Marital Counseling for Libertarians and Social Conservatives

[USFREEDOM911]

And no one is advocating a law to establish Christianity as the national religion, Dumo! It's never been suggested, it is not in the works, no one is lobbying for that. You've made several illogical leaps to "infer" that is what this is about, and you are full of shit. Congress can most certainly make laws based on people's religious and moral viewpoints, they do so all the time.




You're back to proving a negative again to support your argument... The Old Testament refers to homosexuality as an abomination, the Bible does not specify it is a sin, Jesus didn't personally condemn it, and many Christians don't recognize it as a sin.... but why are we talking about "homosexuality" here, when the discussion is about same-sex marriage? If we were trying to outlaw homosexuality, you might be touching on some validity with you point, but you are on the other side of the fence from logic, you have to make that leap from 'homosexual' to 'gay marriage' and Christian dogma doesn't even mention gay marriage.




YOUR WORDS: "Dogma is never subjective!"




No one is trying to ban homosexuality! If you know of some place this is happening, please let me know! Until then, can you please stay on topic?

Homosexuality is deviant sexual behavior, and you are correct, there are other acceptable deviant behaviors, but we aren't trying to legitimize them into law through the government, are we?



Whether Christian religion teaches that homosexuality is wrong, has nothing to do with the issue of same-sex marriage, Dumo! Whether someone opposes same-sex marriage because their religious beliefs teach them to, is not something you or I can control, and we certainly can't deny their right to a political voice because of their religious faith... Go read your 1st Amendment again, Dumo!




So now we're back to pointing a finger at Dixie and calling him a Christian? It doesn't matter what the religious belief taught followers about homosexual behavior, no one is advocating a ban on homosexuality!



Judeo-Christian, and every other organized religion's definition. But as you've pointed out, some Christian churches perform gay marriages, so are they not Judeo-Christian followers? They certainly follow the Bible.

And ya know what Dumo, if WE THE PEOPLE want to define everything in our society based on Judeo-Christian definitions and beliefs, the Constitution gives us the liberty to do so, as long as we don't establish a national religion.



I didn't turn this into a discussion on gay marriage, Dumo... that was some of your gay boyfriends! Yes, I make it very clear I am opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage based on sexuality lifestyles. I've stated why I oppose it without using a single reference to Biblical teachings or religious beliefs. Still, you seek to tie my viewpoint to an Old Testament condemnation of homosexuality itself, when 'homosexuality' is not the topic of debate. It makes for really good HYPERBOLE, but other than that, it shows a devout willful ignorance and bigotry on your part, not to acknowledge the validity of my many legal and constitutional points, which are NOT based on any religious dogma.



Opposing Gay Marriage is NOT religious dogma, Dumo. I don't know if you think you can repeat that lie enough times it will come true, but you've presented NOTHING to establish this point. You just keep repeating it over and over, as if this is established as fact, when that is not the case at all.



And if someone is trying to legislate the death penalty for homosexuals, THEN it would be trying to "force their dogma" upon you! That's NOT happening!




And for the fourth time (since you keep repeating the same nonsense)... This in itself proves that gay marriage is not in conflict with the Christian dogma! It's usually only the extremely retarded pinheads who will refute their own stupidity, it's kind of unexpected from you... pardon me while I'm taken aback!




Well I know I didn't state that, I don't even know what 'schadenfruede' means! I'm not "rejoicing" with any of this, I have friends who are suffering because of it, and I want to see some resolution to the problem they have. I can't support Gay Marriage, it is out of the question, and my mind will never be changed on that. I would support comprehensive Civil Unions legislation, as I've laid out, because that solves the problem while respecting all sides.

What I said was, IF you nitwits manage to stack the SCOTUS with enough Elana Kegan's to get Gay Marriage passed into law, the result would be to make DOMA a Constitutional Amendment, and I would support it.



No, you haven't! ...(CONGRATS! YOU'VE TURNED INTO ASSHAT!)




Oh, I'm sorry Dumo, it sure as hell appears you are pushing for and advocating homosexual marriage here! I'm sorry I was mistaken, but you should make yourself more clear.

Again, you raise the point that gay marriage would take place in churches with the CU solution, but you are apparently to stupid to understand that very point totally destroys your argument about "religious dogma!" Christian churches certainly would not be doing this if it were against Christian dogma! So, while you've completely torched your own foundational argument, I guess you thought you were hitting my homophobic nerve or something... *gasp* you mean gay people will be gettin hitched in a church? Really? Well, maybe I ought to change my mind about CU's then, since it's an abomination and we need to burn gays at the stake and all!

You fucking dishonest piece of misleading trash. I am not opposed to gay people, I am not opposed to gay people having wedding ceremonies, or even getting 'married' if they want to call it that! I AM OPPOSED TO LEGALIZING SAME-SEX UNIONS AS MARRIAGE UNDER THE LAW!

C'MON PUSS, SHOW WHERE I LIED

 

[Damocles]

And no one is advocating a law to establish Christianity as the national religion, Dumo! It's never been suggested, it is not in the works, no one is lobbying for that. You've made several illogical leaps to "infer" that is what this is about, and you are full of shit. Congress can most certainly make laws based on people's religious and moral viewpoints, they do so all the time.

No, they can't. Such laws have been struck down regularly.

You're back to proving a negative again to support your argument... The Old Testament refers to homosexuality as an abomination, the Bible does not specify it is a sin, Jesus didn't personally condemn it, and many Christians don't recognize it as a sin.... but why are we talking about "homosexuality" here, when the discussion is about same-sex marriage? If we were trying to outlaw homosexuality, you might be touching on some validity with you point, but you are on the other side of the fence from logic, you have to make that leap from 'homosexual' to 'gay marriage' and Christian dogma doesn't even mention gay marriage.




YOUR WORDS: "Dogma is never subjective!"

It isn't subjective to flat state that it is a sin. Which is what the Bible does. It lists it as one of the "worst" types of sins (an abomination), one which should be given the death penalty.

No one is trying to ban homosexuality! If you know of some place this is happening, please let me know! Until then, can you please stay on topic?

Again, nobody said they were, they are just trying to have government legislate the definitions inherent in their religion onto others who do not share it. Can you stay on topic? You've thrown up at least one straw man like this one per post for several pages. Your favorite is trying to say that a flatly objective statement in the bible that says homosexuality is a sin (an abomination is a sin that merits the death penalty), doesn't exist. In fact it exists in both the New and Old Testaments.

Homosexuality is deviant sexual behavior, and you are correct, there are other acceptable deviant behaviors, but we aren't trying to legitimize them into law through the government, are we?

Yet we allow them to marry, without regard to their deviance, only this particular one merits your ire, and it is because of your devotion to one specific religion.

Whether Christian religion teaches that homosexuality is wrong, has nothing to do with the issue of same-sex marriage, Dumo! Whether someone opposes same-sex marriage because their religious beliefs teach them to, is not something you or I can control, and we certainly can't deny their right to a political voice because of their religious faith... Go read your 1st Amendment again, Dumo!

As I've already stated, such opposition cannot be in legislation, those types of laws get struck down because of the first amendment.

So now we're back to pointing a finger at Dixie and calling him a Christian? It doesn't matter what the religious belief taught followers about homosexual behavior, no one is advocating a ban on homosexuality!

No, I let you do that yourself, with your own posts where you have called yourself a "devout Christian" repeatedly and with vehemence, all the way until you decided that it didn't work for this specific argument. One is advocating to legislate the definition of marriage according to their religion.

Judeo-Christian, and every other organized religion's definition. But as you've pointed out, some Christian churches perform gay marriages, so are they not Judeo-Christian followers? They certainly follow the Bible.

Again. Repeating this straw man doesn't make it stand up, it is still just a rag doll. Many churches select dogma to follow and to ignore, it doesn't change that the only reason you object is because of the specific dogma you follow. Some religions (like Wicca) do not have such dogma as part of the religion.

And ya know what Dumo, if WE THE PEOPLE want to define everything in our society based on Judeo-Christian definitions and beliefs, the Constitution gives us the liberty to do so, as long as we don't establish a national religion.

It doesn't without an Amendment. It would certainly be a violation of the 1st.

I didn't turn this into a discussion on gay marriage, Dumo... that was some of your gay boyfriends! Yes, I make it very clear I am opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage based on sexuality lifestyles. I've stated why I oppose it without using a single reference to Biblical teachings or religious beliefs. Still, you seek to tie my viewpoint to an Old Testament condemnation of homosexuality itself, when 'homosexuality' is not the topic of debate. It makes for really good HYPERBOLE, but other than that, it shows a devout willful ignorance and bigotry on your part, not to acknowledge the validity of my many legal and constitutional points, which are NOT based on any religious dogma.

Yet you appear unable to post on anything else.

Opposing Gay Marriage is NOT religious dogma, Dumo. I don't know if you think you can repeat that lie enough times it will come true, but you've presented NOTHING to establish this point. You just keep repeating it over and over, as if this is established as fact, when that is not the case at all.

It is. There is an attempt to secularize it with inane arguments about "normal", but that is just as ridiculous as attempting to say your dogma in legislation wouldn't be a violation of the rights of others to practice their religion without your interference.

And if someone is trying to legislate the death penalty for homosexuals, THEN it would be trying to "force their dogma" upon you! That's NOT happening!

No, the attempt is to define all religious ceremonies according to the Judeo-Christian "tradition" (read: dogma).

And for the fourth time (since you keep repeating the same nonsense)... This in itself proves that gay marriage is not in conflict with the Christian dogma! It's usually only the extremely retarded pinheads who will refute their own stupidity, it's kind of unexpected from you... pardon me while I'm taken aback!

Yes, it is.

Well I know I didn't state that, I don't even know what 'schadenfruede' means! I'm not "rejoicing" with any of this, I have friends who are suffering because of it, and I want to see some resolution to the problem they have. I can't support Gay Marriage, it is out of the question, and my mind will never be changed on that. I would support comprehensive Civil Unions legislation, as I've laid out, because that solves the problem while respecting all sides.

Schadenfruede is taking joy in the downfall of others, and it is an accurate description of your "Then you'll be sorry!" statement in the other thread.

What I said was, IF you nitwits manage to stack the SCOTUS with enough Elana Kegan's to get Gay Marriage passed into law, the result would be to make DOMA a Constitutional Amendment, and I would support it.

No, you said, "Then you'll be wishing that you passed my solution and we'll all be laughing at you!" or something very much to the same effect (paraphrasing again).

No, you haven't! ...(CONGRATS! YOU'VE TURNED INTO ASSHAT!)

Talking to yourself again?

Oh, I'm sorry Dumo, it sure as hell appears you are pushing for and advocating homosexual marriage here! I'm sorry I was mistaken, but you should make yourself more clear.

I have made myself very clear, even through patient repetition of the exact same statement. I don't advocate changing legislation to allow "Gay Marriage", I do however understand that getting government out of the business of defining religious ceremonies means that all marriages, including those performed by churches you disagree with, would be as legitimate as any other.

Again, you raise the point that gay marriage would take place in churches with the CU solution, but you are apparently to stupid to understand that very point totally destroys your argument about "religious dogma!" Christian churches certainly would not be doing this if it were against Christian dogma! So, while you've completely torched your own foundational argument, I guess you thought you were hitting my homophobic nerve or something... *gasp* you mean gay people will be gettin hitched in a church? Really? Well, maybe I ought to change my mind about CU's then, since it's an abomination and we need to burn gays at the stake and all!

No, it doesn't. Again. Many churches pick and choose from the dogma, and other churches say that they are not "real Christians" therefore. It doesn't change that it is your dogma that this should not be allowed. It is, in fact, an abomination in your eyes.

You fucking dishonest piece of misleading trash. I am not opposed to gay people, I am not opposed to gay people having wedding ceremonies, or even getting 'married' if they want to call it that! I AM OPPOSED TO LEGALIZING SAME-SEX UNIONS AS MARRIAGE UNDER THE LAW!

So you oppose even allowing them to have Unions? The bolding was yours, I've told you that was your original intent, that all of this "let them have unions" was a false front for support for your Amendment, which would never, ever, ever, pass. You and I oppose the same thing and advocate the same thing, you get upset because I point out that homosexual marriages that happen at churches you disagree with would have equal legitimacy to that of heterosexual marriage. I don't understand why you hate that idea so much, it just would be the very real result of what we both supposedly promote.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

No, they can't. Such laws have been struck down regularly.




It isn't subjective to flat state that it is a sin. Which is what the Bible does. It lists it as one of the "worst" of sins, one which should be given the death penalty.



Again, nobody said they were, they are just trying to have government legislate the definitions inherent in their religion onto others who do not share it. Can you stay on topic? You've thrown up at least one straw man like this one per post for several pages. Your favorite is trying to say that a flatly objective statement in the bible that says homosexuality is a sin (an abomination is a sin that merits the death penalty), doesn't exist. In fact it exists in both the New and Old Testaments.



Yet we allow them to marry, without regard to their deviance, only this particular one merits your ire, and it is because of your devotion to one specific religion.


As I've already stated, such opposition cannot be in legislation, those types of laws get struck down because of the first amendment.




No, I let you do that yourself, with your own posts where you have called yourself a "devout Christian" repeatedly and with vehemence, all the way until you decided that it didn't work for this specific argument. One is advocating to legislate the definition of marriage according to their religion.


Again. Repeating this straw man doesn't make it stand up, it is still just a rag doll. Many churches select dogma to follow and to ignore, it doesn't change that the only reason you object is because of the specific dogma you follow. Some religions (like Wicca) do not have such dogma as part of the religion.



It doesn't without an Amendment. It would certainly be a violation of the 1st.



Yet you appear unable to post on anything else.


It is. There is an attempt to secularize it with inane arguments about "normal", but that is just as ridiculous as attempting to say your dogma in legislation wouldn't be a violation of the rights of others to practice their religion without your interference.


No, the attempt is to define all religious ceremonies according to the Judeo-Christian "tradition" (read: dogma).



Yes, it is.



Schadenfruede is taking joy in the downfall of others, and it is an accurate description of your "Then you'll be sorry!" statement in the other thread.



No, you said, "Then you'll be wishing that you passed my solution and we'll all be laughing at you!" or something very much to the same effect (paraphrasing again).



Talking to yourself again?



I have made myself very clear, even through patient repetition of the exact same statement. I don't advocate changing legislation to allow "Gay Marriage", I do however understand that getting government out of the business of defining religious ceremonies means that all marriages, including those performed by churches you disagree with, would be as legitimate as any other.



No, it doesn't. Again. Many churches pick and choose from the dogma, and other churches say that they are not "real Christians" therefore. It doesn't change that it is your dogma that this should not be allowed. It is, in fact, an abomination in your eyes.


So you oppose even allowing them to have Unions? The bolding was yours, I've told you that was your original intent, that all of this "let them have unions" was a false front for support for your Amendment, which would never, ever, ever, pass.

You need to find and add an emoticon that implies a major bitch slapping and we can call it :dixie:!!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dumo, if you want to dissect my posts into a million parts and comment with the same rhetoric over and over again, I am not going to go to the trouble of trying to quote your repeating nonsense. You have not presented any evidence to support your argument, you continue to attempt bullying tactics and name calling, mixed in with a little dose of personal jabs and insults, or what you perceive to be insults. But you haven't made the case for what you've argued, and you simply can't. You are caught with your proverbial pants down, and you have to resort to troll-like tactics to try and save face here, but it's not very becoming of you. You should leave the trolling up to people who do it so much better!

No, they can't. Such laws have been struck down regularly.

Uhm... yes indeed they can, and such laws are also upheld regularly. If 3/4 of the states want to turn the nation into an outright Christian theocracy, and command you to pray daily to the God of Abraham, they can make it part of the Constitution with ratification of an amendment. Our founders laid out a process by which we can change and alter our constitution however we see fit, and there ain't a damn thing you can do about that. You can wish and hope that people won't do something like that, you can try to use hyperbolic rhetoric to stop them from it, you can even go to the polls and cast a vote against it, but if THE PEOPLE want something made part of our laws and Constitution, they damn sure CAN do so, and have done so for over 200 years. I thought we straightened this out in a previous flurry of posts, Dumo... why are we having to rehash the same argument? Did you forget the civics lesson from earlier?

It isn't subjective to flat state that it is a sin. Which is what the Bible does. It lists it as one of the "worst" types of sins (an abomination), one which should be given the death penalty.

This is from YOUR interpretation and understanding of the Scriptures, of which you are not a follower. Obviously, your repeated examples of Christian churches condoning homosexuality, is a complete refutation of your argument. Something can't be both in accordance with the dogma and in contradiction with the dogma.... it's logically impossible.

Again, nobody said they were, they are just trying to have government legislate the definitions inherent in their religion onto others who do not share it.

It doesn't matter that YOU think that is what they are doing, they have the Constitutional right to legislate any goddamn thing they want to, based on whatever belief system they have, just as you do. Sorry, that's how the system works, Dumo!

Your favorite is trying to say that a flatly objective statement in the bible that says homosexuality is a sin (an abomination is a sin that merits the death penalty), doesn't exist. In fact it exists in both the New and Old Testaments.

You know, my granny always told me, once you start telling lies, it gets easier and easier and you have to tell even more and more. I have never in my life made the statement you just claimed I made, that OT or NT scripture regarding homosexuality "doesn't exist!" I have stated that you do not comprehend the Christian dogma because you aren't a Christian, that Christian teachings do not condemn homosexual marriage specifically, and scarcely speak of homosexual behaviors. You made the same argument when you needed for homosexuality to not conflict with Christianity, but when you need for this to be 'religious dogma' you change your opinion.

Yet we allow them to marry, without regard to their deviance, only this particular one merits your ire, and it is because of your devotion to one specific religion.

My opposition doesn't have anything to do with anyone's dogma or religious beliefs. We don't allow our rule of law and Constitution to grant special rights for people on the basis of their sexual deviant behaviors. If we ever attempt to do that with any other deviancy, I will be just as vocal against it, I promise!

As I've already stated, such opposition cannot be in legislation, those types of laws get struck down because of the first amendment.

I guess I missed the part of the Constitution that gave YOU the right to determine what is acceptable to consider in making our laws? Unless something is direct DOGMA (i.e; The 10 Commandments), it is permitted to be considered when passing law. It does not matter that the particular viewpoint or issue is something which may happen to coincide with a religious philosophy, in fact, MOST of our laws are made on exactly that moral basis. What you are suggesting is absurd beyond belief... almost ANYTHING you can think of, in terms of laws or "rights" are based on a foundational moral religious principle to some degree! Laws are rules of right and wrong, right and wrong are subjective parameters based on our individual morals, our individual morals come from our individual belief systems, our individual belief systems often pertain to our religious beliefs. There is no way to 'divorce' these from each other, it's who we are! It's reflected in everything we do! Are you NOT trying to impose your personal "anti-religious libertarian dogma" on the rest of society?

I AM OPPOSED TO LEGALIZING SAME-SEX UNIONS AS MARRIAGE UNDER THE LAW!
So you oppose even allowing them to have Unions? The bolding was yours, I've told you that was your original intent, that all of this "let them have unions" was a false front for support for your Amendment, which would never, ever, ever, pass.

Now look at you Dumo... You are starting to act like a LIBERAL!

Read the part where I say "...AS MARRIAGE UNDER THE LAW" and try to understand this point... I don't mind passing legislation to allow same-sex unions, under a comprehensive CU contract sanctioned by the government, but I am OPPOSED to hijacking the meaning or tradition of MARRIAGE by law! In other words, I do not favor our LAW saying there is a such thing as "Gay Marriage" because I think it is absurd to allow our government to promote or endorse sexually deviant behavior by bestowing special rights upon them, and doing so at the sake of an institution fundamentally important to most religious people.

If you wish to THINK that I don't really want a comprehensive CU reform like the one I painstakingly went to the trouble of laying out in detail and explaining, that is entirely up to you.... It fits right in with your THINKING that I am a Christian who routinely denies being a Christian... it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever..... but then, YOU make absolutely no sense whatsoever, here lately, Dumo!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Didn't want my bitch, Dixie, to pass up the opportunity to clarify the accusation that I lied and misrepresented what she said.

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]

Are you the guy on the left or right of the banner at the top?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Are you the guy on the left or right of the banner at the top?

Was that supposed to be a dig at gays??
It would appear that your true hatred of homosexuals is showing.

Did you or do you spit in the face of the ones who's marriage you attended??

Prove where I lied, in the post showing the time line, you puss.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Was that supposed to be a dig at gays??
It would appear that your true hatred of homosexuals is showing.

Nah, I just dislike YOU. Most homosexuals I know who are open about their homosexuality, are very interesting people with a lot of creativity and imagination. I really enjoy being around them, they are usually a lot of fun. Most homosexuals who haven't come out of the closet, are devious, deceitful, and tell a lot of lies. They can't be trusted, and you never know what they are up to. They are hiding from their true self, living a lie. I personally think you should come out of the closet, USF... I might like you more.

Did you or do you spit in the face of the ones who's marriage you attended??

No, I've never spit in anyone's face, that's about the most disgusting thing you could do to someone, and I've never been so inclined. But I have to correct you on something... I didn't attend a "marriage" ...I attended a wedding ceremony. You see, marriage is the union of a man and woman, and they didn't meet the criteria to obtain a license to marry, but they love each other and they exemplified their love by having a beautiful ceremony on a hillside in Alabama in 1986. The government didn't prohibit them from doing this, no bigoted Alabama sheriff was there to arrest them for it, the Baptists weren't out there holding protest rallies, no fines resulted... just a beautiful ceremony between two people who love each other.

Prove where I lied, in the post showing the time line, you puss.

Nah, I think I'll pass... Besides, if you read your post, it's obvious what was said and wasn't said. Mostly though, it's just a silly superfluous distraction, which we've all come to expect from you.

....Come out da closet! Come out da closet!

 

[Timshel]

Homosexuality is deviant sexual behavior, and you are correct, there are other acceptable deviant behaviors, but we aren't trying to legitimize them into law through the government, are we?

My opposition doesn't have anything to do with anyone's dogma or religious beliefs. We don't allow our rule of law and Constitution to grant special rights for people on the basis of their sexual deviant behaviors. If we ever attempt to do that with any other deviancy, I will be just as vocal against it, I promise!

Like deviant interracial lovers?

There is no request for special rights, just equality. To turn your stupid point around on you, you will have the same right to marry another man as a homosexual.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Nah, I just dislike YOU. Most homosexuals I know who are open about their homosexuality, are very interesting people with a lot of creativity and imagination. I really enjoy being around them, they are usually a lot of fun. Most homosexuals who haven't come out of the closet, are devious, deceitful, and tell a lot of lies. They can't be trusted, and you never know what they are up to. They are hiding from their true self, living a lie. I personally think you should come out of the closet, USF... I might like you more.



No, I've never spit in anyone's face, that's about the most disgusting thing you could do to someone, and I've never been so inclined. But I have to correct you on something... I didn't attend a "marriage" ...I attended a wedding ceremony. You see, marriage is the union of a man and woman, and they didn't meet the criteria to obtain a license to marry, but they love each other and they exemplified their love by having a beautiful ceremony on a hillside in Alabama in 1986. The government didn't prohibit them from doing this, no bigoted Alabama sheriff was there to arrest them for it, the Baptists weren't out there holding protest rallies, no fines resulted... just a beautiful ceremony between two people who love each other.



Nah, I think I'll pass... Besides, if you read your post, it's obvious what was said and wasn't said. Mostly though, it's just a silly superfluous distraction, which we've all come to expect from you.

....Come out da closet! Come out da closet!

How nice.
Dixie who did say he attended a gay MARRIAGE is now using homosexuality in an attempt to belittle and denigrate someone.
The next thing he'll probably do, is say I should admit to being part of his family.

You really need to stop lying and just admit that your words are what got you into trouble.
You're just like a lot of gay haters.
You say you like gays, that you have gay friends, that you have no problem with them; but after letting you talk long enough, it becomes apparent that you really think they're an abomination and disgusting.
Therefore it could stand to reason that you're "come out of the closet", could be a reference that you need to stop hiding behind your own facade.

In closing; it seems like you've started to take on some of sissie's attributes.
Where he keeps referring to "folks", in his desire to try and find support, you have began using the royal "WE" in an attempt to make it appear that you also have support; imaginary as it is.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Like deviant interracial lovers?

No, because most every relationship is interracial, with exception to maybe Jewish people who still love within their own race. There is nothing 'deviating' from the norm, therefore, it isn't 'deviant' behavior to love outside your race.

There is no request for special rights, just equality.

Good, there IS equality! Marriage is the union of a man and woman, Gay Partnerships are a domestic union that is not marriage, unless it is between a male gay and female gay person. Neither gays or heterosexuals are prohibited from being domestic partners or obtaining a marriage license, providing they meet the criteria, and the criteria remains exactly the same for either one. Equality!

To turn your stupid point around on you, you will have the same right to marry another man as a homosexual.

Well, no... I can't "marry" a man, because I am a man. I can only "marry" a woman. I could have a domestic partnership with a man, if I wanted to. Since I am not homosexual, I don't particularly want to.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

How nice.
Dixie who did say he attended a gay MARRIAGE is now using homosexuality in an attempt to belittle and denigrate someone.
The next thing he'll probably do, is say I should admit to being part of his family.

Can you post the link to the thread where I said I attended a gay "MARRIAGE" as you are claiming? I know I didn't say that. I attended a WEDDING. That's what I said. I also didn't use homosexuality to denigrate you, I merely gave you some advice about embracing your sexuality. If you would come out of the closet with your homosexuality, you would be happier and people may like you more. At least you would be honest. How is that using homosexuality to denigrate you?

You really need to stop lying and just admit that your words are what got you into trouble.
You're just like a lot of gay haters.
You say you like gays, that you have gay friends, that you have no problem with them; but after letting you talk long enough, it becomes apparent that you really think they're an abomination and disgusting.

Well I have to admit, thinking about homo sex is disgusting to me personally, and it's pretty danged 'abominable' from my perspective, but I don't hate gay people. I am also not scared of gay people, don't fear gay people, and don't particularly care to see any harm come to gay people. I don't know of anything I have ever said that would indicate such a thing, but as we can see, you have a severe comprehension problem with what I post... you tend to READ what you WANT to read, and not what I actually WRITE! Then you lie about what was said, and persist with an inane argument about it for days.

Therefore it could stand to reason that you're "come out of the closet", could be a reference that you need to stop hiding behind your own facade.

No, it was definitely a reference to you, and recognizing your own sexuality, which you seem to want to deny and hide.

In closing; it seems like you've started to take on some of sissie's attributes.
Where he keeps referring to "folks", in his desire to try and find support, you have began using the royal "WE" in an attempt to make it appear that you also have support; imaginary as it is.

We think you should Come Out Da Closet!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Can you post the link to the thread where I said I attended a gay "MARRIAGE" as you are claiming? I know I didn't say that. I attended a WEDDING. That's what I said. I also didn't use homosexuality to denigrate you, I merely gave you some advice about embracing your sexuality. If you would come out of the closet with your homosexuality, you would be happier and people may like you more. At least you would be honest. How is that using homosexuality to denigrate you?



Well I have to admit, thinking about homo sex is disgusting to me personally, and it's pretty danged 'abominable' from my perspective, but I don't hate gay people. I am also not scared of gay people, don't fear gay people, and don't particularly care to see any harm come to gay people. I don't know of anything I have ever said that would indicate such a thing, but as we can see, you have a severe comprehension problem with what I post... you tend to READ what you WANT to read, and not what I actually WRITE! Then you lie about what was said, and persist with an inane argument about it for days.



No, it was definitely a reference to you, and recognizing your own sexuality, which you seem to want to deny and hide.



We think you should Come Out Da Closet!

Constantly repeating yourself, is not anyway to refute what was presented.
Now you demand that I provide you of proof that you aren't lying??

Just curious; but it could be seen that you're also a racist, due to your continual usage of "Da" instead of "The".

It's becoming apparent that you're nothing more then a racist gay hater.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Constantly repeating yourself, is not anyway to refute what was presented.
Now you demand that I provide you of proof that you aren't lying??

No, you need to provide proof that I DID lie, as you claim. See, whenever you accuse someone of lying, it is up to you to show where they told a lie, it's not up to me to prove I didn't say something. How am I supposed to prove that? Go do a search for "Dixie, and attended gay marriage" and see what pops up! If I actually said that, post the link to it! If you can't find where I said that, apologize for lying and maybe I'll forgive you for it.

Just curious; but it could be seen that you're also a racist, due to your continual usage of "Da" instead of "The".

It's becoming apparent that you're nothing more then a racist gay hater.

As I've already said, you have a severe comprehension problem. The only person such a thing is "apparent" to, is YOU! Now, what did you base this assumption on? Well, you based it on something as trivial as my usage of a word, which "obviously" has a different intended meaning, because that is how YOU are! Being a closet homosexual, you are always using words to mean something else, it's called living a lie, so such a thing is perfectly normal for you, and therefore, you assume it is normal for me as well.

One thing about me, is I am outspoken. I don't say one thing but mean something else. You generally know what I believe straight up, you don't have to 'interpret' things from the words I use, I make myself abundantly clear on what I believe. IF I hated gays or blacks, I would say that I hate gays or blacks, it would be in direct terms you would clearly understand and you wouldn't be mistaken by those words in any way. But I've never said anything to indicate such a thing. You just made it up, like you did with the lie about me saying I attended a "marriage" of gay people, among other things.

This is what living in the closet causes. Your whole life is a great big lie, and you've had to hide your true feelings for so long, by using words to mean other things, by manipulating and misusing words to hide who you really are, and now, you can't merely be satisfied with lying for yourself, you seek to tell lies for others as well. This lets you point a finger at them and call them liars, and make you feel better about yourself and your own pack of lies, especially the big one you continue to live.

Seriously, you should come out of the closet, and just admit you're sexuality. I know that it totally disgusts you and maybe you even think you are 'flawed' or something, but this is 2010, our society has come to accept homosexuality, for the most part. Anyone who doesn't accept you is a bigot anyway, and you didn't need their acceptance. It's just going to be so much better for you, once you decide to stop living your lie, and come out da closet.

 

[Timshel]

No, because most every relationship is interracial, with exception to maybe Jewish people who still love within their own race. There is nothing 'deviating' from the norm, therefore, it isn't 'deviant' behavior to love outside your race.

Where did the court say that this would be acceptable except for the fact that one's race is rarely pure? If that were important then it would seem that it would be in the state's interest to protect the purity of race as much as it possibly can.

It's not important, the least bit relevant, nor would racial purity make laws against interracial marriages permissable. Deviant has nothing at all to do with the reason for nullifying the Virginia law in Loving, nor should it have anything to do with nullifying limits on gay marriage.

Further, it does not help you because gender is not binary. People are not, necessarily, exclusively male or female. In many, this is quite clear and obvious. There is some proof that even when the genitalia are exclusively male or female, gender is not. In many cultures, this has long been accepted.

It is certainly "deviant" to engage in sex with a person of another generalized race, just as it is "deviant" to engage in sex with someone of the same generalized gender. You are just grasping at straws and base your idiotic distinctions on irrelevant nonsense to which the courts do not give any value.

Good, there IS equality! Marriage is the union of a man and woman, Gay Partnerships are a domestic union that is not marriage, unless it is between a male gay and female gay person. Neither gays or heterosexuals are prohibited from being domestic partners or obtaining a marriage license, providing they meet the criteria, and the criteria remains exactly the same for either one. Equality!

Whites are not allowed to marry blacks and vice versa. That's equality and therefore permissable. Nope.

Well, no... I can't "marry" a man, because I am a man. I can only "marry" a woman. I could have a domestic partnership with a man, if I wanted to. Since I am not homosexual, I don't particularly want to.

How is it that your "want" is important here when it is not in restricting homosexuals to enter same sex marriages?

Civil unions are not equivalent to marriage. Even if they were, seperate but equal has been rejected. It's not going to return.

Now, you want to talk about bad results that could result from a ruling that upholds seperate but equal? That would lead to REAL problems in deciding other 14th amendment cases, not just your imaginary ones based on your ignorance of the law.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

No, you need to provide proof that I DID lie, as you claim. See, whenever you accuse someone of lying, it is up to you to show where they told a lie, it's not up to me to prove I didn't say something. How am I supposed to prove that? Go do a search for "Dixie, and attended gay marriage" and see what pops up! If I actually said that, post the link to it! If you can't find where I said that, apologize for lying and maybe I'll forgive you for it.

Since you're now resorting to lengthy diatribes, in an attempt to hide your shame and emabarassment; I will need to address them each, in order to make sure you don't melt down and think you're being ignored 1/3 of the time.

I have already provided the post #s that refer to your duplicity; but you seem to be focused on the "marriage" part of your lies, so are you saying that the rest of it is true and are admitting that you are a liar!!
*probably a rhetorical question, because you're not capable of admitting that you're a hypocrite"

As I've already said, you have a severe comprehension problem. The only person such a thing is "apparent" to, is YOU! Now, what did you base this assumption on? Well, you based it on something as trivial as my usage of a word, which "obviously" has a different intended meaning, because that is how YOU are! Being a closet homosexual, you are always using words to mean something else, it's called living a lie, so such a thing is perfectly normal for you, and therefore, you assume it is normal for me as well.

Now you're saying that homosexuals say things that have different meanings and then try to imply that I'm doing so, because this proves to you that I'm a homosexual.
Could you show where I've said something that implied a different meaning?

One thing about me, is I am outspoken. I don't say one thing but mean something else. You generally know what I believe straight up, you don't have to 'interpret' things from the words I use, I make myself abundantly clear on what I believe. IF I hated gays or blacks, I would say that I hate gays or blacks, it would be in direct terms you would clearly understand and you wouldn't be mistaken by those words in any way. But I've never said anything to indicate such a thing. You just made it up, like you did with the lie about me saying I attended a "marriage" of gay people, among other things.

Being a liar and being obtuse does not make you outspoken, it only makes you boorish and a liar.
As to you stating that you don't say one thing and mean another; could you explain what your OPINION is of the difference of "ATTENDING A MARRIAGE" and "ATTENDING A MARRIAGE CEREMONY" is??
*this should be interesting*

This is what living in the closet causes. Your whole life is a great big lie, and you've had to hide your true feelings for so long, by using words to mean other things, by manipulating and misusing words to hide who you really are, and now, you can't merely be satisfied with lying for yourself, you seek to tell lies for others as well. This lets you point a finger at them and call them liars, and make you feel better about yourself and your own pack of lies, especially the big one you continue to live.

Your apparent knowledge of such, could be seen as a life moment of your own and how it affected you.
Then you attempt to project those behaviors and feelings on someone else, so that you can continue to hide your true feelings from yourself.
I does appear that you use this behavior of yours, to help you make it through the day.

Seriously, you should come out of the closet, and just admit you're sexuality. I know that it totally disgusts you and maybe you even think you are 'flawed' or something, but this is 2010, our society has come to accept homosexuality, for the most part. Anyone who doesn't accept you is a bigot anyway, and you didn't need their acceptance. It's just going to be so much better for you, once you decide to stop living your lie, and come out da closet.

Now you attempt to divert attention from your hypocrisy and dishonesty, by attempting to accuse someone else of something; but yet, you still have failed to attempt to refute each of the points I made and instead are running from them so fast that it's becoming hard to see that yellow streak up your back.

Tell you what, puss; why don't you go back to my accusation and address each point!!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Since you seemed so confused Dixie, in your latest rantings and ramblings, I thought I would try and give you some help and bring up the comment I made to Damo that got you so agitated.

Post #653

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.

Now would you care to show where you feel I was lying.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Where did the court say that this would be acceptable except for the fact that one's race is rarely pure? If that were important then it would seem that it would be in the state's interest to protect the purity of race as much as it possibly can.

You asserted that "interracial marriage" was deviant, and I demonstrated that it's not deviant at all, in fact, it's the norm. The court is not charged with determining what might be acceptable, only what is or isn't acceptable according to the law.

It's not important, the least bit relevant, nor would racial purity make laws against interracial marriages permissable. Deviant has nothing at all to do with the reason for nullifying the Virginia law in Loving, nor should it have anything to do with nullifying limits on gay marriage.

You're getting yourself confused Stringy. I never said laws against interracial marriage would be acceptable if there was racial purity. I also never indicated Loving had anything to do with deviance. It pertained to specific racial discrimination, placing an unequal standard on a specific race of people because of the color of their skin.

Further, it does not help you because gender is not binary. People are not, necessarily, exclusively male or female. In many, this is quite clear and obvious. There is some proof that even when the genitalia are exclusively male or female, gender is not. In many cultures, this has long been accepted.

Only hermaphrodites have both genitalia, and even then, there is indeed a 'dominating' genitalia, (usually female.) As for your point about 'gender' I can accept your viewpoint, I have often believed that everyone has a certain degree of male AND female gender, and homosexuals happen to have more of the opposite gender than normal, which is what makes them homosexual. I don't dispute this, although I don't know it is clinically conclusive or supported by science. But none of this has anything to do with how marriage has been defined for 5,000 years, and what marriage is. It's still the union of a male and female, regardless of the level of "gender" they may have.

It is certainly "deviant" to engage in sex with a person of another generalized race, just as it is "deviant" to engage in sex with someone of the same generalized gender. You are just grasping at straws and base your idiotic distinctions on irrelevant nonsense to which the courts do not give any value.

The courts give value to what the law says, and it clearly states you can't discriminate on the basis of someone's skin color. It "deviates" from the norm for someone to be racially pure! Most all of us have a mixture of two or more racial ethnicities, and are not "racially pure" by any stretch. All of us have a birth certificate (except Obama) which defines our gender as male or female. I don't know of an example where someone is defined as "unknown" or "both."

You are the one grasping at straws here, you haven't made a legitimate argument yet, for what you want to do. You keep trying to make invalid comparisons, and change the definition of marriage to suit your argument. Marriage is the union of a male and female, same-sex unions are NOT marriage. You can say they function just like a marriage, I am okay with that... You can say they deserve to have the same considerations as marriage, I can accept that.... but you can't call them marriages, because that isn't what marriage is defined as. Sorry!

Whites are not allowed to marry blacks and vice versa. That's equality and therefore permissable. Nope.

No, that is a discrimination based on race alone, which is illegal and against the Constitution. It is not permissible. There is no Constitutional protection against discrimination based on sexual deviancy, we can and do discriminate against various types of sexual deviant behaviors in our society. But with "Marriage" there is no discrimination, homosexuals are not prohibited from "Marriage" at all, in fact, I think it's illegal for the State to even ask if you are homosexual before issuing a "Marriage" license.

How is it that your "want" is important here when it is not in restricting homosexuals to enter same sex marriages?

I could ask you the same question regarding "consent" or age of consent! Why are your moral standards okay to apply in your case, but someone elses moral standard would be unacceptable to you? Well, you claim something about the state's interest to protect the "victim" but the "victim" is determined to be such, by your definition of "victim" and not someone elses moral judgment of when someone is a victim.

Civil unions are not equivalent to marriage. Even if they were, seperate but equal has been rejected. It's not going to return.

I agree! I have not proposed we give CU's to gay people and retain marriage for straight people. If that were my argument, you would have a legitimate point, but it hasn't ever been my argument, so you have no point here. I suggested we remove government from the business of issuing a "marriage" license entirely, and replace that with a "civil unions" contract that any two people could enter, providing they are of legal age to enter into contract. This would remove the issue of "marriage" as a religious institution, the issue of "marriage" as it pertains to deviant sexual behavior, and the issue of the government regulating or endorsing ANY behavior or religious viewpoint. It would give gay couples every benefit they seek, it would protect the sanctity of marriage, and all sides get what they want.... except for the great Immoral Crusaders, who simply want to use this issue to denigrate Christianity and religious viewpoints.

Now, you want to talk about bad results that could result from a ruling that upholds seperate but equal? That would lead to REAL problems in deciding other 14th amendment cases, not just your imaginary ones based on your ignorance of the law.

Again, what I proposed is not "separate but equal" at all, we would all be eligible for the same CU contracts, across the board, subject to minimal requirements of age and consent, as we currently have with all contracts.

What will be the REAL problem with the 14th, is IF we redefine marriage because it needs to accommodate a sexually deviant lifestyle. Once we've established that can be done, then every sexual deviant lifestyle has a legitimate 14th amendment argument for THEIR lifestyle being given "equal protection under the law" and we have essentially NO way of denying this right to them as well. We can't pick and choose what sexual deviancy is okay and which can be discriminated against, if we establish that sexual deviancy is a basis to establish a law. That's precisely what the 14th spells out! Legitimize "Gay Marriage" into law, and the Polygamists are already lining up to obtain their equal rights... and the Pedophiles are right behind them...

It's best we find a solution to this problem without "redefining" what something means. The consequences are largely untold, because you just can't use your limp noodle to think ahead and imagine them. You are operating on sheer emotion, and not pragmatic common sense. I have repeatedly said I can sympathize with the 'plight' of homosexual couples who want to obtain benefits or whatever, as traditional married couples are presently able to do... I have offered a viable solution to the problem. But for some strange reason, rather than accepting my solution or agreeing with me, you had rather continue the debate, continue calling me a racial bigot, and all kinds of other derogatory names, while keeping this issue ginned up and going on and on. Who is really obstructing "progress" here?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Since you're now resorting to lengthy diatribes, in an attempt to hide your shame and emabarassment; I will need to address them each, in order to make sure you don't melt down and think you're being ignored 1/3 of the time.

I have already provided the post #s that refer to your duplicity; but you seem to be focused on the "marriage" part of your lies, so are you saying that the rest of it is true and are admitting that you are a liar!!
*probably a rhetorical question, because you're not capable of admitting that you're a hypocrite"

So I guess the answer is NO, you couldn't find the post where I stated I attended a "Gay Marriage" anywhere on this board? Still, I don't see your apology for lying, or you asking me to forgive you. I guess you lack the integrity to do such a thing?

Now you're saying that homosexuals say things that have different meanings and then try to imply that I'm doing so, because this proves to you that I'm a homosexual.
Could you show where I've said something that implied a different meaning?

No, that's not what I said, go read the text again, you are having comprehension problems... I said CLOSET homosexuals, like you! I think it may have something to do with the lie you're living, the constantly having to deny your own sexuality. It somehow makes you able to rationalize your lies about everything else.

Show you where you said something that implied a different meaning? Okay... How about this: 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. That was nothing remotely close to anything I ever said. You do this all the time, the next post, you claim I said I attended a "gay marriage" and I challenged you to prove that, and you couldn't. There's a couple of examples, is that sufficient?

Being a liar and being obtuse does not make you outspoken, it only makes you boorish and a liar.
As to you stating that you don't say one thing and mean another; could you explain what your OPINION is of the difference of "ATTENDING A MARRIAGE" and "ATTENDING A MARRIAGE CEREMONY" is??
*this should be interesting*

I never said I attended a "marriage ceremony" either. I said I attended a "Wedding" and if you would like to go to Dictionary.com, you can look up the difference in the two words. Marriage is the union of a man and woman, and these were two women, they couldn't "marry" each other because of that... but they had a beautiful "wedding" ceremony. Are we CLEAR on this now?

Your apparent knowledge of such, could be seen as a life moment of your own and how it affected you.
Then you attempt to project those behaviors and feelings on someone else, so that you can continue to hide your true feelings from yourself.
I does appear that you use this behavior of yours, to help you make it through the day.

LMAO.... as if the way something "appears" to you is of some kind of profound importance to anyone with a functional brain! Save your psychological analysis of me, I can do my own!

Now you attempt to divert attention from your hypocrisy and dishonesty, by attempting to accuse someone else of something; but yet, you still have failed to attempt to refute each of the points I made and instead are running from them so fast that it's becoming hard to see that yellow streak up your back.

Tell you what, puss; why don't you go back to my accusation and address each point!!

No... I tell you what....

 

[USFREEDOM911]

So I guess the answer is NO, you couldn't find the post where I stated I attended a "Gay Marriage" anywhere on this board? Still, I don't see your apology for lying, or you asking me to forgive you. I guess you lack the integrity to do such a thing?




No, that's not what I said, go read the text again, you are having comprehension problems... I said CLOSET homosexuals, like you! I think it may have something to do with the lie you're living, the constantly having to deny your own sexuality. It somehow makes you able to rationalize your lies about everything else.

Show you where you said something that implied a different meaning? Okay... How about this: 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. That was nothing remotely close to anything I ever said. You do this all the time, the next post, you claim I said I attended a "gay marriage" and I challenged you to prove that, and you couldn't. There's a couple of examples, is that sufficient?





I never said I attended a "marriage ceremony" either. I said I attended a "Wedding" and if you would like to go to Dictionary.com, you can look up the difference in the two words. Marriage is the union of a man and woman, and these were two women, they couldn't "marry" each other because of that... but they had a beautiful "wedding" ceremony. Are we CLEAR on this now?



LMAO.... as if the way something "appears" to you is of some kind of profound importance to anyone with a functional brain! Save your psychological analysis of me, I can do my own!



No... I tell you what....

You're right, I guess the answer is NO; because you're unable to address the post where I brought up the comment that got you all in a tiff.

Instead of trying to play your game of diversion, I would rather you address the comments I made in Post #653 and #737; unless of course it scares you and causes that yellow streak, up your back, to hinder your movement.

But by addressing them indivudually, maybe I could understand where your hypocrisy begins and ends.