Marital Counseling for Libertarians and Social Conservatives

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Where in my post am I misleading?

Where in your post are you NOT misleading? I didn't say what you claim I said! That's about as fucking straightforward as it gets, you are an outright LIAR!

 

[Bai Lan]

Where is joe wilson when you NEED him?

 

[Damocles]

Where in your post are you NOT misleading? I didn't say what you claim I said! That's about as fucking straightforward as it gets, you are an outright LIAR!

You didn't say you went to a homosexual marriage?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Where in your post are you NOT misleading? I didn't say what you claim I said! That's about as fucking straightforward as it gets, you are an outright LIAR!

Let's see:
1. Did you not say you attended one of your gay friends weddings?
2. Did you not say you called them deviants, in your conversations with them?
3. Aren't people who don't follow the dictates of the interpretations of the Bible considered to be heathen's?

Unless you're asserting that it was someone else who has gay friends and who attended a wedding of two homosexuals.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You didn't say you went to a homosexual marriage?

It was more then him just attending, at least one of them was a friend of his.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Now we're to the point where you ignore the point and try to put words in my mouth. You waste all of our time with this, Dix. I stated clearly that it didn't make it not a "sin" when he didn't speak on the subject, that there were many sins he didn't cover.

I'm not putting the words in your mouth Dumo, or making you type them out! You are doing that of your own accord. I am merely pointing out the contradictions in your arguments, to which you have no explanation.

Let's not get into ridiculous inanities. At least you understand that homosexuality is proscribed against in the religion, and that your urge to legislate that is a violation of personal rights.

There is no violation of personal rights, other than your desire to limit MY personal rights on the basis that my viewpoint might be associated with a religious viewpoint. There is certainly nothing you've shown me in the Constitution which prohibits me from making laws based on what I believe as a matter of my religious faith. In fact, that in itself, is an untenable argument. You certainly understand this, which is why you are trying to make opposition to gay marriage into "religious dogma", because you know that is an argument you can win. Problem is, you can't establish that homosexuality or gay marriage is contradictory to Christian dogma, because you have argued just the exact opposite! It can't be part of the dogma when Dumo needs it to be, and not part of the dogma when Dumo doesn't want it to be!

This discussion we're currently having is about your urge to legislate Christian dogma.

No it's not, we've been through this. You haven't established that it's part of Christian dogma, you've presented a decent argument for why it's not. You've not demonstrated where any legislation has ever contained religious "dogma" on this matter or any other matter. DOGMA is different from beliefs! People may very well base their belief on their understanding (or misunderstanding) of "dogma" surrounding their religion, that is their RIGHT to do so, and you can't deny that to them on the basis you don't agree with their viewpoint, by dishonestly claiming it is "dogma" when it's NOT!

What I find most interesting is your first supposed support of legislation that would get government out of religion, then your instant support for not allowing gays to marry... There is dichotomy here, Dix, but it is yours.

If we followed your proposed solution (one that I support and that you supposedly support), gays would be married.

Again... for the futile purpose of attempting to penetrate your head, the hardest substance known to mankind... I oppose gay marriage on legal, ethical, and constitutional grounds, and I have presented my argument for my opposition numerous times. My personal viewpoint has nothing to do with religious beliefs, but I can respect that many religious people also oppose gay marriage, and they have the right to do so. I have proposed a solution that remedies all the problems from all perspectives, and ends this issue forever, but for some strange reason, my idea continues to be cast aside so we can continue the debate of the issue.

Here again, you seem to want to throw in this point that "gays would be married" as if my opposition to gay marriage is of a homophobic nature, as if I supposedly oppose gay marriage because I don't want gays to marry, when that is not what I have stated. I understand that as a bigot, you are tempted to make prejudiced judgment of my views, based on your own bigotry and stubbornness, but in the arena of intellectual debate, that is unacceptable.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Let's see:
1. Did you not say you attended one of your gay friends weddings?
2. Did you not say you called them deviants, in your conversations with them?
3. Aren't people who don't follow the dictates of the interpretations of the Bible considered to be heathen's?

Unless you're asserting that it was someone else who has gay friends and who attended a wedding of two homosexuals.

1. YES.. 1986, on a hillside ceremony in Alabama. No one was arrested, no one was prohibited from performing the service.

2. NO... I said I called them "sick twisted freaks" and they laughed.

3. I DO NOT KNOW!... I am a Spiritualist, not a Christian.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

1. YES.. 1986, on a hillside ceremony in Alabama. No one was arrested, no one was prohibited from performing the service.

2. NO... I said I called them "sick twisted freaks" and they laughed.

3. I DO NOT KNOW!... I am a Spiritualist, not a Christian.

So I didn't lie, like you said I did, about #1.

You might want to rethink this reply; because I flat out asked you if you called them deviants and you said yes.
I also made a reference to "all the time" and you said you did.

The accepted definition of a heathen, by society, is one that doesn't adhere to the same dogma that the person judging does.
You have shown that you have and continue to judge.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So I didn't lie, like you said I did, about #1.

You might want to rethink this reply; because I flat out asked you if you called them deviants and you said yes.
I also made a reference to "all the time" and you said you did.

The accepted definition of a heathen, by society, is one that doesn't adhere to the same dogma that the person judging does.
You have shown that you have and continue to judge.

No, you totally lied and misled, because you are a dishonest little fucktard, and that's how you roll.

You want to take bits and pieces of other things I have said, and things you may have even heard from others, and tie them with something else I stated from my personal life, to paint an abstract picture. I called you a liar and a dishonest fucktard for doing so, and now you want to act incredulous.

 

[Damocles]

I'm not putting the words in your mouth Dumo, or making you type them out! You are doing that of your own accord. I am merely pointing out the contradictions in your arguments, to which you have no explanation.

You are however, ignoring pages of written word to make silly nonsense assertions with no basis.

There is no violation of personal rights, other than your desire to limit MY personal rights on the basis that my viewpoint might be associated with a religious viewpoint. There is certainly nothing you've shown me in the Constitution which prohibits me from making laws based on what I believe as a matter of my religious faith. In fact, that in itself, is an untenable argument. You certainly understand this, which is why you are trying to make opposition to gay marriage into "religious dogma", because you know that is an argument you can win. Problem is, you can't establish that homosexuality or gay marriage is contradictory to Christian dogma, because you have argued just the exact opposite! It can't be part of the dogma when Dumo needs it to be, and not part of the dogma when Dumo doesn't want it to be!

There is only one side of this that attempts to "restrict" anything. And it isn't the side that wants to recognize the freedom of others to do something against your religious dogma. You can follow your dogma even if the government stops recognizing it as a basis for legislation.

No it's not, we've been through this. You haven't established that it's part of Christian dogma, you've presented a decent argument for why it's not. You've not demonstrated where any legislation has ever contained religious "dogma" on this matter or any other matter. DOGMA is different from beliefs! People may very well base their belief on their understanding (or misunderstanding) of "dogma" surrounding their religion, that is their RIGHT to do so, and you can't deny that to them on the basis you don't agree with their viewpoint, by dishonestly claiming it is "dogma" when it's NOT!

Which part of Christian dogma says that homosexual intercourse isn't a "sin"?

That is what your dogma says, and it has been clearly established throughout this and the other thread dealing with this same topic.

Again... for the futile purpose of attempting to penetrate your head, the hardest substance known to mankind... I oppose gay marriage on legal, ethical, and constitutional grounds, and I have presented my argument for my opposition numerous times. My personal viewpoint has nothing to do with religious beliefs, but I can respect that many religious people also oppose gay marriage, and they have the right to do so. I have proposed a solution that remedies all the problems from all perspectives, and ends this issue forever, but for some strange reason, my idea continues to be cast aside so we can continue the debate of the issue.

Your argument is worthless. If you, as you suggest, removed government from marriage and all licenses were for Unions, those homosexuals married in churches you disagree with would be "marriages" even if you don't like it.

Here again, you seem to want to throw in this point that "gays would be married" as if my opposition to gay marriage is of a homophobic nature, as if I supposedly oppose gay marriage because I don't want gays to marry, when that is not what I have stated. I understand that as a bigot, you are tempted to make prejudiced judgment of my views, based on your own bigotry and stubbornness, but in the arena of intellectual debate, that is unacceptable.

Again your "opposition" is noted, and your false and rather flighty "support" of a solution that would allow it is also noted. It is your dichotomy, not mine.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Ah, well, ID and I (I thought you had participated in it) spent pages talking about whether Jesus spoke of it. He didn't. Paul did. Some churches choose to ignore certain aspects of the dogma, it is why some other churches say they aren't "really Christian"...

Anyway, an abomination nets you the death penalty in the Bible, homosexual relations are proscribed without a doubt by your religious dogma.

And I pointed out that while Christ didn't personally speak of homosexuality it didn't change that per the religious dogma homosexuality is a "sin"... (I even used quotes in the argument).

Dixie went so far, in an attempt to defend his assertion, that when I posted a comment about a pamphlet that quoted everything that Jesus said about homosexuality, was nothing but empty pages, he posted the following in Post #214

LMFAO.... Yeah, because a pamphlet put out by homosexual activists is much more convincing and honest than the text of the King James Bible!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

It's interesting, this thread was supposed to be a counseling session between Social Conservatives and Libertarians, to see if we could resolve some our differences. It has turned into a mega-page philosophical debate on theology as it pertains to homosexuals. That's really interesting, given that it's an issue not likely to be determined or settled politically in the next election cycle, if ever. When it comes to smaller government, less intrusive government, lower taxes, conservative economics... what the hell does the theological aspects of homosexuality have to do with it? Are you listening to yourselves? You are at odds over issues that do not really relate to the political landscape in front of us. We don't live in a Theocracy, and we never will! If a Social Conservative is elected, they aren't going to implement Christian Law! If a Libertarian Conservative is elected, they aren't going to ban Religion! It's just a silly divisive discord between the two camps, which doesn't need to be as important as we make it out.

This thread was intended to get you to THINK... to examine your OWN shortcomings (even though Damo doesn't think he has any), and to find ways to understand each other better. Do you think you have done that at all? Or was this just another opportunity to rail against religion and call people names, whom you disagree with? You can't dis-include people from the political process because they happen to base their views on their personal religious faith! That is their right as much as it's your right to base your views on secular beliefs. The Constitution doesn't render their opinions invalid or irrelevant, and it doesn't say they can't have a voice in shaping the laws and legislation of our nation. At some point, we all have to get on the same page with this, and it seems silly and futile to just keep pounding away at some personal idealism, instead of finding common ground.

So, were you able to identify your own shortcomings and were you need to improve yourself?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

No, you totally lied and misled, because you are a dishonest little fucktard, and that's how you roll.

You want to take bits and pieces of other things I have said, and things you may have even heard from others, and tie them with something else I stated from my personal life, to paint an abstract picture. I called you a liar and a dishonest fucktard for doing so, and now you want to act incredulous.

Lets revisit this, shall we!!

Back on Post # 653, I made the following comment to Damo:

But he'll tell you how he calls his homosexual friends deviants, to their faces, and how he attended one of their immoral and heathen weddings.

In Post #656, you made the following statement:

STFU you dishonest piece of shit! I never said anything remotely close to that.

In Post #658, I asked you for clarification:

Where in my post am I misleading?

In Post #661, you made the accusation of:

Where in your post are you NOT misleading? I didn't say what you claim I said! That's about as fucking straightforward as it gets, you are an outright LIAR!

So I decided to go back and review past posts, just to make sure I hadn't confused someone else's comments and attributated them to you.
The following is only regarding you assertion that you didn't say your gay friends were deviants.
I've only brought forward the parts that pertain to this; but if you feel that I've left off something of importance, please show where.

Post #543

I'll also take the opportunity to add, if we ever change the criteria for marriage, based on the fact that homosexuals wish to call same-sex unions "marriage" then we will establish that "marriage" is definable according to your sexual lifestyle, and the government will have a responsibility to ensure equality for all sexual deviants who wish to call their fetish "marriage" for as long as marriage is so defined in law. We have to apply whatever law we have equally, so if you change the parameters, expect the consequences.

Post #545

Do you call your gay friends "deviants" and that the marriage you attended, a fetish??

Post #598

You seem to be avoiding my question of; do you refer to your homosexual friends as deviants, to their face??

Post #600

Yes, I tell them they are sick twisted freaks all the time, they laugh.

You said "Yes" and it was to the question of deviancy.
Are you now going to try and spin this and say you meant something else?
That is probably a rhetorical question; because of course you are.

So now, can you show where I lied; or are you going to pussy out and run away like you do 2/3 of the time?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You are however, ignoring pages of written word to make silly nonsense assertions with no basis.

I've not ignored anything, I haven't read through pages of idiocy on this issue, I have only pointed out your specific words and argumentative points, and how they contradict each other. You have no reasonable explanation, other than dancing around on the head of a pin, and continuing to misuse terminology to continue said dance.

There is only one side of this that attempts to "restrict" anything. And it isn't the side that wants to recognize the freedom of others to do something against your religious dogma. You can follow your dogma even if the government stops recognizing it as a basis for legislation.

I don't have religious dogma, I am not religious. I am spiritual, and there is a difference, even though you don't accept that in your bigoted mind. There is also a difference in the viewpoints opposing Gay Marriage, and we can go through those individually, but it might take a while. You continue to misuse the term "dogma" for the sake of HYPERBOLE! Because you lack the ability to explain why you actively seek to deny people their RIGHT to petition for redress of grievances or have a political voice in legislation, based on the fact they hold a viewpoint that is associated with a religious belief! It it the most absurd and blatant attack on Religious Freedom that I have ever seen you post, and I am appalled.

Which part of Christian dogma says that homosexual intercourse isn't a "sin"?

Now you are asking to prove a negative? Because the Christian dogma doesn't say homosexuality isn't a sin, it must be "dogma" to oppose gay marriage? You're kidding me, right, Dumo?

That is what your dogma says, and it has been clearly established throughout this and the other thread dealing with this same topic.

Again... I don't have dogma, since I am not religious. I understand that some Christians believe the "dogma" of their religion is opposed to homosexuality, I have not disputed that. It probably explains why devout Christians are almost unanimously opposed to gay marriage! Still, as you so eloquently pointed out, some Christians endorse gay marriage and homosexuality. So you have not established that opposition to gay marriage amounts to legislation of religious dogma, especially since Christ Himself didn't speak specifically about the subject.

You've also failed to show me anywhere in the Constitution it says, Congress shall make no law respecting any viewpoint that might be established or based on any religious dogma or morality, or prohibit the exercise of any sexually deviant behavior! I've looked, it's just not in there! We The People have the RIGHT to establish whatever laws and legislation we want to, based on whatever influence or guidance we have, and we all have an equal say in the matter, regardless of your authoritarian bigoted viewpoints.

Your argument is worthless. If you, as you suggest, removed government from marriage and all licenses were for Unions, those homosexuals married in churches you disagree with would be "marriages" even if you don't like it.

I don't care if gay people get married, Dumo! I am opposed to government sanctioning a sexually deviant behavior and legitimizing it into our law books! I am opposed to liberal social judicial activist judges making "decisions" into laws, usurping the constitutional rights of the people for a redress of their grievances, and the constitutional right to voice their opinions at the ballot box!

I don't belong to the Church, Dumo! As much as you want to pretend in your stubborn bigoted mind, that Dixie is a Religious Fanatic Christian, that is not the case. MY personal objections to Gay Marriage, have nothing to do with religious objections, or religious dogma! NONE! Yet, you continue to argue that this is "religious dogma" being forced on you, when your very own words in another thread, contradict that same point! It's just un-fucking-believable!

Again your "opposition" is noted, and your false and rather flighty "support" of a "solution" that would allow it is also noted. It is your dichotomy, not mine.

Well what I proposed is not something I am a bit "flighty" about, I am still all in favor of Civil Unions, and getting government out of the "marriage" business. But we're not seeing an argument for that, we are seeing an argument to legitimize homosexual marriage, by redefining what "marriage" means and has always meant. We see the proponents of this, making the absurdly inaccurate comparisons to civil rights, interracial marriage, and we see the illogical hyperbole from people like YOU, who want to claim this is "religious dogma" run amok.

No, Dumo, I am all FOR finding a SOLUTION to this issue. As you know, I have friends who are gay and live as a married couple, and they only want to be able to have each other on a single insurance policy, or present during medical emergencies, or get the "married" tax benefits from the federal government, or other assorted things like that... but they can't, because this issue continues to be perpetuated for debate, and no one is interested in the solution. Some people want to debate the merits of passing law based on ones 'religious dogma' and generate hyperbole based on falsehoods... they aren't really interested in solving the problem!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Hey Dixie; you've had over 4 hours to try and respond to this post (#673) and you still haven't found the testicular fortitude to do so.

What's the matter; are you having a problem in finding a way to spin yourself free from your own hypocrisy, or are you so ashamed of your behavior that you're just hoping everyone forgets about your short term memory loss??

 

[DamnYankee]

So then it is mostly environment and a little bit innate? It's all environment? What is your position?

The old nature v nurture argument. Its both.

 

[Damocles]

I've not ignored anything, I haven't read through pages of idiocy on this issue, I have only pointed out your specific words and argumentative points, and how they contradict each other. You have no reasonable explanation, other than dancing around on the head of a pin, and continuing to misuse terminology to continue said dance.

No, you ignore important bits and make silly nonsense assertions that don't even make sense with the few things you have taken out of context.

I have been consistent, and will continue to be consistent.

I don't have religious dogma, I am not religious. I am spiritual, and there is a difference, even though you don't accept that in your bigoted mind. There is also a difference in the viewpoints opposing Gay Marriage, and we can go through those individually, but it might take a while. You continue to misuse the term "dogma" for the sake of HYPERBOLE! Because you lack the ability to explain why you actively seek to deny people their RIGHT to petition for redress of grievances or have a political voice in legislation, based on the fact they hold a viewpoint that is associated with a religious belief! It it the most absurd and blatant attack on Religious Freedom that I have ever seen you post, and I am appalled.

I take the threads where you have clearly stated your Christianity to be truth. You have dogma.

Now you are asking to prove a negative? Because the Christian dogma doesn't say homosexuality isn't a sin, it must be "dogma" to oppose gay marriage? You're kidding me, right, Dumo?

It does say it is a sin, in fact it says it is an abomination. It is direct dogma.

Again... I don't have dogma, since I am not religious. I understand that some Christians believe the "dogma" of their religion is opposed to homosexuality, I have not disputed that. It probably explains why devout Christians are almost unanimously opposed to gay marriage! Still, as you so eloquently pointed out, some Christians endorse gay marriage and homosexuality. So you have not established that opposition to gay marriage amounts to legislation of religious dogma, especially since Christ Himself didn't speak specifically about the subject.

I thought you were through with this nonsense, when we brought up the threads where you proclaimed your wholehearted Christianity. You have dogma.

You've also failed to show me anywhere in the Constitution it says, Congress shall make no law respecting any viewpoint that might be established or based on any religious dogma or morality, or prohibit the exercise of any sexually deviant behavior! I've looked, it's just not in there! We The People have the RIGHT to establish whatever laws and legislation we want to, based on whatever influence or guidance we have, and we all have an equal say in the matter, regardless of your authoritarian bigoted viewpoints.

No, the constitution proscribes theocracy, the attempt to assert it through legislation doesn't hold water.

I don't care if gay people get married, Dumo! I am opposed to government sanctioning a sexually deviant behavior and legitimizing it into our law books! I am opposed to liberal social judicial activist judges making "decisions" into laws, usurping the constitutional rights of the people for a redress of their grievances, and the constitutional right to voice their opinions at the ballot box!

But you do care, you've argued against it now for two threads worth of nonsense.

I don't belong to the Church, Dumo! As much as you want to pretend in your stubborn bigoted mind, that Dixie is a Religious Fanatic Christian, that is not the case. MY personal objections to Gay Marriage, have nothing to do with religious objections, or religious dogma! NONE! Yet, you continue to argue that this is "religious dogma" being forced on you, when your very own words in another thread, contradict that same point! It's just un-fucking-believable!

I believe that you are lying here, (not that you don't belong to a church I can believe that, but I believe that you are and always will be a Christian) a form of Christian Taquiya, one that isn't supported by the Bible I might add. I base that on those threads here that don't just suggest you are Christian, they flat out state it with heavy conviction.

Well what I proposed is not something I am a bit "flighty" about, I am still all in favor of Civil Unions, and getting government out of the "marriage" business. But we're not seeing an argument for that, we are seeing an argument to legitimize homosexual marriage, by redefining what "marriage" means and has always meant. We see the proponents of this, making the absurdly inaccurate comparisons to civil rights, interracial marriage, and we see the illogical hyperbole from people like YOU, who want to claim this is "religious dogma" run amok.

Then why do you seek disagreement where we agree? This is a good solution, one which I have stated should be done for the decade we have known each other and one which you've recently just started promoting... We should work towards it rather than have you telling me anything about "defining marriage"... Let's work to get government out of marriage, all marriage including yours.

No, Dumo, I am all FOR finding a SOLUTION to this issue. As you know, I have friends who are gay and live as a married couple, and they only want to be able to have each other on a single insurance policy, or present during medical emergencies, or get the "married" tax benefits from the federal government, or other assorted things like that... but they can't, because this issue continues to be perpetuated for debate, and no one is interested in the solution. Some people want to debate the merits of passing law based on ones 'religious dogma' and generate hyperbole based on falsehoods... they aren't really interested in solving the problem!

No, you aren't. From your argument here one can reasonably see that you don't work towards this solution at all, it is convenient to say it, but then argue against it at every turn. You use it as a wedge and then tell people that you and others who think like you will pass an amendment to make your attempt at theocracy legal if they don't do what you want. The dichotomy is yours, you must resolve that within yourself. If you want this solution, let's work towards it.

The solution you supposedly propose has my support, I like it, I have promoted it for a much longer time than you have. I've worked towards getting the idea to as many religious conservatives as possible so that they may see the wisdom and carry that torch rather than one that attempts to supersede the 1st Amendment and legislate their dogma. I was thrilled when I first thought that you had come around, but then pages of nonsense about the definition of marriage (which we both supposedly agree shouldn't be in the government's purview) just bogs it all down. It took me a bit before I realized that your actual solution is the supposed constitutional amendment that would allow you to impose theocracy based in your religion on us and that your supposed proposed solution was just chaff.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

It looks like Dixie is to embarassed to return to this thread.
I left him a time line, showing where his short term memory is causing him a problem, at 12:58.
He responded to one of your posts, at 1:03, so I know he saw my post; but he obviously choose to run from it.

I guess Dixie is ashamed of the bitch slapping he received and is now cowering in his hypocrisy.

This happens about 2/3 of the time.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

The old nature v nurture argument. Its both.

are you saying:

one is gay due to both nature and nurture? sure looks like it....

if so, then you must concede that homosexuality is natural.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

are you saying:

one is gay due to both nature and nurture? sure looks like it....

if so, then you must concede that homosexuality is natural.

natural is not the same as normal....since the alternative to homosexuality being natural would have to be that it is supernatural, I expect there wasn't much doubt about it......