VaporTrail Posted August 3, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 And you're an ignoramus. How the f'ck does defending gay lifestyles make me disgusting? You're the one that's being a sickeningly barbaric prick. "Wahhhh, it's different and queer, they're all fags and going to rot in hell anyways." What would Jesus do, you motherf'cker? Answer? Hate fags, apparently. Nothing like dehumanizing people based on where they stick their penis, especially when they're two consenting adults. Hope you've never committed sodomy. Your Bible says something about that, last I checked. You do know that a bj counts, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted August 3, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 1 - What the hell is a benny boy? 2 - Misery must love company. Must be lonely to have sucked at life as much as you did, and to only be good enough to kill people, you uneducated idiot, no wonder you can't find a job. Of course you don't want me to succeed because you're jealous I'm more intelligent than you. I hope I have to treat you someday. Keep hating, troll. Keep hating. You're a vile, homophobic, gay-bashing idiot who's already failed at life. Sorry, but I won't be joining you down there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted August 3, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 XD Yes, you are older and probably fatter than I am. You're definitely the biggest idiot on this forum, and that includes the Steelers trolls. So there you have it, superior in the big three. Also, you're superior at not being very good at finding a job. Haha. Of course I haven't actually accomplished anything. Do you have any idea what an undergraduate degree does? No. I'm still working on my bachelor's, buddy. Maybe in 2 years, you'll have a case about my accomplishments, but I doubt it. So, in addition to me wanting to be a doctor for most of my life, knowing that I've come pretty close to not cutting it my fresh and soph year, and having a chip on my shoulder because of that. Because if I fail, not only do I let myself down, completely, but I'd also be bankrupting my father and my grandmother because they co-signed my student loans. On top of all that, you've given me another reason to succeed. Just to spite your hateful, ignorant ass. You had better believe that when I get accepted into med school, I'll be making a topic here, just for you. Undaunted, I knew the game was mine to win. Just like in life, all my successes depend on me. I am the man that has the ball. I am the one that can throw it faster than xxxx. This is why I'm better than everyone else in the world. Kiss my ass and suck my dick. Everyone. You can suck it too, you f'cking closet case. Usually, the most vocally opposed are the ones that suppress it the worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 4, 2010 Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 Gosh, Vapor. I thought you liberals were SO wonderfully OPEN-MINDED ABOUT BEING DISAGREED WITH. yeah. Everybody else has to be "open minded", but liberals go ballistic when other folks won't believe how liberals want them to believe. *****NAILED****** And, I gave good reasons why I believe what I believe, and Vapor says he has friends, emotional ... linear response. Liberals really can't help themselves. It's sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted August 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 Cal, I'm not 'going ballistic' because he disagrees with me. I'm stooping to his level because of the manner he posted; he's calling me disgusting for supporting the gay lifestyle, and then went on to say that he hopes I fail at everything, and that I'll never amount to anything. That's what I'm responding to. I just really don't get gay bashing. Why is it that big of a deal if two consenting adults that happen to be the same sex are attracted to each other? Cal, I still don't have an issue with your argument. Well, I guess I do, but the way you're presenting it is fine. Everything in this thread was fine until diehard came in and trolled. Well, guess what, he wants to blatantly troll and call me a disgusting person for supporting gays, I'll make fun of him for being an unmarketable idiot, I don't have a problem stooping down to the lowest common denominator (which in this case, is diehard). I can't believe you're actually going to support him for coming into what was a pretty damn good debate (as far as this forum goes), and straight up bashing me. Then when I respond with a rational response, and he calls me "xxxxing disgusting." Then he tells me that he knows I'm going to fail at life, and that he's superior to me. And you don't criticize him at all? Sorry, I'm not going to sit there like a good little lib and take that. And you've got the nerve to say I'm the one out of line? Hell no, he can eat my dick. And if you think I'm any more out of line than he was, then you can step outside of your guys' circle jerk and eat my dick, too. And, I gave good reasons why I believe what I believe, You did. I'll give you that. I may disagree with them, but in no way was I trying to attack you in any of my responses to diehard. and Vapor says he has friends, emotional ... linear response. Yes, because there are no emotional issues that you refuse to budge on Don't know why you think this affects my ability to have friends, either, I'm in college, lots of people that agree with me are in college. Your point of view on gays would lose you a bunch of respect on most college campuses, even the conservative ones like Dayton. Gay-bashing is equivalent to being a racist, as far as I and many others are concerned. Liberals really can't help themselves. It's sad. And with that jab, neither can you. Would you care to continue the discussion, or should we continue to flame each other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smalls1129 Posted August 4, 2010 Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 Cal, what the hell, are you kidding me. Sir, don't pretend to be of rational conversation and then piggyback on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted August 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 /edit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 5, 2010 Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 piggyback? sorry, I'm only thinking with one arm since I got hurt... GGG I don't know what you mean. Diehard's rant? I don't get the hostility, but I don't respect the gay lifestyle. I just prefer to explain why on an even keel. I'm not bashing gays, I'm explaining why I don't believe it's normal, and why I believe it is wrong, and why gay marriage is an oxymoron at best, a biological, social and Biblical abomination and travesty at worst. I guess bashing Christians is fine. But gays? who gave them super duper special protection ? There is no such thing as gay marriage in the eyes of most normal Americans, and the Bible. And, the bigoted openly gay "judge" who just ruled against Prop. 8 in California? He should have recused himself immediately, and since he didn't, imho, he is dishonest and should be disbarred and impeached... I believe the Supreme Court will overrule that one, assuming the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals could care less to overturn it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted August 5, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 Diehard's rant? I don't get the hostility, but I don't respect the gay lifestyle. I just prefer to explain why on an even keel. I'm not bashing gays, I'm explaining why I don't believe it's normal, and why I believe it is wrong, and why gay marriage is an oxymoron at best, a biological, social and Biblical abomination and travesty at worst. What do you think people said about interracial marriages. This is exactly the same. And I like how you cherry pick it being a "Biblical abomination." That comes from Leviticus which is the absolute worst book in the Bible, if you ask me. The same one that says throw your enemies' babies against rocks. All sorts of shit that dehumanizes women. Shellfish? They're an abomination, too. Hope you don't like shrimp, crayfish, crabs, lobsters or mussels. You know what else is an abomination? Wearing clothing of more than one material. What makes this line about homosexuality any different than any of the above? I guess bashing Christians is fine. But gays? who gave them super duper special protection ? Yes, bashing Christians is fine. They think that their god is the absolute moral authority, and his word trumps the rights of everyone, including those that don't even believe in him. Who is the victim when two gays have consensual sex or getting married? Give me a legitimate answer, and I'll back off of Christianity. You can't rationalize your bigotry. You disagree with it because it doesn't lead to procreation, destroys the institution of marriage, and because Leviticus says it's an abomination. How many times have you had sex for pleasure and not to procreate? How is gay people marrying any worse for the institution of marriage than people that marry/divorce 8 people throughout their lives? If this is an abomination, why isn't eating shellfish or wearing mixed clothing an abomination? Give me a legitimate answer, and I'll back off the Church and its belief that it has the moral right to tell people who they should and shouldn't love and marry. There is no such thing as gay marriage in the eyes of most normal Americans, and the Bible. Your definition of normal is much different than mine. To me, normal means not being a closed-minded bigot. The Bible is a 2000 year old piece of trash, anyone that takes anything in that book literally needs to wake up and realize it was written during the bronze age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 5, 2010 Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 Oh, baloney. My reference to God creating Adam and Eve is from the book of GENESIS. You're being a bit frantic to justify your issue position, aren't you? I'm not cherry picking anything. Adam and EVE. Not Adam and Elton John. And no, gayness is not a racial matter. Race is a racial matter. Sexual activity is a sexual activity matter. Go look in the Bible - it says nothing about Adam and Eve's color of skin. You just did it again. You changed what I said so you could refute it, and you emotionally make a goofy invalid moral equivalent, in another burst of linear thinking. Why, your emotional rationalizations are just that - and they can be used to justify parents marrying their adult kids, polygamy, .... you okay with those too? And, I'm not in college. I'm much older than that now. But, if I were in college, I would have to at least pretend that gay activity is perfectly the norm, or I wouldn't be popular? Yeah, I knew guys who wanted to be popular in college. They did dope. I never did hang around them, I choose my friends very carefully. But if you let the elitist leftwing activist loudmouth kids in college tell you what to believe, and that's your "justification" for believing it.. well, look ahead in your life when you have more experience about life. So, if everybody you go to college with jumped off a 200 foot cliff onto rocks, you would do it too? GGG Your attempt to justify your position only cements my belief in liberals emoting in linear fashion, and conservatives thinking in comprehensive fashion. The Bible is trash? The Bible is not. That you think it is, and you don't apparently have any principles nor values, but just a college crowd elitist follower, is trash. My principles and values don't come from what a bunch of college people around me thought. and your quip about the shellfish? has nothing to do with what we are talking about, unless you think some shellfish are gay and abnormal in their sexual activity. You are getting goofy on the issue, but go ahead and just disagree with me. I am more right for it. shall I repost the Groucho Marx "Whatever it is, I'm against it" song again for you? Bible: againt it. check. God: against it. check. Man-Woman real marriage: against it. check. Christians: against them, check. Conservatives: against them. check. But do keep telling us how "open minded" you are. It's just so typical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted August 5, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 You wanna see how the inter racial thing plays out? http://www.gotquestions.org/interracial-marriage.html There you go. Not necessarily a racial thing, but it was used as an argument against it. You just did it again. You changed what I said so you could refute it, and you emotionally make a goofy invalid moral equivalent, in another burst of linear thinking. Nope, you're the only one that's thinking linearly. The moral equivalent is not invalid. Bashing gays is no different than bashing someone for race. You don't choose who you're attracted to. Why, your emotional rationalizations are just that - and they can be used to justify parents marrying their adult kids, polygamy, .... you okay with those too? Yes, stop using the term emotional as if it's a negative thing. My arguments are logical and coherent. Yours rely on the Bible, and you want to bring up emotions... Please. I've never said anything about incest. I think it's a bad idea because if you have recessive disorders, your kids can be screwed up. But aside from that, your Bible has tons of cases where parents and kids fornicate. Ever hear of Lot? Probably not, because you only read what you want to. Everything in the Bible you disagree with is just a metaphor, but everything that lines up with your point of view is God's word. That's not hypocritical. Not the slightest Polygamy, in my eyes, is fine so long as every person involved knows what's going on and is clearly okay with it. And, I'm not in college. I'm much older than that now. But, if I were in college, I would have to at least pretend that gay activity is perfectly the norm, or I wouldn't be popular? Yeah, I knew guys who wanted to be popular in college. They did dope. I never did hang around them, I choose my friends very carefully. But if you let the elitist leftwing activist loudmouth kids in college tell you what to believe, and that's your "justification" for believing it.. well, look ahead in your life when you have more experience about life. So, because lefties smoked dope, they're wrong, and you're better than them. I only listen to leftwing druggie activists? Okay, that's fine, if that's what you want to believe, but I choose to form my own opinions. You listen to a 2000 year old book that was written by lonely dudes hiding in caves that were high on opiates. Then, you conclude that everything I know is wrong because I don't have as much life experience as you. Makes perfect sense. So, if everybody you go to college with jumped off a 200 foot cliff onto rocks, you would do it too? GGG Your attempt to justify your position only cements my belief in liberals emoting in linear fashion, and conservatives thinking in comprehensive fashion. No, Cal, I wouldn't. You're being ridiculous and I apparently struck a chord. My justification of my position was very objective. I'd like to know if anyone else agrees with you in that it cements your belief that I can only think linearly and you are better and can think comprehensively. I mean, you keep telling yourself this, and apparently you believe it, but all that you're doing, from my point of view, is saying I can only think linearly because I disagree with you. Smalls, I hate to call you out for this, but I need some input from someone that has common sense. Would you agree with Cal's assessment that he is a comprehensive thinker, and I am a linear thinker. Or is he just saying that because I disagree with him. The Bible is trash? The Bible is not. That you think it is, and you don't apparently have any principles nor values, but just a college crowd elitist follower, is trash. My principles and values don't come from what a bunch of college people around me thought. According to Cal: Because I don't believe in the Bible, I have no principles or values. Protip: I don't need a book written in the bronze age to tell me how to live my life. I derive my values and principles from my life experiences. If you want to ignore all that and say that I'm only a college leftwing elitist follower, then that's fine, albeit hypocritical. If you can't see why it's hypocritical, then take a step back. and your quip about the shellfish? has nothing to do with what we are talking about, unless you think some shellfish are gay and abnormal in their sexual activity. Sorry Cal, it absolutely does. If you're going to use the Biblical interpretation of homosexuality being an abomination, then I'm going to call out the source of that. The source of homosexuality being an abomination is Leviticus. I'm just pointing out other passages in Leviticus that you choose to ignore. It's very relevant to this argument and where you derive your principles and beliefs. The Bible to you isn't the ultimate word of God. Not when it says something you disagree with. When that happens, then it's just a silly ancient law, however, as soon as you see something that aligns with your point of view, you advocate how God said it, and how he's right. It's extremely hypocritical. You are getting goofy on the issue, but go ahead and just disagree with me. I am more right for it. So let's recap. I bring up how you say homosexuality is wrong because it's in the Bible. Adam and Eve, not Adam and Elton John. Right. You say I have no morals because I don't believe in the Bible. I question how you derive your morals. Because you say homosexuality is an "abomination" (your word, not mine) I find the source. I bring up other ridiculous laws from the same book that this comes from, and you say I'm the one that's being goofy. Right on. Bible: againt it. check. 1 for 1. God: against it. check. 2 for 2. So far so good. Man-Woman real marriage: against it. check. False. I'm all for that. Being an advocate of gay marriage and being an advocate of straight marriage aren't mutually exclusive. Please, please, please argue this. I'd love to see you try. Christians: against them, check. Yep. If they stuck more to Jesus' actual teachings, I wouldn't have as big a problem. Unfortunately they focus on bullshit (like gay marriage when they have a pedophile problem) and miracles (also bullshit). Conservatives: against them. check. I disagree with most of their major beliefs. But do keep telling us how "open minded" you are. It's just so typical. Yes, keep pretending you're not closed-minded. Keep pretending that Jesus said no to gay marriage. You're like the kid that closes his eyes and ears and goes "na na na, I'm not listening," whenever a valid point is brought up against you. It's just so typical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 5, 2010 Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 You wanna see how the inter racial thing plays out? http://www.gotquestions.org/interracial-marriage.html There you go. Not necessarily a racial thing, but it was used as an argument against it. ************************************** We are talking about gay "marriage", and you said it was the same thing as inter racial, then you posted a link about inter racial marriage. You lost me. I call baloney. ************************************** Nope, you're the only one that's thinking linearly. The moral equivalent is not invalid. Bashing gays is no different than bashing someone for race. You don't choose who you're attracted to. *************************************** No, you don't refine what linear thinking it. You just did it yourself. Skin color has nothing to do with chosen activity of a sexual nature, the defination of marriage between a man and a woman. It has nothing to do with Adam and Eve. Get a grip on your psyche - it seems to be warping. @@ *************************************** Yes, stop using the term emotional as if it's a negative thing. My arguments are logical and coherent. Yours rely on the Bible, and you want to bring up emotions... Please. *************************************** Not solely on the Bible. Go back and read what I said, if you ever really do. You are in college, surely you don't have a problem with reading comprehension. I am not emotional about believing the Bible is inspired by God, and indeed, God's Word. My belief in the Bible is just a part of what I believe and why I believe it. **************************************** I've never said anything about incest. I think it's a bad idea because if you have recessive disorders, your kids can be screwed up. But aside from that, your Bible has tons of cases where parents and kids fornicate. Ever hear of Lot? Probably not, because you only read what you want to. Everything in the Bible you disagree with is just a metaphor, but everything that lines up with your point of view is God's word. That's not hypocritical. Not the slightest Polygamy, in my eyes, is fine so long as every person involved knows what's going on and is clearly okay with it. **************************************** So, because lefties smoked dope, they're wrong, and you're better than them. I only listen to leftwing druggie activists? Okay, that's fine, if that's what you want to believe, but I choose to form my own opinions. You listen to a 2000 year old book that was written by lonely dudes hiding in caves that were high on opiates. Then, you conclude that everything I know is wrong because I don't have as much life experience as you. Makes perfect sense. ****************************************** No, not better, just living and believing legally and morally and healthily? better. Choosing better, living better, experiencing better, and living genuinely by my own CHOSEN principles and standards, and NOT other's low ideals dictated to me. And I call baloney again - I never said anything about you "only listening to druggie activists". At all. Nice liberal twisting of words again.... do you learn that from your college friends? Or is that a college course (elective?) that you liberals take? Ask a lot of older folks if they believe what they believed on a lot of things when they were in college. There won't be too many, I think. I never said anything like "everything you know is wrong". Never did. at all. Neither one of us is old enough to have been there to know what the disciples took, etc. Give us all a break with the baloney. ****************************** So, if everybody you go to college with jumped off a 200 foot cliff onto rocks, you would do it too? GGG Your attempt to justify your position only cements my belief in liberals emoting in linear fashion, and conservatives thinking in comprehensive fashion. ****************************** No, Cal, I wouldn't. You're being ridiculous and I apparently struck a chord. My justification of my position was very objective. I'd like to know if anyone else agrees with you in that it cements your belief that I can only think linearly and you are better and can think comprehensively. I mean, you keep telling yourself this, and apparently you believe it, but all that you're doing, from my point of view, is saying I can only think linearly because I disagree with you. Smalls, I hate to call you out for this, but I need some input from someone that has common sense. Would you agree with Cal's assessment that he is a comprehensive thinker, and I am a linear thinker. Or is he just saying that because I disagree with him. ******************************* I know I'm being a bit ridiculous. But the easist way to explain why I think your rationalizations and reasons for believing what you believe is faulty, is by simply extended them a bit. You see, you can extend a genuine principle and value, and it always holds true. with rationalizations and emotionally charged and perhaps peer pressure induced stances on issues, it doesn't work. A principle extended is just as legit at any stage. And a value is always a value. You libs don't often do principles and values. You do emotionalist responses, generally based on a single emotional rationalization, which I refer to as "linear". Which means, you do not have multi-tiered backup for what you believe. My life's experiences relate, quite profoundly, to my belief in God, and therefore, the Bible. My life was saved once, when I was in the fifth grade, and it was truly a profound miracle. My decision, based on what complex truth I see in the Bible, the continued scientific evidence being unearthed in that part of the world, and in life. I reckon you don't get to take a class like that in college... ********************************************** According to Cal: Because I don't believe in the Bible, I have no principles or values. Protip: I don't need a book written in the bronze age to tell me how to live my life. I derive my values and principles from my life experiences. If you want to ignore all that and say that I'm only a college leftwing elitist follower, then that's fine, albeit hypocritical. If you can't see why it's hypocritical, then take a step back. ********************************************** No, no and no, I never said anything like that, at all. I'm saying that you libs TEND to see things emotionally, but without principles. Like, the Bible is trash but you are a huge advocate of being open minded. Like, you belive in individual rights, but not the rights of the unborn and recently born children. Bashing is wrong if it's about gays, but bashing God, and the Bible, etc, is fine with you. do you see the glaring contradictions in your stances? That says to me, that principle is not there. Principle is a rock upon which beliefs stem. Not a politically and socially expediate stance on an issue. YOU brought up the college peer justification thing. I'm just sayin...... You said yourself, that believing in gay marriage is a requirement for being accepted in college, even in more conservative colleges, did you not? So, there you go. I can only discern that you think on issues in terms of emotionalism, because you don't make logical, consistent sense to me. ****************************************Sorry Cal, it absolutely does. If you're going to use the Biblical interpretation of homosexuality being an abomination, then I'm going to call out the source of that. The source of homosexuality being an abomination is Leviticus. I'm just pointing out other passages in Leviticus that you choose to ignore. It's very relevant to this argument and where you derive your principles and beliefs. The Bible to you isn't the ultimate word of God. Not when it says something you disagree with. When that happens, then it's just a silly ancient law, however, as soon as you see something that aligns with your point of view, you advocate how God said it, and how he's right. It's extremely hypocritical. ***************************************** No, I did no such thing. I simply said that the Bible clearly says God made Adam, and made him a companion, a mate. HER name was EVE. So, I discern that in Gods' eyes, for a man to have a mate, she will be a woman. That's all I said. I never said once, that the Bible says so and so that gayness is wrong. ever, I never said it. Never. Stop with the made up baloney for your own retorts' cause. That is another psychological defense mechanism I see from liberals most of the time. The laws in the old testament are impossible to follow. That is the point. No human being could possibly be that perfect. THAT IS THE POINT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, and JESUS' HAVING DIED ON THE CROSS FOR OUR SINS. The history in the Bible is not superceded, but the NEW TESTAMENT supercedes the absolutely impossible and zillions of "laws" for salvation. I didn't quote any scripture. I deduced a conclusion on the basis of GOD having created ADAM and his FEMALE MATE, EVE. I never once have referred to what God said on a particular subject, mostly because the Bible has errors in it, from the conservation of the original Hebrew and Greek to English. for example, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" doesn't mean that, it MEANS "Thou Shalt Not MURDER". Two different things. Really. Get a grip, it's slipping away. ****************************************** So let's recap. I bring up how you say homosexuality is wrong because it's in the Bible. ************************************** Totally wrong and invalid. Next. ************************************** Adam and Eve, not Adam and Elton John. Right. You say I have no morals because I don't believe in the Bible. ************************************** MOO. More bs. I never once said anything of the sort. Never said you have no morals. But in our conversations, and liberals in general I keep SAYING - the TENDENCY is to decide stances on issues based on emotionalist responses, NOT based on principle or values. Clearly you have morals, that isn't the point of our discussions. IOW's, you are playing the liberal VICTIM game again. NAILED. **************************************** I question how you derive your morals. Because you say homosexuality is an "abomination" (your word, not mine) I find the source. I bring up other ridiculous laws from the same book that this comes from, and you say I'm the one that's being goofy. Right on. **************************************** I say again, I never quoted from the Bible. But clearly, it is pretty well known that the Bible says God created ADAM and a FEMALE, EVE, for his MATE. So, in THAT, I simply deduce that God meant for a WOMAN to be a MAN's MATE. Now, how freakin hard is that for you to follow? **************************************** Bible: againt it. check. 1 for 1. ************************ Oh yeah, I'm good. *********************** God: against it. check. 2 for 2. So far so good. ************************ HOT, HOT, HOT ! *********************** Man-Woman real marriage: against it. check. False. I'm all for that. Being an advocate of gay marriage and being an advocate of straight marriage aren't mutually exclusive. Please, please, please argue this. I'd love to see you try. *********************** Sorry, I simply meant that you are against the defination of marriage as being only between a man and a woman. So, yes, they are mutually exclusive. Of course I didn't mean you don't believe men should ever marry women. Nice liberal tweak for your own cya. so, I'm still perfect on my appraisals. ************************ Christians: against them, check. Yep. ************************** HOT DANG, I'm 4 for 4 ! **************************** Conservatives: against them. check. I disagree with most of their major beliefs. *************************** so, I tentatively give myself another point. That makes me 5 fo 5. That's pretty accurate deductive reasoning (read: "comprehensive") to me. but then, I used to read Sherlock Holmes in the third grade. It really intrigued our teacher to the max. ************************************** But do keep telling us how "open minded" you are. It's just so typical. Yes, keep pretending you're not closed-minded. Keep pretending that Jesus said no to gay marriage. You're like the kid that closes his eyes and ears and goes "na na na, I'm not listening," whenever a valid point is brought up against you. It's just so typical. ************************************ In conclusion, "no I'm not but you are, nyah nyah nyah". Admit it. I'm five for five. And you got nothin but bull-only sandwiches. MOO! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted August 5, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2010 Cal, you can't be taken seriously because you say the Bible is God's true word when there is ridiculous shit all over it. You say that you come up with these conclusions on your own, but they're based on god's word. This is why religion should be left out of morality. There's no need for it. You think that advocating straight marriage and advocating gay marriage are mutually exclusive. Bashing gays for gay marriage is the same as bashing interracial couples for interracial marriage. You can't understand why because you're bigoted against gays. Let me spell it out for you. Gays don't choose who they are attracted to nor who they love. People in interracial relationships don't choose who they are attracted to nor who they love. You seem to have a really hard time comprehending sound logic for being such a comprehensive thinker. Your religious views contradict themselves (this is hard to accept for a believer), but you cite Adam and Eve, and then talk about how the NT supersedes the OT. Gays aren't discriminating against anyone by marrying. Those that are against it because the Bible says so, are. No, not better, just living and believing legally and morally and healthily? better. Choosing better, living better, experiencing better, and living genuinely by my own CHOSEN principles and standards, and NOT other's low ideals dictated to me. Get off your high horse. There's nothing morally healthy about being a gay basher. You're in the same place, intellectually and morally, as a racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 Cal, you can't be taken seriously because you say the Bible is God's true word when there is ridiculous shit all over it. You say that you come up with these conclusions on your own, but they're based on god's word. This is why religion should be left out of morality. There's no need for it. ********************************** Either address what I said about the English interpretation of the original Hebrew and Greek, or just go ahead and get all pouty pouty on your liberal pedastal. ************************************ You think that advocating straight marriage and advocating gay marriage are mutually exclusive. ************************************ Yes, I do. Liberals simply redefine terms to suit their anything against the status quo agenda. ************************************ Bashing gays for gay marriage is the same as bashing interracial couples for interracial marriage. You can't understand why because you're bigoted against gays. Let me spell it out for you. Gays don't choose who they are attracted to nor who they love. People in interracial relationships don't choose who they are attracted to nor who they love. You seem to have a really hard time comprehending sound logic for being such a comprehensive thinker. ************************************* There isn't any bashing. Normal sexual relationships are male female. I never said that the Adam and Eve creation was the only basis upon which I believe ONLY in man-woman marriage. The color of a person's skin is just a color. There is no redefinition of marriage, only discrimination based on the appearance of a person. Which, is so repulsive I find it hard to believe it was ever accepted here in America. There is no deviancy involved in having skin of another color. But there is deviancy involved in unnatural attractions to the same sex. You really are being blind about your statements. Go BACK and READ and please, admit, that I gave several reasons to explain why I am against gay "marriage". Marriage was established to provide legal accountability to mates, AND for the CARE OF THE RESULTING CHILDREN. Now, gays - there ARE NO RESULTING CHILDREN. We're talking unnatural deviant rationalizations here. What next? Men and women can't go into the same restrooms as married couples. Why can "married gays" ??? Why not just have all restrooms be required to be for both sexes? I don't buy the "we were made this way" baloney. I believe it is an unnatural perversion that is psychological in nature, more like a mental illness or something. But I'm sure that you will post some study by some gay scientist.... My principle is, that society has a right to establish basic protections for it's own survival. Do you agree with social nudity? Isn't that a violation of our civil rights. Gee, after all, we were all born naked, yah? I await your answer......... said the spider to the fly.... ************************************************ Your religious views contradict themselves (this is hard to accept for a believer), but you cite Adam and Eve, and then talk about how the NT supersedes the OT. *********************************************** Well, you don't know what you are talking about. I referred to the rules of salvation in the Old Testament being absolutely impossible to attain. I said that is the point. Go read all the rules to be pure and perfect enough to be saved. It is absolutely ridiculously impossible. And the stoning punishments, etc? All that is superceded by Jesus's crucifixtion on the cross. I never said that the Bilblical HISTORY in the Old Testament was null and void. That is one of the dummest retorts you have ever come up with. The history in the Bible, again, and again, and again, has been legitimized by scientific research on finds by archeologists. Read up on it, before you get all liberal Napoleonic jaw flappy. Do ALL liberals have this geneticly determined inability to comprehend the entirety of what people post online? Or is it just a learned, corrupt, LINEAR perception anomaly ? ************************************************* Gays aren't discriminating against anyone by marrying. Those that are against it because the Bible says so, are. ************************************************ Gays, by openly trying to force the redefination of marriage, undermines the fabric of families all over this country. It undermines society's LEGIT understanding of normal sexual relationships, and ABNORNAL sexual relationships. They undermine the rights of Christian parents to protect their children from perverse behavior and those who engage in it. And, gays undermine the rights of parents to raise their children by the Scripture. IOW's, I really believe the gay marriage thing is just a way to delegitimize God and Christianity in our society. "Gays can't help it, they were born that way, so they have rights." Born that way? We were all BORN naked. Is wearing clothes a violation of our rights? Should public nudity be accepted? we were born that way, you know. Which means, your "born that way, they can't help it" is bogus. Because we were all "born naked and couldn't help it". So, public nudity should be perfectly normal and accepted? yes? Yes, I am steering you to some understand why you are totally wrong with that question, too. ******************************************* Get off your high horse. There's nothing morally healthy about being a gay basher. You're in the same place, intellectually and morally, as a racist. ******************************* You don't know squat about that. It's also bogus. Why do you libs start chattering the exact same word games as your corrupt liberal heroes do? Obama or Dems say everybody who doesn't agree with us is racist. So, you liberal wonks start chattering like a bunch of psychotic chickens on lsd "RACIST. YOU DON'T AGREE WITH US ON ANY ISSUE< YOU ARE RACIST" You look like a fool trying to equate everything with racism. perhaps you would like to rethink your typical Napoleonic arrogance. I have often stated in these discussions in the past, that gays have rights, too. They have a right to not be fired, to not be refused the access to employment, etc. but they do not have a right to undermine 90 some percent of America's defination of marriage, in the least, based on the biological historical and natural order of sexuality. did you ever get really brave enough to comment on my question about parents marrying their adult children? Grandparents marrying their grandchildren? Having several wives/husbands? You got nothin, Napoleon. You have the emporor's new clothes all the while you arrogant deride everyone else for not having them. You know the story. Maybe you even get the point. ******************************* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted August 6, 2010 Report Share Posted August 6, 2010 VT Sounds like a Mosquito Zits temper tantrum! They use the same tactics of calling names and spewing hate speach towards those that disagree with them. I thought all of those fags left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 7, 2010 Report Share Posted August 7, 2010 What next? Men and women can't go into the same restrooms as married couples. Why can "married gays" ??? Why not just have all restrooms be required to be for both sexes? I don't buy the "we were made this way" baloney. I believe it is an unnatural perversion that is psychological in nature, more like a mental illness or something. But I'm sure that you will post some study by some gay scientist.... My principle is, that society has a right to establish basic protections for it's own survival. Do you agree with social nudity? Isn't that a violation of our civil rights. Gee, after all, we were all born naked, yah? I await your answer......... said the spider to the fly.... ****************************************** Vapor translation: "...... ........ ......... ......................................." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 Well, Vapor either went on vacation, or he did the usual liberal thing: He twisted my words, to try to put me on the defensive, and when I backed him into a corner, he went all pouty-pouty and disappeared, but not before trying to antagonize someone into a badgered response that could get them kicked off the forum. didn't work. It's amazing how he proved my points. Dang, I should write a third book, on that subject, if I ever finish my adventure novel. (the second book will be about starting out farming....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted August 13, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 13, 2010 Pink, eh? I could get used to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 14, 2010 Report Share Posted August 14, 2010 ROF,L ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted August 16, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 16, 2010 Here we go. We are talking about gay "marriage", and you said it was the same thing as inter racial, then you posted a link about inter racial marriage. You lost me. I call baloney. I send you a link that describes how a verse in the Bible says that Jews should not have married outside of their race. The author of the website claims that this is incorrect, and that it really is describing that people of faith should only marry others of the same faith. Translation issue? Maybe. The point is, regardless of what was meant by the original author of that verse, it was still used by racists to show that blacks and whites shouldn't intermingle. I'm arguing that you're doing the same with the story of Adam and Eve. No, you don't refine what linear thinking it. You just did it yourself. Skin color has nothing to do with chosen activity of a sexual nature, the defination of marriage between a man and a woman. It has nothing to do with Adam and Eve. Get a grip on your psyche - it seems to be warping. Interracial couples have just as much say in how attracted they are to each other as a gay couple. None. You can't help who you're attracted to. When you're attracted to someone and it's reciprocated, sex usually doesn't take too long to happen. Your definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. Your religion's definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. The state's definition of marriage is only between a man and a woman. I think that gay couples that want to marry are owed the same strictly legal rights as a those given to a heterosexual married couple. The state's definition of marriage makes for unequal rights, which I believe to be unconstitutional. The deciding judge put it far more eloquently than I can. Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples. Okay, back to Cal I am not emotional about believing the Bible is inspired by God, and indeed, God's Word. Yes, you are. If you weren't, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. My critiques of the Bible and your corresponding views elicit an emotion out of you, you are clearly not at terms with my beliefs, just as I am not with yours. You're defending your beliefs, just as I am defending mine. Your emotions are entwined with the words of the Bible. You are using examples straight out of it. Also, I'd like to make a note of what you said in your second sentence, here. No, not better, just living and believing legally and morally and healthily? better. Choosing better, living better, experiencing better, and living genuinely by my own CHOSEN principles and standards, and NOT other's low ideals dictated to me. And I call baloney again - I never said anything about you "only listening to druggie activists". At all. Nice liberal twisting of words again.... do you learn that from your college friends? Or is that a college course (elective?) that you liberals take? Ask a lot of older folks if they believe what they believed on a lot of things when they were in college. There won't be too many, I think. I never said anything like "everything you know is wrong". Never did. at all. Neither one of us is old enough to have been there to know what the disciples took, etc. Give us all a break with the baloney. Okay, so you believe your morals to be on a "better" level than mine. This is completely subjective and irrelevant. In this following quote, you're basically comparing me to drug dealers. No need to even bring this up. I know you're going to want to argue this so here's my reasoning. I used the term "popular," I imagine that you placed me in this "popular" group because I'm talking as if I'm in it (or not ). Then you compare what I call popular to drug dealers. That's where that came from. Sorry for the misunderstanding. And, I'm not in college. I'm much older than that now. But, if I were in college, I would have to at least pretend that gay activity is perfectly the norm, or I wouldn't be popular? Yeah, I knew guys who wanted to be popular in college. They did dope. I never did hang around them, What I meant by "popular" wasn't "hip" or "cool" or being a social butterfly. It means that people will look at you and treat you as if you're a racist. I know I'm being a bit ridiculous. But the easist way to explain why I think your rationalizations and reasons for believing what you believe is faulty, is by simply extended them a bit. You see, you can extend a genuine principle and value, and it always holds true. with rationalizations and emotionally charged and perhaps peer pressure induced stances on issues, it doesn't work. And now you're saying my principles and values are not genuine, and don't always hold true. Then, you claim that my emotionally charged rationalizations are a result of peer pressure. No Cal, they're not. If you're trying to attack the source of my beliefs, then you attack me. Don't make some vague attack toward some stereotype. Look at what your quote above about the Bible, look at your examples from the Bible. I attacked the Bible because you are using it to argue your point and it is a source of your beliefs; I think it was a fair attack. This, however, pisses me off, and is part of why I gave you a half-assed response before I bugged out because of my classes. Don't deride my beliefs by saying that they're a result of peer pressure. A principle extended is just as legit at any stage. And a value is always a value. And principles and values are completely subjective; I still stand by my statement that there are no absolutes. You libs don't often do principles and values. You do emotionalist responses, generally based on a single emotional rationalization, which I refer to as "linear". Which means, you do not have multi-tiered backup for what you believe. My life's experiences relate, quite profoundly, to my belief in God, and therefore, the Bible. My life was saved once, when I was in the fifth grade, and it was truly a profound miracle. My decision, based on what complex truth I see in the Bible, the continued scientific evidence being unearthed in that part of the world, and in life. I reckon you don't get to take a class like that in college... Okay, let's go line-by-line on this one. We don't do principles and values? Wrong. Yes, we do. We just hold different ones to be more important. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, yet you still keep talking as if your beliefs are above mine. You can refer to it as "linear" as much as you like, but your term doesn't have any substance to it. You can say it isn't "multi-tiered," but what it means is exactly what the guy in the video said, you hold close values that I don't find important. Those other traits that you hold highly are still completely considered and analyzed, but my conclusion about their importance is different than yours. Your life experiences that led to your belief in God mean absolutely nothing to me, and they mean nothing in a debate. Unless you want to clarify and show your proof of a miracle happening and the "complex truth" you see in the Bible, it really is irrelevant in a debate. Also, I have no idea what you mean about the continued scientific evidence being unearthed and where. What I understand, after I read all this, is that something happened to you that you and maybe no one else currently understands, and you attribute it to a miracle. I don't believe in miracles. All I get from it is that you dropped reason and rationality to come to a supernatural conclusion. Then, somehow, I'm the one who's being emotional. No, no and no, I never said anything like that, at all. I'm saying that you libs TEND to see things emotionally, but without principles. Different principles =/= lack thereof Like, the Bible is trash but you are a huge advocate of being open minded. The Bible is a mess of contradictions. I've read most of it, I went to Catholic school for 12 years (and still do). Calling the Bible a piece of trash does not make me closed-minded. It's my honest assessment of the book. I really can't take most of it seriously. There are stories that exemplify good virtues in it, but far and away, most of it is ridiculous crap that's seriously past its time. Like, you belive in individual rights, but not the rights of the unborn and recently born children. I don't believe that an unborn child is a person. It has the potential to become a person, but isn't one yet. It's still part of the mother's body, and if she doesn't want it, or can't take care of it, then I think she should have the right to abort. Bashing is wrong if it's about gays, but bashing God, and the Bible, etc, is fine with you. Yes. It is. There is nothing rational about denying equal rights to a couple based on their sex. Bashing God and the Bible is fine with me because I believe both of them to be completely human constructs, and I believe the Bible to be a complete mess. To say that they are divine requires a jump that defies all rational logic. To me, faith is best described as a blind belief in something that is not understood. I'm not saying this because it's the hip thing to do in college, I'm saying this because I've been reading it for years (more as a believer than as a non-believer), and after all that, my analysis of it is that most of it never really happened, and some of the values that it presents are mind-boggling. do you see the glaring contradictions in your stances? That says to me, that principle is not there. There is no glaring contradiction in my stance. You just don't like that I criticize the Bible. You're saying that because I criticize the Bible, I lack principle. Seems like a flawed logic to me. Principle is a rock upon which beliefs stem. Not a politically and socially expediate stance on an issue. YOU brought up the college peer justification thing. I'm just sayin...... And to say that I lack principles is arrogant. My views and principles are just different than yours. You said yourself, that believing in gay marriage is a requirement for being accepted in college, even in more conservative colleges, did you not? So, there you go. I can only discern that you think on issues in terms of emotionalism, because you don't make logical, consistent sense to me. No, I didn't, I said that bashing gays will lead to scorn. You can disagree with gay marriage on a religious basis and I wouldn't have a problem. To bring up Adam and Eve, and to say that because God made Adam and Eve, and not "Adam and Elton John" makes you a pompous, disparaging ass. We're not a theocracy. No, I did no such thing. I simply said that the Bible clearly says God made Adam, and made him a companion, a mate. HER name was EVE. So, I discern that in Gods' eyes, for a man to have a mate, she will be a woman. That's all I said. Okay, so what? Don't let gays get married in churches. A fairy tale about how Earth was "created" should have no bearing on the legal system. Once again, not a theocracy. I never said once, that the Bible says so and so that gayness is wrong. ever, I never said it. Never. Yet you've described homosexuality or homosexual acts as an abomination. The sentences that you wrote directly before this one contradict this statement. You have time and time again used the Bible as a basis of why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry or have any sexual pleasure from someone of the same sex. How can you honestly say that you don't agree with the Bible's point of view on homosexuality or that the Bible never says that it's wrong? Stop with the made up baloney for your own retorts' cause. That is another psychological defense mechanism I see from liberals most of the time. It's not "made up baloney," (haha, this will be the only time I ever say that about the Bible) the shit that I listed is literally in the same book of the Bible as the one that describes a man laying with a man as an abomination. You can't just throw this point away by saying it's baloney; you just have no good response as to why you pick this verse and not those others. I criticize the Bible because most religious people, including yourself, pick and choose whatever they want to believe in it. When it lines up with their beliefs, they use it as an example, when it doesn't, they claim it doesn't matter. You've done exactly that. The laws in the old testament are impossible to follow. That is the point. No human being could possibly be that perfect. THAT IS THE POINT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, and JESUS' HAVING DIED ON THE CROSS FOR OUR SINS. The history in the Bible is not superceded, but the NEW TESTAMENT supercedes the absolutely impossible and zillions of "laws" for salvation. Okay, here's a quote from the Bible. From the sweet, succulent lips of Jesus himself 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:17-20 I didn't quote any scripture. I deduced a conclusion on the basis of GOD having created ADAM and his FEMALE MATE, EVE. Do you realize how flawed this statement is? You claim to not quote any scripture, okay, fine. Yet you're still using scripture as your example! I honestly don't get how you don't understand that you're contradicting yourself. Right before this, you claim that the NT supersedes the OT, yet you use an example from the OT. How am I supposed to seriously respond to this? I never once have referred to what God said on a particular subject, You JUST did. You are the one that claims that the Bible is the inspired word of God. Yes, again, you're not using direct quotes from the man himself, but you're still referring to what God did (create a man and woman). mostly because the Bible has errors in it, from the conservation of the original Hebrew and Greek to English. for example, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" doesn't mean that, it MEANS "Thou Shalt Not MURDER". Two different things. Okay, note this quote for later. You won't take anything literally said in the Bible as truth because it may have translation errors, right? You only take the basic concepts from the Bible? MOO. More bs. I never once said anything of the sort. Never said you have no morals. But in our conversations, and liberals in general I keep SAYING - the TENDENCY is to decide stances on issues based on emotionalist responses, NOT based on principle or values. Clearly you have morals, that isn't the point of our discussions. IOW's, you are playing the liberal VICTIM game again. NAILED. What is the god damned difference? Morals, values, principles? They all basically mean the same thing. You say that I have morals, but then you also say that my responses are not based on principles or values. That's an attack on my character, of course I'm going to take issue with it. Let's look at what dictionary.com says, "principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct. " The word "principles" is right in the definition. Switch over to the page on thesaurus, and the word "axiom" is defined as "principle," a synonym listed for it is the word "moral." See? I'm not playing the victim card when you actually are attacking my character. NAILED. I say again, I never quoted from the Bible. But clearly, it is pretty well known that the Bible says God created ADAM and a FEMALE, EVE, for his MATE. So, in THAT, I simply deduce that God meant for a WOMAN to be a MAN's MATE. Now, how freakin hard is that for you to follow? No direct quotes, right. But you still get these values from the Bible. It's pretty difficult to follow when you contradict yourself as I pointed out above. Bible: againt it. check. 1 for 1. ************************ Oh yeah, I'm good. *********************** God: against it. check. 2 for 2. So far so good. ************************ HOT, HOT, HOT ! *********************** Man-Woman real marriage: against it. check. *********************** Sorry, I simply meant that you are against the defination of marriage as being only between a man and a woman. So, yes, they are mutually exclusive. Of course I didn't mean you don't believe men should ever marry women. Nice liberal tweak for your own cya. so, I'm still perfect on my appraisals. ************************ Christians: against them, check. ************************** HOT DANG, I'm 4 for 4 ! **************************** Conservatives: against them. check. so, I tentatively give myself another point. That makes me 5 fo 5. That's pretty accurate deductive reasoning (read: "comprehensive") to me. but then, I used to read Sherlock Holmes in the third grade. It really intrigued our teacher to the max. God, where do I begin with this one. So, because I disagree with you about God, the Bible, your views on gay marriage, don't care much for Christians, and don't care much for conservatives, I am labeled a linear thinker. Then, you laud yourself as being a comprehensive thinker for coming up with those five points. How does this say anything about my inability to think comprehensively? In conclusion, "no I'm not but you are, nyah nyah nyah". Admit it. I'm five for five. And you got nothin but bull-only sandwiches. Okay, you're five for five in pointing out where I stand on issues. Congratulations, want a medal? I'm not too sure what I'm supposed to admit since it was a rant about my beliefs that has no logical conclusion, except that you disagree with me. And somehow you're declaring victory. Makes sense. Now on to your next post. Either address what I said about the English interpretation of the original Hebrew and Greek, or just go ahead and get all pouty pouty on your liberal pedastal. I don't know how you expect this to reinforce your argument. If anything, it reinforces my beliefs about why I think the Bible is a mess. We'll never know how many translation errors there were nor how many stories were changed purposely. The interpretations being what they are doesn't affect my argument at all, you're the one that is using the Bible to back up your beliefs. I'm simply using other verses in the Bible to point out things that don't align with your beliefs. Yet, you are willing to discount anything I bring up on the account of translation errors. Summary: You bring up Bible story, saying that it should be man and woman, not man and man. You use the term abomination. I bring up other parts of the book that describes it as an abomination. You claim that translation errors nullify my argument. You still stick to Adam and Eve. What the f'ck? There isn't any bashing. Normal sexual relationships are male female. I never said that the Adam and Eve creation was the only basis upon which I believe ONLY in man-woman marriage. The color of a person's skin is just a color. There is no redefinition of marriage, only discrimination based on the appearance of a person. Which, is so repulsive I find it hard to believe it was ever accepted here in America. There is no deviancy involved in having skin of another color. But there is deviancy involved in unnatural attractions to the same sex. Yes, there is bashing. You're claiming that one type of marriage is morally better. That is advocating inequality. You used the sentence "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Elton John." That is DEFINITELY bashing. Don't act like that isn't offensive and you haven't disparaged gays. You really are being blind about your statements. Go BACK and READ and please, admit, that I gave several reasons to explain why I am against gay "marriage". Marriage was established to provide legal accountability to mates, AND for the CARE OF THE RESULTING CHILDREN. Now, gays - there ARE NO RESULTING CHILDREN. We're talking unnatural deviant rationalizations here. There are resulting children. Ever hear of in-vitro fertilization? Surrogate parents? Sure, none of these happen naturally, but you are aware that straight couples sometimes use these techniques too? Should guys that are sterile not be allowed to marry their wife and raise a kid that comes from someone else? There is no way to justify denying gays the right to raise a kid when straight couples can do the same. Letting gays marry isn't an attack on anyone else's rights, I don't get why anyone should even care. It's just giving the same legal benefits to gay couples. Not letting gays marry is an attack on their rights. What next? Men and women can't go into the same restrooms as married couples. Why can "married gays" ??? Why not just have all restrooms be required to be for both sexes? Um. I'm just going to move on. I don't buy the "we were made this way" baloney. I believe it is an unnatural perversion that is psychological in nature, more like a mental illness or something. First, you say you don't buy "we were made this way." Then, you liken it to a mental illness. Protip: People with mental illnesses don't choose to be that way. Second, if you really think it's a choice, then honestly tell me that you have chosen everyone that you were attracted to. Even the ones that didn't like you back? You're telling me you've never liked someone that didn't return the feelings. Gays have those same feelings, they just get attached to people of the same sex. But I'm sure that you will post some study by some gay scientist.... Wow. This is infuriating. You're just like the Insane Clown Posse in their song miracles. It's about how they don't understand many of the cool things that happen in life and includes lines like "F'ckin magnets, how do they work?" and "F'ckin rainbows." So they're sitting there in awe about everything around them, then they blurt out this gem "And I don't wanna talk to a scientist Y'all motherxxxxers lying, and getting me pissed." This attitude is what bugs me most. We try to figure out why things work the way they do instead of attributing miracles to some higher power, and then you completely discount what we have to say just because you disagree with what we're trying to find. Even though the scientific method is the pinnacle of human achievement, the best and most reliable way to figure out things we don't know, you are willing to completely discount it. I just don't get it. My principle is, that society has a right to establish basic protections for it's own survival. Ohhh... Now I get it, we shouldn't let gays marry because humanity won't survive. Really? I mean, really? It's 10% of the population. In case you haven't noticed, we still have 5.4 billion straight people in the world. How on earth will this lead to our demise? Well, you don't know what you are talking about. I referred to the rules of salvation in the Old Testament being absolutely impossible to attain. I said that is the point. Go read all the rules to be pure and perfect enough to be saved. It is absolutely ridiculously impossible. And the stoning punishments, etc? All that is superceded by Jesus's crucifixtion on the cross. All of it is superseded by Jesus' crucifixion because that's what you want to believe. Much of the OT doesn't agree with you; therefore it is null and void. Guess what, there's a bunch in the NT that I'm sure you don't agree with, what makes these arguments null and void? Should women be silent? That's a gem from Paul. You do realize that most of the shit that this guy said is basically how he feels. In many cases he contradicts the Gospels. But hey, because it's in the NT, misogyny is a-OK. Obviously, you don't agree with that, right? I never said that the Bilblical HISTORY in the Old Testament was null and void. That is one of the dummest retorts you have ever come up with. The history in the Bible, again, and again, and again, has been legitimized by scientific research on finds by archeologists. Read up on it, before you get all liberal Napoleonic jaw flappy. Do ALL liberals have this geneticly determined inability to comprehend the entirety of what people post online? Or is it just a learned, corrupt, LINEAR perception anomaly ? I have a problem with this. How can you take the stories from them, but not any direct quotes because of translation errors and intentional changes? Entire stories are subject to those problems as well. Yes, some of the "history" in the Bible has been backed up by archaeological evidence. However, "Noah's Ark," you know the one that they find every 5 years or so? That's complete bullshit. There is not a shred of evidence of a single miracle that happened in the Bible. And no. Stop talking like your brand of thinking is above mine. After your comment about a gay scientist's study, you really have no place to be mocking how I think. Gays, by openly trying to force the redefination of marriage, undermines the fabric of families all over this country. It undermines society's LEGIT understanding of normal sexual relationships, and ABNORNAL sexual relationships. They undermine the rights of Christian parents to protect their children from perverse behavior and those who engage in it. And, gays undermine the rights of parents to raise their children by the Scripture. IOW's, I really believe the gay marriage thing is just a way to delegitimize God and Christianity in our society. It's not perverse. It's just as perverse as a blowjob or eating a pussy. Can you admit that you've never done either? You are aware that those count as sodomy. There's a reason that sodomy became legal in the last 20 years. We're not a theocracy. I really hope you raise your kids well enough that they never give or receive a blowjob. I wouldn't want them to rot in hell. God and Christianity have a place in society, however, they have no place in our legal system. "Gays can't help it, they were born that way, so they have rights." Born that way? We were all BORN naked. Is wearing clothes a violation of our rights? Should public nudity be accepted? we were born that way, you know. Great example I honestly wouldn't have a problem with it. People started wearing more because they migrated from tropical areas into higher latitudes. They wore clothes out of necessity, to protect themselves from the cold. Given 5000 years of this, it became the norm. If people stopped wearing clothes tomorrow, it wouldn't change a thing (except maybe ppl will freeze to death and some of the conservative christians might have heart attacks). There are still tribes in the Amazon and Africa that are basically naked all the time. It really wouldn't be a big problem to implement as soon as people got used to it. Which means, your "born that way, they can't help it" is bogus. Because we were all "born naked and couldn't help it". So, public nudity should be perfectly normal and accepted? yes? No. Just no. Yes, I am steering you to some understand why you are totally wrong with that question, too. I'm the one who's wrong? You don't know squat about that. It's also bogus. Why do you libs start chattering the exact same word games as your corrupt liberal heroes do? Obama or Dems say everybody who doesn't agree with us is racist. So, you liberal wonks start chattering like a bunch of psychotic chickens on lsd "RACIST. YOU DON'T AGREE WITH US ON ANY ISSUE< YOU ARE RACIST" You look like a fool trying to equate everything with racism. perhaps you would like to rethink your typical Napoleonic arrogance. Racists disparage people of other races. Racists think that they are doing no wrong. Racists are ignorant of the harm they cause. Gay-bashers disparage gays. Gay-bashers think that they are doing no wrong. Gay-bashers are ignorant of the harm they cause. Because of your "gay scientist" and "Elton John" comments I would consider you a gay-basher. but they do not have a right to undermine 90 some percent of America's defination of marriage, in the least, based on the biological historical and natural order of sexuality. It's not undermining anything. Last I checked marriage was supposed to be for people that truly love each other until the day they die. 50% of all marriages end in divorce. Married people cheat. Married people beat their spouses. Married people abuse their kids. Marriage is not as sacrosanct as you claim it is. It's not ruining anything for anyone else. The only ones that are ruining something for others are people such as you. did you ever get really brave enough to comment on my question about parents marrying their adult children? Grandparents marrying their grandchildren? Having several wives/husbands? I don't remember it being asked, but I thought I said something about polygamy before. I'm okay with any two people having consensual sex. I will, however, not be okay with direct relatives trying to conceive a child. It's not very fair to the kid, and it's rather reckless to do so when there is a risk of recessive diseases. Polygamy is just fine in my book so long as all parties involved are completely aware and okay with every other party. Who the hell does it hurt? As for legal benefits to those that would choose this? Hell if I know. But if 4 people are completely in love with each other, let em all marry. He twisted my words, to try to put me on the defensive, and when I backed him into a corner, he went all pouty-pouty and disappeared, but not before trying to antagonize someone into a badgered response that could get them kicked off the forum. didn't work. I didn't twist anything. There may have been some misunderstandings, but I stand by what I've said. And I DID NOT try to antagonize someone into a badgered response. It was a personal attack on me that made that whole thing come out. I've left my posts untouched, and I don't care to edit them. He deleted his, so make of it what you will, but I was defending myself. If you're gonna come out and troll me, I will troll right back. I'm a huge computer nerd, and I'm probably a better troll than all of you If you make a personal attack on me, then you are fair game. Well. That took awhile. Back to studying and loan applications It's been real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted August 17, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 17, 2010 Bump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 18, 2010 Report Share Posted August 18, 2010 What a silly bunch of whiney self-serving misinterpretations of what I was trying to get you to understand. I am not emotional about this at all. But, in YOUR "mo"... you disagree with me, therefore you are bashing me, and I am white, therefore you hate white people.... is that kind of dumb twisting familiar to you? It's what you keep doing towards me in our "discussions". Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Elton John. That's a silly joke with a point. There isn't any bashing crap, any disparaging of Elton John. It simply is what it is. Historically, biologically, Biblically, evolution..ary...ly... LOL... etc, I find the gay lifestyle to be perverse, way outside of the normal activity of human beings. That's all. A principle is a solid guideline. I am saying you have beliefs, but not so much principled. The simple test is this: ******************** Which means, your "born that way, they can't help it" is bogus. Because we were all "born naked and couldn't help it". So, public nudity should be perfectly normal and accepted? yes? No. Just no. ********************* So, when you use the argument that "we all born with our sexuality and can't help it, so it's normal"... give me a break. That is NOT a quote by the way, it is my paraphrase of what I figure what you meant. A principle is a solid guideline, a rule not broken. You liberals do this all the time, it seems to me. like gayness is fine and normal because they were born that way and can't help it. but, NO to "born naked, so all of us naked is normal because we couldn't help but be born that way." Do you see the contradiction? I am simply trying to get you to understand the "born that way" is not a valid principle, because you discount it when you see fit, and adhere to it when you see fit. So, that is the liberal linear thinking. The issue is adherence to politically expedient and accepted stances, and when called out, the "born that way" kind of thing crops up, but when "born that way" is rejected in other situations... it MEANS, that your "born that way" is not any kind of principle. It is a temporary justification for a certain stance. Then on other stances, the same "born that way" does not apply. Real principles and values do not twist with the political winds, Vapor. They are always true. Liberals: "true when I want it to be true/false when I want it to be false/and just ignored when I want to ignore it. But liberals do what I just said. They emote one way and then the other opposite of the first, and easily promoting the same line of reasoning. So, on the point of liberals' emotionalism being their real basis for stances... it is linear. One straight line of basis for decision making - anything else is just self-serving excuses. Doesn't work. That is no principle. It's an excuse used only in a certain situation, not in others. So, you keep proving my points. You should stop before I think I should cohost a special with Rush. GGG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted August 18, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 18, 2010 Cal, I may be proving your points, but your points have no substance. Everything in this last post that I brought up, I also supported with facts, statistics, hell, even Bible quotes. The reason I didn't want to reply to it was because I knew it would be a waste of time, and you'd still come up with the conclusion that I'm being a linear-minded liberal. Your viewpoints have some serious logical flaws. I pointed them out. You ignored them. You claim I can only think linearly. This is why this debate goes nowhere. Seeing as you aren't capable of admitting the flaws in what you've said. And yes, your Elton John comment was disparaging. You can't dispute that. You may find it funny, but it is, nonetheless, disparaging. You are a gay basher. You treat gays the same way that some racists treat people of other races. I'm not saying that you'd be on the KKK end of the spectrum, you're clearly not radically against homosexuality, but you're more akin to the ignorant suburban or rural whitebred college student that never had to meet a black person that's quick to make a racist joke. You like to make jokes about them because they're different than what you like and are used to. I argued my point about being born naked. You, again, ignored it. I told you, I'd be okay if the country switched over to a nudist colony. What I gave is not a temporary justification; it is the reason that people wear clothes, and why it's like that in our society. I honestly think our culture holds sex to be far too taboo than it really is. A penis is a penis and a xxxx is a xxxx **edit - why is va jay jay censored?**, you have one or the other and so does everyone else. I wouldn't have a problem with a law saying nudists could be nude wherever the hell they want. I mean, obviously, I don't wanna see people jerking off in public, but I wouldn't have a problem with social nudity. How does anything I said contradict itself? You don't win a debate by simply declaring yourself the winner. You have to find flaws and holes in the opponent's argument. You're not really using any supporting evidence to prove your point about "being born that way" meaning something different. I never claimed that I wouldn't be okay with people walking around naked; in fact I said quite the opposite, so this contradiction that you're pointing out never really happened.... Let's see what exactly I wrote. I ask you to trust my word that I left this unedited. If people stopped wearing clothes tomorrow, it wouldn't change a thing (except maybe ppl will freeze to death and some of the conservative christians might have heart attacks). I fail to see the contradiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 18, 2010 Report Share Posted August 18, 2010 All you did is take my words, distort my meaning, and then argue against those contrived meanings. It's what you liberals do. " I don't wanna see people jerking off in public, but I wouldn't have a problem with social nudity. " And I said I have no malice towards gays, and they have rights to not be discriminated against. it's their BEHAVIOR that is perverse, etc, and society has a right to protect itself from that. And, the contrived gay "marriage" is part of that behavior. so, you can go to a nude beach, but if you engage in bad behavior, you will get into trouble. NOW do you see the difference? If not, just keep Hecking around the actual points, and trying to make points on what I never said, nor meant, nor implied, nor thought. It's what you libs do. That's the only way, for the most part, that libs can defend their emotionalist, humanist, and politically expedient viewpoints/stances on certain issues. If a white man robs my store, and I press charges after they catch him, do you think I hate white people? But if the man were black, would you think I hate black people? Then why, if the man were gay, would you think I hate gays? Because of emotionalist, politically expedient aggression on liberals' part, that's why. It's the BEHAVIOR that caused the individual to eventually end up in jail. There is no behavior aspect to race. But there is with the gay lifestyle. So, that should be settled once and for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted August 19, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 Cal, here's your problem. You keep reverting back to your argument that it's unnatural, and because it's unnatural, you think that gays having consensual sex shouldn't be endorsed by the government, which is part of what marriage implies. If this is what you believe, then there's one point of mine that you need to respond to. Do you think sodomy should be made illegal again? This includes straight anal sex, straight oral sex, and anything that gays can do together. If you think that gays having sex is wrong because it's unnatural, then would you argue the same for straight oral sex? There's nothing natural about getting off in someone else's mouth, but maybe I'm missing something that you're seeing from your point of view. Straight marriage implies that the couple will be doing all sorts of dirty and nasty things in the bedroom, including oral sex. If you think straight people should be allowed to do this, then why shouldn't gays? If straight people can do it, but gays can't, then that's quite the double standard. The only way you can have a consistent stance on this is to have the opinion that all premarital sex acts, along with sodomy, should be illegal. I challenge you to come up with another scenario in which your view is advocated, but does not allow for an unfair double standard. I don't think it's possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted August 19, 2010 Report Share Posted August 19, 2010 Cal, here's your problem. You keep reverting back to your argument that it's unnatural, and because it's unnatural, you think that gays having consensual sex shouldn't be endorsed by the government, which is part of what marriage implies. If this is what you believe, then there's one point of mine that you need to respond to. Do you think sodomy should be made illegal again? This includes straight anal sex, straight oral sex, and anything that gays can do together. If you think that gays having sex is wrong because it's unnatural, then would you argue the same for straight oral sex? There's nothing natural about getting off in someone else's mouth, but maybe I'm missing something that you're seeing from your point of view. Straight marriage implies that the couple will be doing all sorts of dirty and nasty things in the bedroom, including oral sex. If you think straight people should be allowed to do this, then why shouldn't gays? If straight people can do it, but gays can't, then that's quite the double standard. The only way you can have a consistent stance on this is to have the opinion that all premarital sex acts, along with sodomy, should be illegal. I challenge you to come up with another scenario in which your view is advocated, but does not allow for an unfair double standard. I don't think it's possible. Dude, you're gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted August 20, 2010 Report Share Posted August 20, 2010 Do you think sodomy should be made illegal again?Take em out to the woods and beat the shit out of them. Hell yeah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted August 20, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 20, 2010 Profound statements from the peanut gallery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 20, 2010 Report Share Posted August 20, 2010 yes, I believe it is perverse. That isn't going to change, I've given you several reasons I have for believing what I believe. HINT: ALL of us, every single time, were born of a MAN and a WOMAN. So there you go, end of discussion, I think, on your side. You're just wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted August 20, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 20, 2010 Okay, you believe that oral sex is perverse, correct? There's a difference between thinking it's perverse and wanting a law against it. I think you're a hypocrite because I doubt you were an advocate of bringing back sodomy laws when they were overturned ~10(?) years ago. So, I'll ask you again, do you believe that sodomy should be illegal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.