“But We Want YOU To Bake Our Wedding Cake!”

@Redteam:

I understand what you mean. I refused to purchase Girl Scout cookies this year because of the award they gave to Abortion Barbie Wendy Davis, who supports the termination of a pregnancy right up until the moment of birth. I think the “cookie” boycott gained a lot of traction this year.

Now the Boy Scouts have been compromised. And as far as Disney is concerned, they can go broke as much as I care. How far have they drifted from Walt’s dream of providing wholesome animated movies where the evil step mother loses and Cinderella wins?

All I can do is highly recommend you read the writings of Antonio Gramsci, especially when it comes to children and morals, and understand how we are implementing his policies, more each day.

It’s not enough to just allow gay people in, now they have to hold the director’s jobs to make sure indoctrination occurs.

Why do you think they push to become Scout leaders? For the same reason they become elementary/secondary school teachers. Those institutions become “target rich” environments just as gun “free” zones are target rich environments. As I said, the goal posts are not set in concrete and with each gain, the Gay Liberation Front simply moves the goal post once again.

@retire05 #62:
Sorry for the delay in answering some of your thoughtful remarks – I’ve been traveling – but I’ll try to clear up some old business:

“And it (AIDS) is still incurable. It is still, for all intent and purposes, a death sentence.”

We covered this before. AIDS is now no more of a death sentence than is diabetes. Neither of them are considered “curable”, although there are a few cases in each where the condition seems to have disappeared. Some people die rather quickly from diabetes or the complications caused by it, while others live for decades with the disease, and the same is true of AIDS. To characterize AIDS differently is a misrepresentation of the truth.

“What state can you name that asks the question “Are you gay” on any marriage license?”

That question would not be necessary on a marriage license request in either a state that allows gay marriage or in one that does not. At the point that Adam and Steve put their names on the request in an anti-gay marriage state, the request would be denied. The question needn’t be asked any more than “Are you a dog?” I’m not sure what point you were trying to make, but you didn’t make it.

“No one forces any gay man to engage in risky, unprotected sex. Not me, or any of the other straights you seem to hold in such little regard.”

I never said that they were “forced”. And I DO hold straight folk in high regard. Many of them are fine parents (which is a huge and difficult job), and the majority of them support gay marriage, and for that I am enormously grateful. Gay folks would not be having the great success they are enjoying today if it were not for the support and encouragement of their straight allies. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to say so.

“As a Catholic, I was against the admission of homosexual men into the seminaries when the Jesuits first decided to allow them. I was proven right due to the abuse that eventually was revealed. Thanks for making my point for me.”

You’re welcome! If gays were kept out of the seminaries, then among the clergy, only celibate heterosexuals would be left to abuse children, right? Do you think that child abuse by clergy would then stop? It is the celibacy that is causing the abuse problem, not the sexual orientation.

“You’re a sick, hateful sodomist, aren’t you? you are a gay, left winger who is prone to lying.”

Well, the logic (?) of that rebuttal is … (?) Nice finish!

@Nanny G #84:
“So, next you will be FOR (fill in the blank)”

No. Perhaps you see some logical “if-A-then-B” imperative in your example, but I don’t.
(On a side note, I did not know about the animal blood rituals to which you refer. Aren’t humans an odd lot?)

Although I may be mistaken, I THINK that you were alluding to the proverbial “slippery-slope” argument. That would be the one that goes:
“If we allow inter-racial marriage, what will be next?”
“If we allow women to vote, what will be next?”
“If we allow gays to have sex (legally), gay marriage will be next? (Justice Scalia)
“If we allow Jews, blacks, felons, children, etc., etc., what will be the consequence?

It is a logical construction that implies that while “A” may be avoidable, “B” will certainly not be if “A” is allowed to happen. In debate, the “slippery slope” argument is generally considered to be a logical fallacy unless a cause-and-effect relationship between “A” and “B” can be proved. In your “gay-rights-kills-cats” hypothesis, you would be required to demonstrate that such a cause-and-effect relationship exists BEFORE your opponent would have to successfully rebut your hypothesis or lose the argument.

Not all “slippery slope” arguments are false. Time (11 years) have proven Scalia’s prediction to be correct. Yet not all people would agree that gay marriage (the “consequential “B” in Scalia’s logic diagram) is an undesirable thing. There ARE plenty of good cause-and-effect relationships. So to really prevail in your argument, you also have to prove that the “B” in your hypothesis is a bad thing, and doing that may be more difficult than you anticipate.

@George Wells:

If gays were kept out of the seminaries, then among the clergy, only celibate heterosexuals would be left to abuse children, right? Do you think that child abuse by clergy would then stop? It is the celibacy that is causing the abuse problem, not the sexual orientation.

Ummm, let me see…………………

not only were those priests that sexually abused young boys pederasts and pedophiles, they were also queer. Heterosexual male pedophiles don’t go after boys, they go after girls. And now you are trying to tell us that had those priests been allowed to openly have sex they would not have gone after children? Surely you are not that far gone that you are willing to push that premise. You want to ignore that the large majority of the children abused were boys, not girls.

Bottom line; even if they had not been required to take a vow of celibacy, they would still have gone after those young boys as queer pedophile men do. There are no heterosexuals in NAMBLA.

@retire05 #109:

I get it. If you can talk me into flying off to battle windmills (in a Muslim country where I WOULD likely get killed) instead of staying here where I am making a real difference, your losing side will be one vote closer to turning the tide. No, picking battles wisely makes a whole lot more sense. But good try. (LOL)

If all you and redteam can come up with are suggestions like that (or his “LA-LA-LA-I-CAN’T-HEAR-YOU” act of denial), well, no wonder Bill O’Rilley says that “All gay marriage opponents have is the Bible.” You do have nothing else.

@retire05 #109:

“And please, don’t insult us with the Matthew Shepard story as it has been proven he was not murdered because he was gay, but over a drug deal gone bad.”

Oh really? So your contention is that the MURDERERS (your admission) perjured themselves when they admitted in court that they killed Matthew Shepard because they were disgusted by the thought of being sexually serviced by LITTLE Matthew? Did they claim that defense because they believed a jury would acquit them on the grounds that the suggestion of gay sex DID justify murder? (Evidently a lot of people think that it does…)

This is the world that we live in today, and the reason that gay people are determined to change it for the better.

@George Wells:

I really have trouble with your denial of the obvious. The legal definition of marriage that IS in effect in countries and states which have legalized same-sex marriage DOES define marriage as an institution that includes same sex partners. That pretty much rules out “no definition”.

My statement was that there is no definition of marriage that includes same sex partners. I didn’t say that people don’t live in a fantasy where up is down and down is up. In other words, call a spade a spade. Calling a partnership between two same sex people a marriage has no relation to reality. You can call a black person white, but it doesn’t change his skin color. Calling a same sex relationship a marriage means you are not in touch with reality. You know and I know it is not a marriage.

@George Wells:

“LA-LA-LA-I-CAN’T-HEAR-YOU”

funny. ,

well, no wonder Bill O’Rilley says that “All gay marriage opponents have is the Bible.” You do have nothing else.

But at least we have that. You have nothing but the inner feeling that you are living in sin and are pretending it isn’t so. You know it, I know it, you just can’t face reality. There is nothing natural or normal about having sex with someone of the same gender.
I doubt you have converted very many conservatives with your arguments. However I do believe you have convinced other homosexuals to believe as you do. Fantasy Island anyone?

@Redteam #114:

“You know and I know it is not a marriage.”

I think that your problem is that you incorrectly believe that words have immutable meanings. They don’t.
Word meanings change over time. Let me give you an example: When I was a kid, the word “googleplex” had one meaning – it is the number ten to the one-hundredth power – a pretty big number. But today, if you look up that word in an up-to-date reference, the first meaning you will get is that “Googleplex” is the name of the corporate headquarters of the Google Corporation. (Oh, I’m sure that you will figure out some angle from which to refute this example, but virtually all words have evolving meanings, and the argument over them all would be pointless.)
Another example of a word having more than one meaning: MARRIAGE. At this point in time, 17 states and the District of Columbia have one meaning, and the other 33 states have a different meaning. The fact that you think that the 17 are wrong, and I think that the 33 have it wrong only serves to make my point: Any given word has different meanings to different people. There is nothing ABSOLUTE about the meaning of ANY word. If there was, there wouldn’t be so much disagreement about word meanings. Not you, not me, and nobody else has the right to impose his or her particular, preferred meaning of ANY word – including “marriage” – on everyone else. I don’t get to say that “You (redteam) must have a gay marriage or none at all” any more than you get to say that I (George Wells) may only marry a woman. That’s how it is. Sorry it troubles you so.

@George Wells:

The fact that you think that the 17 are wrong, and I think that the 33 have it wrong only serves to make my point:

That’s not the ‘fact’ at all. The fact is that if you are born black and someone tries to tell you that the word ‘white’ now describes you and not the word black, then you are only living a fantasy. You can’t get past Fantasy Island where it can be like you wish it was instead of the way it is. No matter how many states say it is a marriage, you nor I will ever ‘think’ you are married. You will always know you are living a queer life style by choice and wishing that you could fool everyone into believing you are ‘married’. Well, the truth is, no one that is not gay will ever consider that you are married. They may suck up to you(I guess I could have used a different word) to get your vote and support and then laugh at you when you turn your back. Why are you working so hard to convince conservatives on this site that ‘they accept your sexual life”, why don’t you just tell them to go to hell and go to a gay site and trade kisses with them?

@Redteam #116:

“There is nothing natural or normal about having sex with someone of the same gender.”

Back to that, huh? I explained before that “natural” and “normal” are two entirely different words. Wish you didn’t confuse the two. Look them up. Same-gender sex is not “normal” precisely because only a minority of individuals in both human and animal populations do it, but it is “natural” for precisely the same reason.
Name me something that is not “natural.” Spoiler-alert: the answer will be either something the existence of which cannot be proven – like a ghost – or something that is man-made. So did not GOD make Man just as He made everything else? Why would something man-made not be “natural”? And if other God-made creatures also behave homosexually – EVEN IF THE BEHAVIOR DOES NOT RESULT IN PROCREATION – how is this not “natural”? Everything under the sun is “natural” – it is all part of the “natural” universe. Perhaps something that exists outside of this universe would not be “natural” to ours, but I have no experience beyond the event horizon of this plane of existence.

@George Wells:

Name me something that is not “natural.”

You can’t have a child with a man.

Redteam #124:
“Name me something that is not “natural.”
“You can’t have a child with a man.”

That is not a THING! “You can’t roller skate in a buffalo herd” isn’t a THING either! Yor example is an example of a negative. Try telling a mathematician that negatives are not “natural” and see what he says.

@Redteam:
“I also don’t believe that gay people should be ‘openly gay’ insisting that I ‘like it’ that they are gay and are making a spectacle of themselves.”

Do you think that it is OK for some people to be openly heterosexual? Or should public kissing and holding of hands and talking softly while looking deeply into each others’ eyes be banned regardless of gender. Equal protection demands that if something is OK for some, it must be OK for all UNLESS there is a compelling governmental interest in legislating otherwise.

You are free to dislike whatever you choose. Nobody is suggesting otherwise, and your effort to characterize the gay rights movement in those terms is disingenuous.

@retire05 #108:

To the contrary. (As in: “NO.”)

Your solution to the problem (that SOME of the children who have been abused by clergy were of the same gender as the perpetrator) is to exclude homosexuals from seminaries. GREAT! You have already provided us with ample proof that neither you nor anyone else can reliably identify homosexuals by their appearance, and that no genetic test will reveal their sexual orientation, so exactly how do you propose to round up these people, or to effectively exclude them from seminaries?

Your “solution” would work precisely as effectively as did the military’s pre-“Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell” policy of excluding gays from the military. The military services have a higher proportion of gay members than does the general population (higher because gay guys seem to like wearing spiffy uniforms and doing macho stuff in the company of other guys), and this has ALWAYS been the case. Gay man cannot be detected if they don’t choose to be. Funny that you think that if you say “Don’t you boys come here,” that they will all stay away. The military’s experience proves that that doesn’t work.

Then there is the uncomfortable fact that within the population at large, the vast majority of abused children are abused by heterosexual pedophiles, many of whom are family members of the abused child. How do you suggest excluding THEM from situations of opportunity? Maybe exclude ALL adults (or sexually mature persons regardless of age) from having ANY contact with children? (Laughing) Of course not. The solution is to aggressively prosecute perpetrators (not move them to a different parish,) and to make the punishment a true disincentive. You don’t punish an entire class of people for the actions of a small minority in a civilized society.

Your “solution” is logically just a stones-throw away from locking up whole classes of people in “concentration” camps. And while your “solution” would fail in its intended purpose for the reason already mentioned, it WOULD enshrine in policy the type of bigotry that encourages senseless violence against minorities, which was likely your true goal in the first place.

@retire05 #108:

“Bottom line; even if they had not been required to take a vow of celibacy, they would still have gone after those young boys as queer pedophile men do”

My unwavering position on this issue is that pedophiles who act on their impulses should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, regardless of their sexual orientation. Would not that be a better platform to advocate, instead of exclusively articulating your obsession with the minority of pedophiles who are gay?

@George Wells:

Then you must also disapprove of the “fabrication” of children for those heterosexual couples who are infertile?

A practice that still requires the basic law of nature; male sperm and female ovum. It is physically, and scientifically, impossible for two men, or two women, to contribute to the creation of new life.

Or do you continue to advocate for a selective, discriminatory practice of excluding gays from services that heterosexuals are allowed?

How do you propose that two gay men create a new life without the use of a female contributor? Nature, itself, is discriminatory by your standards. Or do you support the cloning of human life so that queers can be parents?

@Redteam:

How many times have you seen straight people walking down the street in San Francisco in assless chaps

Or giving lessons in S & M, the disgusting practice of “fisting”, etc? Actually, how many “straight” parades can we list where heterosexual sexual activities are promoted? What is the heterosexual counterpart of NAMBLA? Homosexuality and exhibitionism go together like baseball and hot dogs.

@retire05:

together like baseball and hot dogs.

Apple pie and Chevrolet.

@Redteam #137:

“Why would any priest ‘live a lie’?”

I really don’t know why they do, but they do, just like those fellow gay sailors of yours. And you encourage them to live that lie – you INSIST that they go back into the closet and not “rub the truth in your face.” Just what DO you propose doing with those 10-25 million gay people?

@retire05 #134:

“How do you propose that two gay men create a new life without the use of a female contributor? Nature, itself, is discriminatory by your standards.” “It is physically, and scientifically, impossible for two men, or two women, to contribute to the creation of new life.”

WRONG.

The male-male production of a zygote (the initial cell that is formed by the joining together of two gametes – as in a sperm cell joined with an egg) is not beyond the capability of medical science any more than cloning is. (Cloning produces a zygote from two cells taken from one individual. The male-male zygote would simply take the two cells from two different males instead of taking them from the SAME person. The zygote would not be gestated in the body of either male for obvious reasons, but as Republicans have repeatedly insisted that life begins at conception (the event of zygote formation), this would “CREATE A NEW LIFE.” Your knowledge of science is considerably weaker then your knowledge of primitive, Old Testament rules of behavior.

“Or do you support the cloning of human life so that queers can be parents?”

I believe that cloning has value. It would seem to be a solution in the quest for a politically satisfactory source of embryonic stem cells, for example. I would prefer that gays who wish to be parents adopt orphans, but requiring infertile straights to do that rather than pursue medical options is not acceptable to the straight majority, so I can’t see why it would be acceptable in the case of gays. In any event, look at all of the states that have laws restricting or prohibiting gays from adopting. That’s an up-hill battle in itself. Yet I support their right to be parents. Cloning would be an acceptable option.

@George Wells:

Just what DO you propose doing with those 10-25 million gay people?

Where do you get your numbers from?

“But what percentage of the population is actually gay or lesbian? With the debate over same-sex marriage again an emerging fault line in American political life, the answer comes as a surprise: A lower number than you might think — and a much, much, much lower one than most Americans believe.

The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, a gay and lesbian think tank, released a study in April 2011 estimating based on its research that just 1.7 percent of Americans between 18 and 44 identify as gay or lesbian, while another 1.8 percent — predominantly women — identify as bisexual. Far from underestimating the ranks of gay people because of homophobia, these figures included a substantial number of people who remained deeply closeted, such as a quarter of the bisexuals.”

So even the far left Williams Institute says that there is a small percentage (3.5%) of Americans who are gay, and only if you include transsexuals in that number. Your high number of 25 million would work out to roughly 9% of the total population.

And how many bloodied women have you seen who were beaten to within an inch of their lives by their abusing husbands?

Perhaps you should ask a cop who works the Castro District how many bloodied men he has seen that were beaten to within an inch of their lives by their homosexual partners. Violence is not a heterosexual trait anymore than non-violence is a homosexual trait. So you are grasping at straws, here, George, something you are prone to do.

. You only bring up those chaps because you are fundamentally offended by homosexuality

No, he brings it up because there is no equivalent to the Folsom Street Parade in San Francisco. Nor is there a counterpart to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.

You are right that the world is largely heterosexual, but the fact that homosexuality is a natural all-be-it abnormal part of the whole world

Wrong. Homosexuality defies natural law. The opposite of natural (normal under natural law) is abnormal.

Gays are shown kissing on television, etc.

The fact that the entertainment industry has decided to join in the destruction of morals, according to Gramsci’s philosophy, doesn’t make it “normal” or “natural.”

If you don’t like it, move to Uganda.

Why don’t you move to Iran and put your money where you mouth is? Or is it just that your own personal safety is more important than fighting for the cause? Oh, that’s right. You already answered that. You will only push your agenda in a country where your safety is assured. Coward would be a fitting addition to your resume.

@George Wells:

I would prefer that gays who wish to be parents adopt orphans

Why would you want to deny children the right to have two parents of the opposite genders? Do you think children do not deserve a mommy, or a daddy, although multiple studies have proven that children do better with parents of the opposite sex?

Although gays have proven themselves to be one selfish bunch so your opinion is not surprising.

@George Wells:

And there is no counterpart to the heterosexual rape of a pregnant woman,

Rape is rape. There is little difference in the violence of the rape of a pregnant woman and the violence of one man raping another. It is a crime of violence, no matter who is being raped.

or the tragedy of a woman who died as a result of a botched, illegal, coat-hanger abortion,

That is why my state now requires abortion clinics of have the same facilities as any out patient surgical center. But since when did the left care how many women were murdered, or sterilized, due to botched abortions as long as abortion remains legal and on demand?

or deadbeat fathers who refuse to provide child support for their offspring.

Are you saying there is no such thing as a dead beat mother? What fairy tale world do you live in?

I love when you press ahead with insults

Why? Do you intend to sue me like gays are wont to do when they get their widdle feelings hurt? But, now that you mention it, my insults are simply an expression of my total dislike for you.

@bees #143:

“DO YOU FEAR GOD ? DO YOU BELIEVE THE DEVIL EXIST ? (NO, and NO)
DO YOU LIKE TO GO IN HELL WHEN YOU DIE ? (Don’t think that there IS a Hell)
OR DO YOU THINK YOU WILL LIVE FOREVER ? (Very happy that I will not live forever)

I give you honest answers to your questions because I THINK that you ask them in good faith. I do not think that children who are the product of medical intervention are “abominations” (principally because my faith does not recognize the validity of that term as you use it), but I can understand your choice to call them “fabricated humans,” as “fabrication” connotes the involvement of human “construction” in addition to human “reproduction.”