, 2007 5:54:43 PM
” … in no way excuses the rudeness and crudities to which I have been subjected.”
“Try as you might, you and your ilk were wrong to do what you did. No two ways about it.”
Boo hoo, Frank. Unless people are in constant agreement with you, you inevitably progress to namecalling, ‘rudeness and crudities’ and that is why you are one of the few OW has banned from his blog.
You add the incident to the pile of persecution complex you haul around everyday.
Me: “We don’t care what you’re into Frank”
Frank: “Which is why you brought it up — because you don’t care.”
I didn’t.
“And you did make sure to check out the site, didn’t you?”
Not until you admitted it was you.
“And who is this damn “we”? Editorial, imperial, or are you once again assuming the role of ambassador from OliverLand?”
Liberals in general. As it has been pointed out time and time again, the issue here isn’t what you are into, it’s the hypocrisy.
“The fact that my name is on the Internet doesn’t mean you get to research it and publicize it here; considering I’ve never seen it done in the case of anyone else.”
Really? Didn’t you do the same with my website? Or am I thinking of another site I post to?
Frank, all i did was post a publicly available link that anyone could have found with a simple google search. Then i called you on your hypocrisy …
if you don’t people to know certain things about you i would suggest you not make available on the internet for anyone to see …
if you don’t people to call you on your hypocrisy, well, stop being a hypocrite …
why do i bother?
“why do i bother?”
I want to know why Frank bothers. He clearly doesn’t know what he’s talking about and the more he says, the more he harms his side.
Wilbur: I guess that’s your cogent comment, eh?
I posted plenty of cogent comments earlier, Lysander, which is more than I can say for you.
Think about it, bud, other wingnuts post here but don’t draw the ire that you do. It’s not because you like kinky rumpy-pumpy on the web, it’s because you’re pigheaded and offensive about it at the same time. You came onto this thread with a snide comment that deliberately misrepresented Oliver’s post. In your second comment you insulted another poster, calling him/her “peculiar”, when s/he had not insulted you personally.
You do stuff like this all the time, then when you get it back at you you mooooo-oooowwww like a wounded cow.
If you can’t stand the heat, stop shitting the kitchen. Righty-right?
I promise you, I will not say this again: Gay rights activism is attempting to go the way of the black civil rights movement. I do not believe this will work.
I have my own professional point of view about homosexuality, but it is no way related to politics.
They can fight for whatever rights they think they are entitled to. I don’t think they will ever do as well as blacks, for reasons it seems no one cares to know, because they are too busy talking about the chat room to which I belong, and too busy trying to prove I hate gays.
As for how I behave in this blog, yes,I have said and done wrong things. I have also been battered from pillar to post for years. So much so, that people persist in calling me “Frank” (as in, “that guy we used to beat up on”), even though I have changed my nick, and I even told you it was a chance for you to change your behavior.
What follows? Someone Googles my name, tracks down the hits, and reveals it to everyone. Yes, that happens on lots of blogs. And, Clem (aka CSS, until I change my mind) you provided us with that site. I have checked nearly every website provided by every poster on this blog, and NEVER revealed one of them.
As for my first comment on this thread, I felt that Oliver was being either disingenuous and / or tautological, and I said so.
Revealing personal information about me must have seemed to be the only thing to do.
As for my second comment. It was Zython’s ridiculous challenge that first contained the word “peculiar”. Sorry I used it, too.
other wingnuts post here but don’t draw the ire that you do
You think I haven’t noticed? You think I haven’t noticed that when you “liberals” get nasty and insulting, that they just stop posting? Of course, they do.
And what’s with the anonymous posting? Is that supposed to represent what liberals call stepping up to the plate and taking personal responsibility?
You know, Wilbur, I predicted that you would be the one who attempt to provide these people with a rationalization. Why did you choose to make me right, after all this insulting and degrading?
“and I even told you it was a chance for you to change your behavior.”
Fuck you, Frank. You haven’t change, why the fuck would we? You sow what you reap, the fact that people keep attacking you even when you try to start over should be a hint that the problem is you.
Are you shitting me, Clem? That would imply that none of you has ever done anything wrong. You might be idiotic enough to believe that, but no one else is.
This shit started happening within two minutes of my changing my nick, so spare me the lies, Clem, you dick.
If there is any one on this blog I despise it is you. You are pretentious, arrogant and self – absorbed. You care for nothing or no one, and I don’t care for you.
Here’s a little bit of social psychology for you, Clem: In a lynch mob, is there any one in it who thinks he might be the guilty party?
Here’s your comment, frameone (couldn’t put a check mark in that little box, eh , brave guy?)
Frank, all i did was post a publicly available link that anyone could have found with a simple google search.
A “simple google search”? Why did you even do a simple google search on me?
Why did you publish it?
Then i called you on your hypocrisy …
A hypocrisy that only existed in your mind, because you either pretended you didn’t believe me, or were simply unable to believe me. YOU then decided to mete out “frameone justice”.
if you don’t [want] people to know certain things about you i would suggest you not make available on the internet for anyone to see …
And I suppose i’ll stop having mail sent to my home. The existence of information does not give you the right to publicize it. You certainly can’t claim you had any kind of positive goal in mind. You pretty much told us all why you revealed it.
Anybody here ever talk about CondiPundit, when I wrote for them? (Except to mock me, of course) Anybody here ever mention my personal blog? (Do a “little googling” and find that one, frame) How about my MySpace?
How about the radio station I work for?
Nothing “interesting” about those, eh?
Of course not, because YOU are the hypocrites. Most of you favor gay rights for two reasons:
1) It will really piss of Christians
2) More importantly, you’re not involved with them in any way, so who cares?
if you don’t people to call you on your hypocrisy, well, stop being a hypocrite …
If you want to discuss something, instead of insisting that something is true, when it is not, then try it sometime.
why do i bother?
We’ve been over this before, frameone: This “no quarter” business.
This idea that simply making your point is never enough (why that’s so is something you should discuss with your parish priest).
This idea that you must crush me, that you must defeat me, win at all costs.
THAT’s why you bother!
Gay rights activism is attempting to go the way of the black civil rights movement. I do not believe this will work.
From all you have deigned to tell us you think that the black civil rights movement gained most of it’s acheivements through litigation. That is so far from reality that it’s hard to know how to respond to it, or to the assertion the gay rights movement is trying to follow the same imaginary path (which it isn’t) but will fail where the black civil rights movement succeeded (?), for reasons that you will only reveal to us if we’re nicer to you. Ick, what a mess.
I don’t think they will ever do as well as blacks, for reasons it seems no one cares to know
Classic Lysander: I gotta secret and I’m not tellun. If you’ve got something to say it’s not up to us to wheedle it out of you. If you had engaged in anything like cogent reasoning and argumentation from the beginning, the chat room business would never have com up.
As for my first comment on this thread, I felt that Oliver was being either disingenuous and / or tautological, and I said so.
In the course of which you (erroneously) read Oliver’s mind and put words in his mouth – you know, the sorts of things that you get pissed at when people do them to you. That kind of obvlivious shit is why people think you’re an asshole, Frank. And please keep in mind that if you were a liberal trying to pull that shit on a conservative blog, you would have been permanently banned years ago. You owe Oliver some respect for letting you stick around.
You know, Wilbur, I predicted that you would be the one who attempt to provide these people with a rationalization. Why did you choose to make me right, after all this insulting and degrading?
I provided them with nothing, Lysander. What they have is not a “rationalization” but a legitimate “reason”. If you don’t want people finding personal information about you and using that as a basis for calling you a hypocrite, then there are two things you can do:
1) Stop posting your personal information on public-access web forums
2) Stop being a hypocrite
I continue to think that anyone who uses that information to take random cheap shots at your tastes, interests, appearance, fondness for fritos, etc. is hitting below the belt, but as I said before, I’m done defending you on that score until I see some sign that you are mending your own ways.
If you had engaged in anything like cogent reasoning and argumentation from the beginning, the chat room business would never have com up.
Do you really want to get into who started this? I don’t think you do, and I sure don’t.
I live outside New York City, and I am a masters’ student of human sexuality, among other things.
It was not me who attacked myself for being a hypocrite. It was not me who defended the idea that reveling personal information about me was perfectly OK. That was all of you.
The time for discussion ended when frameone went over the line — not me, but not one one of you will admit it. Even you, Wilbur, can only grudgingly stand up with integrity — provided I “prove myself” to you. How courageous.
I made several points, going back two days ago which, thanks to frameone, were treated as lies and or hypocricy. My words were twisted, and it suddenly became my obligation to prove that frameone was incorrect.
That’s a cogent and coherent discussion? No, it’s a dogpile.
And when the discussion becomes a discussion again,and not a dogpile, I will rejoin it. When you exhibit the kind of behavior you expect from me, I will follow your lead. When you can abandon the disgusting, McCarthyesque tactics you have employed so far, I will do the same.
Simple, isn’t it it? You do the right thing, and I will, too.
“Are you shitting me, Clem? That would imply that none of you has ever done anything wrong.”
It implies nothing of the sort, you fucking idiot.
“This shit started happening within two minutes of my changing my nick, so spare me the lies, Clem, you dick.”
That’s cause within 2 minutes of changing your nickname you started acting like a fucking ass.
“If there is any one on this blog I despise it is you.”
No Frank, you despise yourself.
Think about it, Frank, no one likes you cause you are fundamentally unlikable. You don’t even like yourself, which is why you so come here to be abused. Which is why you can never leave. I’ve seen you say you were leaving forever at least three times now and you are always back.
“Of course not, because YOU are the hypocrites. Most of you favor gay rights for two reasons:
1) It will really piss of Christians
2) More importantly, you’re not involved with them in any way, so who cares?”
Wow. It’s like you can’t help yourself, you have to be an ass and wrong at the same time. Most Christians I know support gay rights, and they support it for the same reasons I do, because everyone deserves equal treatment.
“You do the right thing, and I will, too.”
This is a lie, Frank, and we both know it. When you changed your nickname to Lysander Spooner II, you acted like an ass immediately. You could have acted civil and seen if we did the same, you just need the punishment.
Clem, you’re a liar. I posted as Lysander Spooner II for two days, with everything going fine.
Oliver called me Frank, and everything changed instantly, before I posted again.
Most Christians I know support gay rights
Yeah, all both of them.
It went fine for Frank because he wasn’t acting like an asshole (himself) on the other account.
Well Frank, it’s gonna be tough to overhaul your reputation at this point. Maybe if you hadn’t been such a complete ass for so long, things would be different. Bottom line is… with you taking issue with your treatment from several people, including myself, Rex, Strowbridge, frameone, S, and Squirrel (amongst others)… does the problem lie with us? Or does the problem lie with you?
Which of the two explanations is the most parsimonious, Frank? Or have you not looked up that word yet?
“Most Christians I know support gay rights
Yeah, all both of them.”
Yeah, for once I agree with you, Frank. Most Christians I’ve known are opposed to gay rights. Part of the reason that I’m so glad for my education and my realization that religion is a crock of shit.
“If there is any one on this blog I despise it is you.”
Oh no, Clem, it’s definitely you.
If I was on a train, across the aisle from you, and heard you talking to some one for about an hour, I would know it was you. You are a wretched excuse for a human being, beyond redemption.
You are so loathsome, I sincerely hope you never die.
And why are we constantly changing batters?
Finally, there’s this: you… come here to be abused
Funny, I thought I was coming here to show how unprincipled and hypocritical liberals are. There is exactly one of you that has not failed that test — one. I didn’t come here to be abused. In fact, many of you weren’t even here when I came here.
Many of you are the abusers who came here to abuse me. So you continue on a daily basis to prove that you are not understanding, or tolerant, or compassionate.
And now you rationalize your horrible behavior, by blaming it on me. What weaklings! “We didn’t want to do bad things, but that horrible Frank made us do it! It’s all his fault!”
Punks.
Ooooh, Frank’s TESTING us! Am I the one that passed, Frank? Am I? Oh boy oh boy oh boy!
Let me guess… no, I’m not. But I bet you can’t point to a single instance of where I’ve been “unprincipled” or “hypocritical,” can you? You will respond by not providing an example, skirting the question, and insisting that I am indeed both unprincipled and hypocritical despite the absence of evidence.
You are a jackass. I feel sorry for your entire family that they’ve had to put up with you. I hope that your children have grown up to realize that you’re a stupendous failure of a human being, and therefore strayed from the sphere of your influence.
“I made several points …”
Jeezus this is ridiculous. What points frank? You vaguely hinted that there things about homosexual relationships that the general public knows nothing about … yet … bwahaaaaa …. or whatever…
you veered wildly and momentarily into constitutional law to suggest that if the founders didn’t mention gays then gays don’t have the same rights as straights … or something …
then you weaved back to your weird secret knowledge about gay relationships because you’re a master of sex or something …
you haven’t made a single cogent point in a week … seriously … but we’ve given you ample opportunity to explain yourself. But let’s try, sigh, one more time. PLease tell us all what you really meant by this:
“What are some of the issues involved in homosexual relationships that have yet to be discussed in the forums of the general public? If you can’t name three, then you don’t know jack shit about this issue.”
Please for the love of god, just tell us what issues there are involved in homosexual relationships that the general public knows little or nothing about but which have such bearing on the gay rights debate. Please. Can you do that simple thing?
“2) More importantly, you’re not involved with them in any way, so who cares?”
Wow. What the fuck does this even mean? I support gay rights because i don’t know any gays and who cares what they do? The assumption being that if i knew gay people i would be opposed to gay rights? Or I would be opposed to gays pursuing their rights in the incorrect way? Or something?
Please, frank, again, share with us all the secret knowledge you have about gay people so we too can live in the light of understanding and deny a whole group of people equal treatment under the law …
But I bet you can’t point to a single instance of where I’ve been “unprincipled” or “hypocritical,” can you?
I will point to one example, because I want to give you the opportunity to deny it.
How about the many statements of yours that I was old — very old. In a public situation, such statements would be met with left wing opprobrium, as ageist.
I hope that your children have grown up to realize that you’re a stupendous failure of a human being, and therefore strayed from the sphere of your influence.
There’s a charitable statement I’ve added to entertain people like Clem.
One day, you’ll have children, and you might remember how cruel that statement was. But you’re the compassionate and tolerant liberal.
And some day, when you’re 60 years old, and a hell of a lot older in your spirit than I am, someone will call you “old — very old”, and you’ll think “Hey! I’m not old”, and probably say something stupid like, “When I was a kid, I respected my elders!”
Paul: Can you express your opinion without telling me what you are sure I believe? Can you not accuse me of something before you have evidence? Can you stop calling me a hypocrite long enough for us to have a discussion?
Can you do that simple thing?
Let’s look at some issues:
If a gay couple lives in a Rent-Controlled apartment, and the signor on the lease dies, the roommate has to move, or perhaps pay fair market rent.
If and when Gay marriage is allowed in states or communities where there is rent-control, the idea of “inheritance” will become important, and effect great changes in Real Estate.
What if a woman has custody of a child, as a result of a divorce because her husband was gay, and didn’t tell her until she was pregnant? What if she dies? What if a condition of the divorce is that he never have custody, but only supervised visitation?
What if an employer insurance policy specifies that the beneficiary of an insurance must be a spouse or blood relative? Gay marriage is not yet legal?
What about visitors in hospitals? How will the rules be affected?
I’ve mentioned things like this several days ago, but you dismissed them, because you said the Founding Fathers backed you up.
Now if you just want to dismiss what I say as idiotic, hypocritical, and irrelevant, then let me save you some typing
Idiotic Y/N
Hypocritical Y/N
Irrelevant Y/N
Three letters and we’re all done.
More importantly, you’re not involved with them in any way, so who cares?”
Paul: If you could simply focus on the simple meanings of words, and stop trying to pick fights with meanings I never intended, we could get somewhere.
“you’re not involved with them in any way” means (get ready, now) you’re not involved with them in any way!
You don’t live near them, they don’t work with you, you have no contact (or very little contact) with gays. So, whether or not they marry or have equal employment rights or inheritance — all that means nothing to you.
If you live in Moscow, Idaho, gays are not an issue, Mexican immigrants may not be an issue, and blacks are not an issue. You can afford to be magnanimous about it, right?
That’s what I was saying, Paul
That’s ALL I was saying.
That’s the best you can do, Frank? A half-hearted reference to the times that I called you old? And then, calling me an “ageist” because of it?
1) Statement of fact. The median age as of U.S. citizens as of July 1, 2006 was 36.4 years. The median age of males was 35.1 for the same survey time. You’re 60. This puts you in the upper 16.9% of ages in the population. Get it?
2) I only spoke of your age in reference to your crochety nature. You’re a grumpy, unhappy old man. Descriptive term, factual, plain as day.
3) How do I get labeled an “ageist” for describing your age accurately? Do I get labeled a racist for noting that Oliver is black? Do I get labeled as a homophobic bigot for noting that Elton John is gay? Answer: no I do not.
4) Furthermore, calling me an “ageist” suggests that I do not support equal rights for old people, in the way that racists don’t approve of equal rights for blacks. When have I suggested that you shouldn’t have equal rights because you’re an old fool? Answer: Never.
Try again, Frank. Your first attempt failed miserably.
Oh, and you also do a poor job of predicting my future. I will never, ever tell my children or grandkids that I respected my elders simply because they were older than me. People should earn the respect they get; at the very least, they shouldn’t behave in a manner that precludes them from the respect afforded most people. You have done nothing to earn respect on this blog. In fact, your behavior has done just the opposite.
Jackass.
Frank,
None of the issues re: custody, rent control, inheritance etc. etc could be construed at all as having been not yet “discussed in the forums of the general public.” I guess you just haven’t been paying attention. One certainly doesn’t need to be “a masters’ student of human sexuality” to recognize the issues and to understand them.
Why is that? Becasue none of those issues should have anything to do with someone’s sexual orientation. Why on earth does it matter if a couple in a rent controlled apartment is gay or not in terms of assuming the lease should one of them die? if they gay couple is married or in a common law relationship the same rules that apply to straights should apply to them. of course that couple should be allowed to marry or enter into common law status in the first place.
In terms of custody, why should someone’s sexual orientation be an issue at all? I recognize that this is a touchy issue for some but it really shouldn’t matter should it? Should who the father sleeps with have any more bearing on his ability to raise a child than who the father chooses to chat with over the internet (bringing us back to your original hypocrisy)?
The point being Frank is that yes you might have raised these issues days ago but you pose these questions as if the re isn’t an obvious answer if we wish to give everyone equal treatment under the law:
“What about visitors in hospitals? How will the rules be affected?”
Um, I imagine it will mean that gay partners can visit each other in the hospital and make decisions about their partners care. Is that so fucking hard to understand or accept? I don’t see how that would be so hard to implement.
You seem to be trying to hint at some nightmare bureaucratic scenario if gays are treated equally under the law but where is your evidence for this, upon what are you basing this idea? Again, you provide none. Only ask questions that you seem to think only you are capable of asking because you’re getting a degree in human sexuality. But again, human sexuality has nothing to do with who should get custody, who should get an apartment, who should be allowed to get health insurance … Unless you want to argue that it does, which so far you haven’t …
And for the record, one of my best friends is actually from Moscow, Idaho, born and raised. He lives in LA now and he’s as progressive as they come. His wife, from Burley, Idaho, has a gay uncle who has been in a long term relationship for like two decades now.
Gay people are everywhere frank — i now that’s a scary thought for some.
And frank, it isn’t about being magninmous, it’s about expecting that all of our fellow citizens be treated equally under the law as we expect ourselves to be treated. Only someone like you would consider yourself in a position to “grant” civil rights to a minority group out of magnanimity or noblese oblige.
So now if you would care to actually explain yourself further, go for it. Simply listing a series of questions just isn’t going to cut it because the answers are clear — unless you’re an idiot.
The line about my degree was meant to be in another post, so you can stop bringing it up.
Your friend’s wife’s uncle is gay. That’s one. I’m sure he has turned everyone in Moscow into gay rights advocates, eh?
I didn’t mean to suggest that these issues were known only to me. If you had not attacked me with straw men and non sequiturs so rapidly, I might have explained that, but I was too busy fighting off charges that I was a hypocrite.
These are issues which you CHOOSE to dismiss. That doesn’t make them insignificant. They matter to people for more reasons than simple reluctance to grant gays their rights. The fact that you choose not to see that is not my concern.
And, also, I had trouble holding my lunch down when I read this: it’s about expecting that all of our fellow citizens be treated equally under the law as we expect ourselves to be treated
You do appreciate the irony?
And of course, the ending was classic Paul!
“They matter to people for more reasons than simple reluctance to grant gays their rights. The fact that you choose not to see that is not my concern.”
But frank, to whom are they are concern and why? You have yet to actually explain that, most significant, part of it. Would you like to try now?
“And, also, I had trouble holding my lunch down when I read this: it’s about expecting that all of our fellow citizens be treated equally under the law as we expect ourselves to be treated
You do appreciate the irony?”
Key words: “under the law”
Reading comprehension, Frank! Try it sometime. Fool.
You see? He still hasn’t answered the question 100 something posts later. He wont answer the question. And he wonders why he is treated the way he is.
People should earn the respect they get
That makes you a “moral whore”: I will only be good to those who are good to me — the mirror reflection of the Golden Rule. What a swell guy. I said an awful lot. That’s all you got?
Each time I read one of your cold hearted, bloodless posts, I thank God that you have chosen a field of psychology that does not involve contact with humans. You have neither the acument nor the temperament. Stick with the mice and planaria.
You have yet to actually explain what You mean
Are you so lacking in life experience that you can’t figure out who is effected by Rent Control regulations, Insurance policies, hospital visiting policies? It matters to landlords, employers, medical policy makers..
Do I have to enumerate them? Why? So you can tell me that they don’t matter?
Key words: “under the law”
So, Paul, you only do things required by law, eh?
Ah, yes — the Clinton Goalposts.
EarL: You’re just another of the “moral whores” that think you can say or do whatever you want to a person, because other people don’t like them. If you are intelligent, it’s a well kept secret.
Hmm, Frank… you’ve said an awful lot, but very little of it cogent.
I see you’ve conceded the point I made regarding my hypocrisy (or lack thereof) with your age.
“That makes you a “moral whore”: I will only be good to those who are good to me — the mirror reflection of the Golden Rule. What a swell guy.”
No, I also have a general respect for people that I don’t know to be complete dicks. For example, if I go out to a restaurant, I will treat my server with the utmost respect… unless they explicitly do something that indicates they aren’t worthy of it. For example, if they were to spill my dinner all over me and not apologize at all for it. You’re being intentionally stupid if you’re trying to claim that all people deserve your respect. Do you respect Michael Moore? Fidel Castro? Hugo Chavez? Fred Phelps? Hitler? Me?
If you’re NOT claiming that all people deserve your respect, then what’s your criterion? If you ARE claiming that all are worthy of respect, then you have the uncomfortable position of supporting (at least tacitly) some genuinely terrible people.
Say what you will about me being “cold-hearted” or “bloodless.” I’d rather be logical, intelligent and bloodless than the unreasonable idiot of your type.
“It matters to landlords, employers, medical policy makers.. Do I have to enumerate them? Why? So you can tell me that they don’t matter?”
This is simply unbelievable. Are you suggesting that we should not treat some people equally under the law because landlords might not want to what? follow the law? That doesn’t make any sense frank.
What possible reason would a landlord have for not following rent control laws for gay couples when they do it for straight couples? Give us an actual reason.
Fran, if you are going to suggest that gays should be treated equally under the law because landlords or insurers have their reasons, i’m afraid you’re going to have to enumerate those reasons. Can you?
I see you’ve conceded the point I made regarding my hypocrisy (or lack thereof) with your age.
Not at all. It was too foolish and filled with falsehoods. I didn’t know where to begin.
You only referred to me as “old – very old” because I was in that cohort? Stop it! You’re dissembling is proof that you could never admit the truth about what you did, and why.
Do you respect Michael Moore? Fidel Castro? Hugo Chavez? Fred Phelps? Hitler? Me?
There is only of those people who has communicated with me, and he “spilled the soup without apologizing” a hell of a long time ago.
Did I cut off communication with you? No. Did I start each of our communications with insults? No.
You might consider my respect insufficient — that’s your prerogative. Yours has been nonexistent, and camouflaged with exclamations of “It’s all your fault.” Hardly an adult approach for a Graduate student in clinical psychology.
I’d rather be logical, intelligent and bloodless…
Oh, I know… I know…
Paul:Are you suggesting that we should not treat some people equally under the law because landlords might not want to what? follow the law? That doesn’t make any sense frank.
Neither does your question (questions)
Let’s take Rent Control, for example. There are very complicated regulations called Rent Stabilization Regulations, with regard to decontrolled apartments. You and I might agree that a gay roommate married before the apartment, should take over the apartment. But what about the date of the marriage? What if there was a former bride, who wants back in. You may not believe this, but divorces in NYC get mighty dirty over something like rent control. Remember what I said before about people who don’t care?
If you live in Moscow, Idaho, this stuff doesn’t matter. If you live in San Francisco, it might.
Go, Paul.
Am I getting closer to an answer that will satisfy you?
Or am I still 100 posts away?
“Am I getting closer to an answer that will satisfy you?”
No. Not even close. You keep repeating scenarios without explaining how someone’s homosexuality plays a role if any, in that scenario.
Take your rent control example. I have no doubt that divorces in NYC get mighty dirty over something like rent control but how does allowing gay people the right to marry and take advantage of rent control regulations between partners impact that in any way?
How does allowing gays to get married change one iota what already goes on everyday re: rent control?
“You and I might agree that a gay roommate married before the apartment, should take over the apartment. But what about the date of the marriage? What if there was a former bride, who wants back in.”
Ok. Let me try to unpack this.
Two guys get married but one of the guys was previous married to a woman. After the two guys get married the former wife makes a claim against her ex-husband’s rent controlled apartment.
Is the scenario you are trying to describe? Just answer yes or no.
Frank will now refer — with great indignation — to something he mentioned 36 posts ago to clarify that this:
“You and I might agree that a gay roommate married before the apartment, should take over the apartment. But what about the date of the marriage? What if there was a former bride, who wants back in.”
makes perfect sense and Mr Pipeline deliberately misunderstood.
I haven’t laughed that hard reading a post responding to Frank since the last time Frank derailed a thread.
What was false in my analysis of my comments regarding your age? Absolutely nothing. Everything I said was true. Fuck, Frank, you’re so ridiculously dishonest in your argumentation it makes me sick.
As I said before, I don’t think that someone is deserving of my respect just because they exist. They must exist AND have shown that they’re not a total bastard. You fail the second criterion. You’re right… I don’t respect you. I have much greater regard for my lab rats than I do for you.
By the way, I’m not a clinical psychologist. I’m a comparative/experimental psychologist. Just FYI.
A hypocrisy that only existed in your mind, because you either pretended you didn’t believe me, or were simply unable to believe me.
I’d go with the latter, since no one in their right mind would believe you.
1) It will really piss of Christians
Only if you believe that Christians=assholes. Why do you hate Christians, Frank?
2) More importantly, you’re not involved with them in any way, so who cares?
Because we have consciouses.
If I was on a train, across the aisle from you, and heard you talking to some one for about an hour, I would know it was you. You are a wretched excuse for a human being, beyond redemption.
1. Who the hell rides the train anymore in this country?
2. You mean wretchedness like using the Holocaust to try and score cheap political points (and failing miserably at that)? Or calling gay rights a “trojan horse”? Or accusing over half the country of treason? Or saying that 85% of the country is somehow “persecuted”? Wait, that was all you.
Punks.
Translation: “You danged kids get offa my lawn.”
And, also, I had trouble holding my lunch down when I read this
Yeah, I would vomit uncontrollably if I were you, too.
And some day, when you’re 60 years old, and a hell of a lot older in your spirit than I am,
You? Young in spirit? Hahahahahahahahaha!!! I (and I imagine others as well) reference your age because of how you’re crochity and out of touch with modern society. You’re the archetype of the “old geezer”.
“When I was a kid, I respected my elders!”
And I did, but I’m not a kid anymore.
Let’s look at some issues:
And I keep telling you, gay couples would be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples in these cases. Or does the thought of a gay person getting visitation rights sicken you?
Idiotic Y
Hypocritical Y
Irrelevant Y
Wow, that was easier, thanks.
2) I only spoke of your age in reference to your crochety nature. You’re a grumpy, unhappy old man. Descriptive term, factual, plain as day.
Nicely put.
The line about my degree was meant to be in another post, so you can stop bringing it up.
No thank you.
That makes you a “moral whore”: I will only be good to those who are good to me — the mirror reflection of the Golden Rule. What a swell guy. I said an awful lot. That’s all you got?
Translation: “You should act like a jackass to everyone, like I do.”
Is the scenario you are trying to describe? Just answer yes or no. Pretty much.
Mow keep in mind that I am not suggesting that homosexuals aren’t entitled to their rights because the situation is complex.
I have been trying, despite your heavy duty cross – examinations, to say that unraveling these things will be complex, and most likely expensive.
It is a common practice of liberals to ignore these things, as if they are meaningless, and just bulldoze ahead, because it seems right.
What about set asides?
What about affirmative action?
No problems in those areas, right?
Madame Chicory quatre – vingts trois: Just the idea that you call that an analysis, goes beyond senseless into subhuman.
“I just called you old because you were old” Who are you kidding?
{Madame Chicory quatre – vingts trois, you’re clever — real fucking clever.}
Now, are you stupid enough to believe I think you’re clever?
I have much greater regard for my lab rats than I do for you.
I’m sure that’s true. “Birds of a feather”, and all that
I’m a comparative/experimental psychologist
God is looking over the human race, by keeping you away from it.
No Frank, I also called you old because you’re crotchety as hell. And you still seem to have dropped the whole “ageism” angle (as you should, because that doesn’t hold water at all)
I think it’s ironic that you’re sarcastically calling me clever, while at the same time addressing me as “Madame Chicory quatre-vingts trois.”
“I have much greater regard for my lab rats than I do for you.
I’m sure that’s true. “Birds of a feather”, and all that”
I’m a lab rat? Hate to tell ya, Frank, but lab rats don’t have any language skills. Furthermore, I’ll note that I hold 95% of people in higher regard than my lab rats. Congratulations to you, being in the bottom 5th percentile.
“God is looking over the human race, by keeping you away from it.”
I have plenty of contact with real, honest to goodness people, Frank. And guess what? Most find me to be thoughtful, reasonable, and a generally good guy. Based on their comments here, I’m certain the same can be said for frameone, Strowbridge, Rex, Zython, and others that you tangle with. In the highly improbable chance that your Christian God does exist, I’m certain that I’m faring better than you in His eyes, Tranny-Chaser.
“I have been trying, despite your heavy duty cross – examinations, to say that unraveling these things will be complex, and most likely expensive.”
What’s to unravel for godssakes? What’s to be worked out? You said it yourself: disputes over rent controlled apartments go on everyday in places like NY. There’s a whole thing we call the justice system in place to adjudicate disputes. If you’re talking about legal wrangling inside a court of law, well, that’s courts of law are there for.
In this particular example what does the return of the hetero ex-wife or the new gay partner throw into the mix that would be any different if everyone involved were straight? I’ll tell you what: Nothing.
At present, however, because gay marriage is not legal in New York, the gay partner would be at a legal disadvantage because he is not currently being treated equally under the law which does not currently recognize his partnership the ex-husband. Allowing for gay marriage would correct that problem ensuring that everyone would have an equal and fair shot in a court of law to get the apartment. It’s like, you know, the American way.
There is simply no comparison between your rental code example and affirmative action. It’s like the two things are so totally different they could only come together by way of comparison in a delusion brain.
So again, you have done nothing but repeat: It will be complicated!!! then done nothing to explain why or how, except to make a completely irrelevant comparison. Way to go, Frank. you may be the dumbest person on the internets …
“Clem, you’re a liar. I posted as Lysander Spooner II for two days, with everything going fine.”
No, Frank, you were acting like an asshole (practically) the whole time.
Me: “Most Christians I know support gay rights”
Frank: “Yeah, all both of them.”
This is important enough to separate from the rest of the post, (all three lines of it).
There are millions upon millions of liberal Christians in Canada, and even more in the States, (although they are a smaller percentage of the population as a whole). These liberal Christians support gay rights, (for the most part), and are a major reason why opposition to same sex marriage has fallen below 50% is some recent polls.
Being Christian doesn’t make you an intolerant asshole.
“Most Christians I know support gay rights”
Strowbridge, I sincerely hope that your experience, and not mine, is what’s indicative of popular opinion of gay rights. As I said before, most self-professed Christians I’ve known tend to be against gay marriage.
“Being Christian doesn’t make you an intolerant asshole.”
But it sometimes helps you in that direction, though…
Me: “Most Christians I know support gay rights”
Mombo: “Strowbridge, I sincerely hope that your experience, and not mine, is what’s indicative of popular opinion of gay rights. As I said before, most self-professed Christians I’ve known tend to be against gay marriage.”
You must understand, I live in Canada, and Canada is a much more liberal nation, including our Christians.
Well, Paul, then you win, and I lose. Affirmative action and set asides have created problems — major problems — in the area of civil rights. Of course, If I ask, “Do we want to simply duplicate those errors without making some judgments in advance?” Your ever – repeated answer will be, “Who cares?” “Prove to me why we should care”
Well, I can’t. It happened before, but can I guarantee it will happen again? No.
Can you guarantee it won’t happen again? No. But you don’t need to. Why? Because your Paul, and Paul demonstrates nothing, proves nothing, and supports nothing.
He gets his minions to do his work for him.
BTW, MC23, that was some real bragging there. “I’m superior to rats because I have language skills” There are a few other qualities most people look for in humans.
I’m sorry you misunderstood my statement about your contact with humanity, but your response was interesting: The people you name are all dicks. Are they your friends?
But that wasn’t what I meant. I meant that in your work, God protects humanity from you by putting you to work with animals — those critters you resemble except for the language skills.
And the final irony: In a thread where I have been hounded for days over the issue of gay rights, you call me a name. A name that suggests that I am “less than” or different.
Why don’t you just call me a nigger or a faggot, or would that be over the top?
Zython: If you could fly, you’d be a flying asshole.
You’re too mindless to write your own material.
Who the hell rides the train anymore in this country?
I’m lovin’ it!
And, now, your turn, Clem:
Lie #1: No, Frank, you were acting like an asshole (practically) the whole time.
I remember, and you’re free to do the research.
Clem: “Most Christians I know support gay rights”
Frank: “Yeah, all both of them.”
Clem: There are millions upon millions of liberal Christians in Canada, and even more in the States
Without even questioning the data, are you implying they are all your friends? In both countries?
I wasn’t saying that Christians don’t support gay marriage; I was saying that liberals like you and your cronies favor gay rights, because you believe it will piss off Christians — see MC23 above.
One only has to track this thread from top to bottom, and look at all the posters who attacked me, and you’ll find the most intolerant assholes that post on this blog.
The only substantive difference between a rat and a human, when it comes to communicating through the Internet on this blog, is language skills. That’s why I brought it up. I didn’t just pluck it from the air. Although there are philosophers who would argue that the base difference between us and the rest of the animal kingdom IS language. But that’s a different topic.
“The people you name are all dicks. Are they your friends?”
I don’t know if I would call them my friends, Frank. Can people you’ve never met or conversed with directly be “friends”?. I would say that these people have my respect, however, by virtue of their obvious intelligence and rationality.
“And the final irony: In a thread where I have been hounded for days over the issue of gay rights, you call me a name. A name that suggests that I am “less than” or different.
Why don’t you just call me a nigger or a faggot, or would that be over the top?”
Again, you need to improve your reading comprehension. You’re a self-described tranny-chaser, for one, so I’m not incorrect for using the term in reference to you. You brought up God, and how He’s looking out for humanity by keeping me away from humans. Since you saw fit to bring God into this, I just thought I would mention that IF the Christian God you supposedly worship exists, He is undoubtedly not happy with your interest in transgendered individuals. Personally, I couldn’t care less who or what you’re sexually into… but God does, doesn’t he, Frank?
You idiot.
Zython: If you could fly, you’d be a flying asshole.
You’re too mindless to write your own material.
Then who wrote it? I took all that time to write about you, and you only write 3 sentences about me? I’m hurt. But somehow, I’ll manage to get by.
Shorter Frank: WRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!
Fix italics.
“He gets his minions to do his work for him.”
Frank, you’re nuts. Totally and completely nuts.
“Lie #1: No, Frank, you were acting like an asshole (practically) the whole time.”
“I remember, and you’re free to do the research.”
Why bother? You think you are the victim now, you honestly have no idea what the fuck you are doing.
“Without even questioning the data, are you implying they are all your friends? In both countries?”
No I’m not, you fucking idiot.
“I was saying that liberals like you and your cronies favor gay rights, because you believe it will piss off Christians”
And you are wrong, Frank. Since most Christians I know support gay rights, how the hell would supporting gay rights piss off Christians?
It makes no logical sense.
“One only has to track this thread from top to bottom, and look at all the posters who attacked me, and you’ll find the most intolerant assholes that post on this blog.”
The most intolerant asshole on this blog? That’d be you, Frank. You hate everyone so much that you constantly attack the, however, the person you hate the most is yourself.
Hey, Paul, tell me when you did anything else on this thread but question me. And when you weren’t questioning me, where did you back up any of your assertions?
MC23: We played this already, I didn’t choose the label. Wherever the label came from, it is not who I am. It’s like calling me television watcher, or food eater.
Except I know you didn’t mean it as a simple descriptive.
Personally, I couldn’t care less who or what you’re sexually into
Then why bring it up?
All of you?
Over and over, and over and over?
We don’t care that you’re a tranny chaser
We don’t care that you’re a tranny chaser
We don’t care that you’re a tranny chaser
And don’t forget the multiply repeated lie that I labeled myself, so you get to say it again.
I care very much about transgendered individuals, and I have come to see them as the “newest minority on the block”.
Of course, you don’t believe that. You just think I’m a perv, you know, like bad people think gays are.
Not you, though. You’re the tolerant ones, the compassionate ones. The evidence of your tolerance and compassion is all over this thread. Isn’t it?
We’ve got Paul’s panacea: The Courts will fix it.
Clem’s social solution: My friends are OK with it.
MC23’s solution: None, I just know that Frank sucks.
And let me give Zython the recognition he deserves: Nice cutting and pasting, kid. Keep up the good work.
If there was any tolerance or compassion or understanding for ANYONE, including gays, I’d like to know where it was. I was too busy defending myself from attacks which you say didn’t take place, to spot any.
{Cue the “But, Frank, you’re no good” tape}
And that’s why liberals are the most dangerous people on earth. Because they decide who is worthy of their care, and who is not. How many years did it take for you to discover gays had rights? Ever hear of Stonewall? That was 1969.
Transsexuals? Too “icky” for you guys. I guess they’ll have to wait 25 years before you care about them, eh?
And now, I’ll repeat myself to Clem: I said that most of the commenters want gay rights because they believe it will piss off Christians.
I don’t need you to tell me it won’t, nitwit, I already know that.
the person you hate the most is yourself.
Heavy duty, Clem. Why don’t you see when Dr. Phil is taking a vacation.
Frank, my bad. I had no idea that you had no control whatsoever over what you have on your PERSONAL PROFILE on URNotalone.com. Oh wait, you’re almost certainly full of shit, and although that label is perhaps made available by the website, you probably chose to use it. Even if you didn’t (extremely dubious), the fact you have a page there gives your tacit approval for the label.
So, you’re a tranny chaser. No judgment here, Frank. No one here has said ANYTHING negative to you about your interest in transgendered individuals. Try going to FreeRepublic or some similar conservative site and see what kind of reception you get when they know your sexual interests.
“I said that most of the commenters want gay rights because they believe it will piss off Christians.”
Again, you’re an idiot, Frank. I can’t speak for everyone… fuck it, you’re premise is so stupid, yes I can. We support gay rights because IT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. The fact that it might piss of Christians, for me, is nothing more than a positive by-product of doing the right thing.
I care about transsexuals. What I don’t care about is you. Stop trying to transfer our disdain for you to transsexuals. Though if it makes you feel any better we would dislike any transsexual that acted like you.
I concur with mambo- gays (or TS) shouldn’t have to wait another day for their constitutional rights, no matter what outside factors are present. In many states you STILL can be fired just for being gay. That’s got to end now.
I don’t care what you believe about the fucking label, you twat, you certainly meant nothing positive by addressing me with it.Don’t pretend you did.
And the statement, “No one here has said ANYTHING negative to you about your interest in transgendered individuals” is clearly a lie. You can wax litigious until the cows go home, but it was done.
You made an issue out of this whole pissed – off Christian thing because you went into attack mode about a week ago. Judging by the tone of your comments, it was a fair assessment. All the capital letters indicate to me is that perhaps “thou dost protest too much”.
You’re saying it’s the right thing to do? Please direct me to my comment where I say it is not the right thing to do. Bet you can’t find it.
As long as you persist in blaming me for what you have done, I will defend myself. Not one of you appears to have the integrity to accept the responsibility for his own actions, so I wouldn’t expect an apology in an opium dream.
But I would have no need to defend myself, if I were not attacked. You end it; it ends.
“I don’t care what you believe about the fucking label, you twat, you certainly meant nothing positive by addressing me with it.Don’t pretend you did.”
True. But I didn’t mean anything negative either. It’s a label you approve of. As I said before, you brought God into this, and I was speculating as to His feelings on your sexual interest in TS people. I’ll say again, I have no personal stake in your sexual proclivities.
“And the statement, “No one here has said ANYTHING negative to you about your interest in transgendered individuals” is clearly a lie. You can wax litigious until the cows go home, but it was done.”
Uh huh. Where are these negative comments to you, Frank? Or are you just completely full of shit, yet again?
“You made an issue out of this whole pissed – off Christian thing because you went into attack mode about a week ago. Judging by the tone of your comments, it was a fair assessment. All the capital letters indicate to me is that perhaps “thou dost protest too much”.”
No, I went into attack mode because your arguments suck and you’re an idiot. I’ve never said that I support gay rights because it will piss off Christians. All the capital letters should indicate to you the level of my exasperation with you, as that is what it was meant to convey.
“You’re saying it’s the right thing to do? Please direct me to my comment where I say it is not the right thing to do. Bet you can’t find it.”
Um, Frank, I was responding to your charge that the only reason I was supporting gay rights was because it will piss off Christians. You’re wrong. I didn’t say anything about what you thought about the issue personally.
“As long as you persist in blaming me for what you have done, I will defend myself. Not one of you appears to have the integrity to accept the responsibility for his own actions, so I wouldn’t expect an apology in an opium dream.
But I would have no need to defend myself, if I were not attacked. You end it; it ends.”
It’s simple, Frank. You’re attacked because you’re a fucking idiot, as this post, and countless others before it, have incontrovertibly demonstrated. I think you need to look in the mirror when you talk about accepting responsibility for one’s own actions. I wouldn’t dream of apologizing to you for anything I’ve said to you on this thread, because no apology is necessary. Your arguments are terrible, you are mind-bendingly obtuse, you’re a crybaby, and you’re a fucking idiot.
“Hey, Paul, tell me when you did anything else on this thread but question me. And when you weren’t questioning me, where did you back up any of your assertions?”
You’re just crazy. Stark raving. You just repeat back the last thing anyone says to you and then wing off on some wild, paranoid tangent …
Frank, I don’t see how allowing gay people to marry will cause any kind of new, costly legal problems that allowing straight people to marry causes. It’s still two people getting married. I don’t know what more needs to be said on that score.
There is nothing particularly special or different about gay relationships that would lead to unforeseen, unforetold legal issues.
Again, in your rent control example, there is absolutely nothing in that scenario which would change if you made all the participants straight. Absolutely nothing. And yet you claim there is. Why? What?
At the same time, affirmative action is not the same thing as gay marriage. The government is not setting quotas for gays to marry: so many gay marriages for every straight marriage. The government would not be saying so many gays have to get rent controlled properties or visitation rights or inheritances etc. etc. Hell, none of that happens under affirmative action either.
There is simply no comparison. Yet you seem to think there is. Where? Why?
Just because affirmative action has lead to legal problems, those challenges are aimed at specific aspects of the law. There would be no new special law for gay marriage except in that gays will allowed to get married. If someone wants to challenge that in court they could but on what grounds? Who could claim some kind of personal or class action harm in allowing gays to get married? Whether you live in Moscow idaho or New York, no one will be denied anything as a result of allowing gays to get married.
If you want to suggest that, A ha! The ex-wife in your rent control example could be denied a rent control apartment that makes no sense because she could be denied that apartment if her ex-husband remarried a woman. Is the ex going to sue to end heterosexual marriage on those grounds? No. She couldn’t. Why should she in you r example?
Frank, it’s clear that you haven’t done one iotas worth of thinking on this issue, not even in the example you yourself have put forth here.
Here’s what you’ve stated so far: Gay marriage will cause untold problems, just look at rent control, it’ll be just like affirmative action.
But not one of those things follows from the other. Not one. It’s so patently obvious is defies reason that someone has to point this out to you. But here we are … again.
Now unless you want to come up with something more concrete and logical than what you have so far, i think you should just let it go. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about.
“We’ve got Paul’s panacea: The Courts will fix it.”
Jesus. The courts will fix what Frank? The courts will fix what? Right now, when straights get divorced and they cannot come to a mutually agreed upon settlement, they go to divorce court to have their case arbitrated. if two gays got married and wanted to divorce they would do the same thing. What on earth would the courts have to fix?
If a hosptial ahs a rule barring everyone but family members from visitation rights, if two gay people are married, then they are family. What ton earth would the courts have to fix? The only thing the courts would have to fix is if the hospital refused to recognize the legal marriage. Now why the fuck would they do that?
There are laws regulating rent control apartments. The same laws would apply to gay marriages as straight marriages. What would the courts have to fix, then exactly?
Insurers who allow spouses to be included on policies would simply have to allow gay spouses to be on the policies. Like the visitation example, why would they refuse to recognize a legal marriage just because the two people were gay? Why? On what grounds? Again, what would the courts have to fix?
If it were made legal nationwide for gays to get married and some companies, hospitals, landlords etc etc refused to recognize gay marriages, they would be breaking the law. What would the courts have to fix? We already have a system in place to deal with people who break the law. Right?
So WTF are you even talking about? You aren’t even thinking now …
Me: “Personally, I couldn’t care less who or what you’re sexually into”
Frank: “Then why bring it up?”
Hypocrisy. I’m pretty sure we’ve explained that already.
“Transsexuals? Too “icky” for you guys.”
You do know what the T is LGBT represents, right? Their rights are part of the gay rights movement.
“And now, I’ll repeat myself to Clem: I said that most of the commenters want gay rights because they believe it will piss off Christians.”
And you are still wrong. My position on gay rights has nothing to do with Christians. This part of your argument is 100% projection. This is how you think, therefore others must share you flaws.
“Not one of you appears to have the integrity to accept the responsibility for his own actions,”
More projection. You come here looking for a fight and then act like the victim when you get one.