BS: 'Gay marriage' question

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Feb 13 - 01:20 AM

Dig yourself deeper Goofus.

Like I said, you're incapable of understanding generosity and self-sacrifice in the face of impossible circumstances.

And you more than demonstrate what a really nasty person you are.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Feb 13 - 01:10 AM

Firth: "I went to school and I knew a whole bunch of other kids who were going to school too. We talked a lot, so along with knowing what I knew, I pretty much knew what they knew, too. Kids DO talk to each other, you know."

Oh!!..No wonder how you became such an 'expert'!!
..BUT..You didn't marry, are shacking up with another person you horns-waggled, was the sperm donor for a child you didn't bother to be a father to, have a couple of homosexual buddies who..."We talked a lot, so along with knowing what I knew, I pretty much knew what they knew, too."....and now you've become an authority on raising children, expound on the virtues of homosexual 'marriage', and promote others to blindly accept your WORD that you even have the foggiest idea about ANY of it!!
Would you take guitar lessons from someone who never even picked up a guitar????????????????????????????????????????..!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Feb 13 - 01:03 AM

Goofball, you know absolutely NOTHING about what you're blathering on about. And you know NOTHING about my life, so give it a rest before you make an even bigger ass of yourself than you already have.

Do you understand the concept of living in different parts of the country, Goofball? That was the situation that existed at the time, and there was nothing that could be done about it. There was no neglect or "lack of concern." Circumstances were such that it was impossible for us all to be together, so we had to make sacrifices for the good of all concerned, and there were very good reasons for the decisions that we made. But not only do YOU not understand, you are incapable of understanding anything like that. You're too selfish and ignorant to understand.

So just shut the hell up about something of which you are totally ignorant before you commit suicide with the same weapon that Samson used against the Philistines.

=======

I went to school and I knew a whole bunch of other kids who were going to school too. We talked a lot, so along with knowing what I knew, I pretty much knew what they knew, too. Kids DO talk to each other, you know.

At an early age, I had "the talk" with my father. But from what a lot of my school chums thought, their parents were not as well-informed as mine were. Both my father and my mother were health professionals. There was nothing about sex that the high school Health Ed teacher said that I didn't already know, but I knew that some kids were learning it for the first time.

Or maybe you don't know. Maybe other kids didn't talk to you. Judging from the way you carry on here, I can certainly understand why.

But then, maybe you didn't go to school at all. Maybe you were raised in a Dumpster by giant rats and never had a chance to go to school. That would certainly explain a lot.

Or perhaps you're living in a closet. Even to yourself.

Don Firth

P. S. The name "Firth," for those who haven't figured it out, is a Scottish place name.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 10:56 PM

Don the Froth: "Believe me, by the time kids get to school, they already know something about sex. What the sex part of health education classes teach is accurate knowledge and thoughtful responsibility."

Believe me??? YOU??..When did YOU EVER send your kid to school????? From What you've said, when he was growing up, the Ol'Lady wouldn't let you near him!

Don Froth: "Liberals don't care about children? You ARE a feckles, lying jackass, Goofball!"

Well, You're a 'so-called liberal'.....see my above comment!

If you knew what you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't be acting like such a hypocritical, pedantic nut job.

I raised my kids..AND helped kids who, like yours, deal with self absorbed 'absent parents'!
YOU have NO RIGHT, due to your lack of concern about your own child, to even offer an opinion..let alone such a lame one as you puked out!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 07:10 PM

Well said, Don. If our resident homophobics (Guffo and akenaton) were to get their way, and "children were not 'taught homosexuality' in school", then children would be "taught homosexuality" anyway, probably in ways that these two dumbos would approve of far less. In fact, that's how it was always done, remember?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 06:53 PM

Goofball, if you ever got around to reading what people actually write (instead of dividing your already flawed attention by trying to figure out some snotty comeback while you're reading), you might have noticed that I singled out a couple of items on your list, then invited others to do their own survey so they could get an idea of where you seek support for your prejudices.

I am quite familiar with WND because, as I said, I get IT and a number of other Right Wing newsletters in my daily e-mail so I get more than just one viewpoint on the news.

I know that you get your basic opinions on this issue out of your fear of your own genes, and this powers your irrational hatred of homosexuals to the point where you can't see that they are human beings too and deserving of rights. Most normal heterosexuals don't really care one way or the other, as long as someone else's sexual choices don't impinge on them, and this Gay Marriage issue does NOT.

And as far as "teaching homosexuality in schools" is concerned, any good high school health class teaches all aspects of health education including a few weeks on sex education. With some kids, their parents are often so ignorant and so inhibited themselves that high school Health Ed is the ONLY sex education they get. And it should cover the matter of responsibility along with health issues. And that includes the fact that there is such a thing as same-sex orientation within a certain percentage of people.

This (contrary to the beliefs of some very ignorant people) does not "teach homosexuality" in the sense of urging them to become homosexual, which is what people like Goofball and Ake seem to be trying to imply.

Believe me, by the time kids get to school, they already know something about sex. What the sex part of health education classes teach is accurate knowledge and thoughtful responsibility.

At least that's what they should be teaching, assuming competent teachers and no interference from stiff-necked busybodies.

=======

Liberals don't care about children? You ARE a feckles, lying jackass, Goofball!

When it comes to biased opinions and blind stupidity, Goofball, YOU take the Gold Medal And when it comes to dealing with proven facts, you wouldn't know a proven fact if it bit you on the ass.

But with those genes you're so afraid of, in spite of yourself, you might just enjoy being bitten on the ass.

"Harlequin" indeed! You're the only clown around here.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 02:42 PM

Akenaton: "No, our children will be taugh about "equality", "discrimination" and "homophobia"

The so-called liberals' don't give a rat's ass about the children, on this or virtually any other matter...they just use them to argue that their idiotic agendas are about 'protecting them'..blah blah blah...any EVERY time you hear, "..It's for the children.." from ANY of them, you KNOW the subject is horse shit. From Hillary, to Obama to any of them who are looking to bilk the public for more wasteful, corrupt spending, that using that 'tug on the heart strings' argument, will work the emotional side...when logic and truthfulness would never work!!
True Story!!

GfS

P.S. Just look at the deficit and the cost of the bills left to the next generation....if there is one! Think they gave a shit about that??..BOTH PARTIES!!!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 02:25 PM

Children should be made aware of the risk factor associated with male to male sex (44 times more likely to be infected by hiv than heteros}
I have no doubt that this figure will never be mentioned, as the vast majority of the population are quite unaware, so well has it been concealed to date.

No, our children will be taugh about "equality", "discrimination" and "homophobia"

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 02:22 PM

Well, the rebuttals came from those who said I was in error in saying homosexuality were being taught in our public schools, and that straight parents did not want that...to which Firth took exception to ONE website that ran the story..accusing 'World Net Daily' of being a 'Conservative website'...HE, as usual, did NOT address my statement that indicated that homosexuality being taught in the schools were an infringement of the rights of those who didn't agree with it...RIGHT?
That being said, amidst the 'denials'...maybe by re-phrasing the key words on the search engine, we can prove ONCE AGAIN, that Don IS in fact in error again....
Goofball lists more than amply demonstrates the type of people and organizations
Look closely, there are 'so-called liberal' sites saying what I am saying...not what you dizzily allege. What else is new???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 01:25 PM

Don, and other harlequins, I posted an open long list of websites on the Yahoo search, and you singled out the ONE you don't like??..and that is an indictment on ALL of them, and the topic????..and you say that you are not spun out of control???

You guys are a parody of blind stupidity to try such a lame stunt as that!
Come on, I don't need another one of your uneducated, biased opinions, concocted out of thin air....try posting an answer to a question or at least SOMETHING based on PROVEN FACTS.....but you can't do that(and you never even question yourselves as to why?), instead of your silly idiot-logue indoctrinations.
As I said before...'persuade me'....but use FACTS, not stupid name-calling and phony thin blabber about 'bigotry' and 'homophobia', which is so far from the truth, the more you vomit it, the sillier you look!

Keep it based on SOMETHING BESIDES your fucked up opinions!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 12:23 PM

""I doubt if the "knowledge" they aquire will include the associated sexual health figures.
In this "liberal" democracy some things must be hidden from the children""

You really don't have a clue what happens in the real world, do you Ake.

Kids are already comprehensively informed, at school, of the dangers inherent in sexual activity of all types.

You don't think their questions about the boy or girl with two dads or two mums are answered?

Of course they are!

Strangely enough, they are even told about the broad spectrum of infections attendant upon heterosexual, as well as homosexual activity, which you studiously ignore and refuse to acknowledge, in your drive to denigrate Gays.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket and where's that ruddy cookie?
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 10:21 AM

The only things that need hiding from children are disgraceful bigot such as yourself.

Either you are celebrating STI figures for some reason, (usually personality disorder) or you fail to see how committing your life to a partner reduces promiscuity. If it is the former, you need help and if it is the latter, you are beyond help.

What makes it worse is that decent people are forced to show you in the light you deserve and do you think people like doing that? No. It saddens me that every time you put poisoned keyboard to screen, yet more attempts are made to see if you are capable of getting it.

Clearly not.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 09:33 AM

"homosexuality will be one of the gender orientations, about which they will acquire knowledge, without being directed or "converted", since gender orientation is an inherent quality born, not made."

I doubt if the "knowledge" they aquire will include the associated sexual health figures.
In this "liberal" democracy some things must be hidden from the children

So do you think that the undeniable fact that homosexuality exists should be hidden from the children then? In any good programme of personal and social education, sexual health will be dealt with in a balanced manner as well as the question of gender orientation. I was involved in sex education in secondary schools for 25 years (I'm admittedly a bit out of date these days, though I still just about know that it isn't just for pissing out of), and the one aspect I think we sometimes got right was safe sex and the health aspects of sex (the rest was often subject to a bit of interference from spinster year-heads, school nurses and men of the cloth...). Very patchy, of course, from school to school, and that is a big shame. You appear to want the statistics for STIs to make the case for your homophobia, when what you should be doing instead is arguing for much better education for sexual health for all. Knowledge is everything in sexual health matters, and it's knowledge, among both homosexuals and heterosexuals, which is often lacking to an alarming degree. Knowledge is more than just knowing how to stay safe - it's also about taking responsibility and staying in control.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 09:10 AM

"homosexuality will be one of the gender orientations, about which they will acquire knowledge, without being directed or "converted", since gender orientation is an inherent quality born, not made."

I doubt if the "knowledge" they aquire will include the associated sexual health figures.
In this "liberal" democracy some things must be hidden from the children

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 07:47 AM

Governments, not rabble rousing websites, decide what must, or must not, be taught in schools.

Just as UK schools have to reflect the multicultural nature of the UK by teaching comparative religion, without advocating adherence to any one of the religions about which the children acquire knowledge, homosexuality will be one of the gender orientations, about which they will acquire knowledge, without being directed or "converted", since gender orientation is an inherent quality born, not made.

People like Goofus will, no doubt, have done such a good job of instilling their own hatreds into their unfortunate childrens' psyches, that any such education will fail to prevent future generations of homophobic Gay bashers.

What a charming legacy!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 01:12 AM

I receive a number of "newsletters" in my e-mail every morning, some of which are worth reading, some of which are sheer propaganda—from both sides. One of those is WND or "World News Daily." Their main thrust is extremely conservative (think Rush Limbaugh), and along with trying to sell the Right Wing line, they also have a line of books they want to sell you, having to do with Barack Obama's secret plan to take over the nation, how Al Gore is trying to destroy American business with his talk of global warming, and—various secret cures for everything from cancer to toenail fungus (which the powers the be are keeping concealed from you).

I allow a few newsletters like this keep coming just so I know what these clowns are saying.

Remarkable how close Goofball toes their line on a lot of issues.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Feb 13 - 12:01 AM

A random sampling of the websites Goofball lists more than amply demonstrates the type of people and organizations who are posting them.

WND = World News Daily – very conservative website.
massresistance.org
inqueery.com
(About here, my gag reflex kicked in. But if so moved, check the websites and see how they are framed. Most revealing!)

And on and on. If you want to wallow in bigotry, there it is. Goofball has presented a lot of material.

"Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
                               —William Shakespeare

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 11:13 PM

homosexuality will be ""taught in schools"" is just so much arrant nonsense.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 09:16 PM

Don T. seems to have things well under control. He speaks true, even if it is over the heads of some people.

As to my current project, it's not a matter of learning a ballad in the sense of just memorizing the words and tune. I'm trying to learn Sir Patrick Spens, one of the oldest of the classic ballads.

I've shied away from it because, although I've heard it sung a number of times by various people, the melodies have all sounded vaguely inappropriate. I DID hear it once, sung at an end-of-school-year get-together and party of the students in Dr. David C. Fowler's "English and Scottish Popular Ballads" class at the University of Washington. It was sung by Dr. Fowler himself, and it was spellbinding! The ominous story was set to a rather eerie tune.

My big mistake was in not asking Dr. Fowler at the time where he learned that particular tune. So I'm on a quest.

I shall probably take this question "above the belt" where folks are talking about music, a more appropriate place than here.

Anyway, if one wants to do it right, there is more to learning a ballad than just memorizing the words and tune.

Don Firth

P. S. Now, back to our regular program of screaming and throwing things.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 08:37 PM

""Homosexuals can and do about anything they want. When they start pushing churches and governments around, pressuring corporations to coerce those who don't agree with the 'marital status' of their sexually centered practices, on the behalf of the very few (minority), who agree with them, it would be idiotic to even imagine that they would not receive resistance...Likewise, when those who have married and have conceived their own offspring, and are trying to raise them to be normal, it would not be surprising that they would object to homosexual practices to taught in the public school systems...""""

Homosexuals are, as you admit, a minority. They don't carry the weight to ""push churches and governments around, or pressure corporations to coerce those who don't agree with the 'marital status' of their sexually centered practices,"".

The reason why they are being supported, is because it is the right thing for a civilised society to do.

No government is being, or even could be, pushed into anything. A free vote resulted, by a considerable margin, in approval of same sex marriages. That's democracy at work. You don't like it? Move to Zimbabwe!

No church will be forced to conduct Gay marriages, but there are plenty of enlightened churches more than ready to do so.

And your implication (again) that homosexuality will be ""taught in schools"" is just so much arrant nonsense. It's existence will be mentioned as a matter of fact, but it certainly is neither contagious, nor infectious.

""Worse off, is those who promote it on both bad science and bad political stance not based on truth.""

You wouldn't recognise real science if it bit you on the arse, you being perfectly capable of making it up as you go along. If there were qualifications for pseudo science with no basis in reality, you would hold a Master's Degree.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 08:18 PM

For Chrissake, Goofball, READ A BOOK!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 08:07 PM

Don Firth: "Obviously you are unaware, GfS, that when marriage became a legally recognized institution, it was not for the purposes you outlined, it was primarily a matter of property alliances."

CORRECTION!! The property end of it was originally a way to put up collateral, as to the promises one makes in the vows. True story!

Now go back and work on your ballad..AND do yourself a favor..all the angst you may feel toward me or the passion you feel about this matter, or both, put into your fingers! You will find that the music now becomes MORE than a technical exercise..and blossoms with feeling!
See..I really am rooting for you!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 06:33 PM

Good freakin' grief; the reason no one would disagree with the question is the same reason no one would disagree with saying that rowing a boat is different than being an ostrich; the question was, isn't doing an action different from having a physical characteristic; it's an idiotic question, and the answer is meaningless. Out of that you manage to wind yourself up and repeat your whole sermon for the 487th time.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 06:31 PM

Obviously you are unaware, GfS, that when marriage became a legally recognized institution, it was not for the purposes you outlined, it was primarily a matter of property alliances. And thus it remained until very recently. Many marriages were arranged, and not by the "loving couple," who may not have even met each other until after the decisions were made by others, and had no say in the matter. Property and inheritance.

Marriages among the lower classes generally consisted of the couple simply moving in together and making an announcement to friends and family, possibly with a ceremony in the local church. No actual legal registration.

Same-sex couples are not so much trying to manipulate or force governments and churches, as you claim. No one is trying to get churches who don't want to perform marriage ceremonies to do so, because there are many churches who will preform such ceremonies. And rightfully, they want the civil authorities to recognize them and give them the same legal rights and privileges that heterosexual couples have, which includes inheritance rights and hospital visitation rights as "next of kin"—the same rights that heterosexual married couples have.

Granting same-sex couples the same civil rights as heterosexual couples will not, in any way affect the marriages of heterosexual couples.

Thus, it IS a civil rights issue.

To those who understand, no explanation is necessary. To those who will not understand, no explanation is possible.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 05:53 PM

Ake, the vast majority of abused children are to be found in households consisting of heterosexual couples. In all too many cases, one or more of the heterosexual parents regards the child, or children, as an inconvenience. Hence, the abuse.

This is not the case with same sex couples—who want children. And who will care for them. And who don't just happen, they are adopted into a family that wants them.

This is not just theoretical or something derived from one of your beloved pie charts, it is a matter of observation. One family of same-sex parents who adopted two boys from a Chinese orphanage, and another same-sex family in which both men contributed to artificial insemination of a surrogate mother, insemination by one man producing a healthy boy and insemination of the same mother by the other producing triplets (big surprise!)!!

In both cases, the children are not lacking in feminine influence and companionship. Women friends and relatives dote on the children.

And ALL of the kids are thriving and happy.

So we don't always have to do things by nature's design. If Mother Nature had intended that we should play the piano, she would have given us eighty-eight fingers.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 05:07 PM

Frogprince. First, did you watch that video which mentions the (nicknamed) 'The God gene')??..I thought the video was pretty interesting.

Second, your re-phrasing of my post, "the decision to marry a person of the opposite sex, and have sex with them, is NOT the same as being born with as different color skin...now is it?"

Ummm...The decision to marry a person of the OPPOSITE sex, has been around a lot longer than the 'push' for homosexuals to imitate marriage, as if it WAS the same as marrying a person of the opposite sex. Marriage was originally set forth to 'announce' to the community, at large, that this man and this woman were marrying and no longer 'available', to have a family, so to the community it was a 'hands off'...but that was in a day that marriage and family were not as demeaned as they are today...not just by the homosexuals, but to even those who enter into marriage. Today, even many of the participants in marriage seem a 'little weak' in that commitment...and then you have 2nd, 3rd, 4th and so on 'marriages'.
So, as to your re-phasing, it is not even remotely applicable...except of argument's sake.

Homosexuals can and do about anything they want. When they start pushing churches and governments around, pressuring corporations to coerce those who don't agree with the 'marital status' of their sexually centered practices, on the behalf of the very few (minority), who agree with them, it would be idiotic to even imagine that they would not receive resistance...Likewise, when those who have married and have conceived their own offspring, and are trying to raise them to be normal, it would not be surprising that they would object to homosexual practices to taught in the public school systems...

..and you are correct when you say, "One thing for sure, gfs; no sane person in the world could ever disagree with that question...", but the Civil Rights Act, and the Constitution was worded and meant what it said concisely when it said 'Race, Creed or Color'. Maybe the interpretation of Race, Creed and Color was stretched by some people to include sexual practices and preferences....but you nailed it when you said, in that same sentence,..."One thing for sure, gfs; no sane person in the world...". So, are you alluding to homosexuality as a mental or emotional issue? Worse off, is those who promote it on both bad science and bad political stance not based on truth.
You can't compare apples and oranges..then say they're turnips!

Respectfully Though,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 03:50 PM

"having sex with them is NOT the same as being born with a different color skin...now is it?"

One thing for sure, gfs; no sane person in the world could ever disagree with that question, just as it's worded. They might doubt the sanity of anyone who could string together that alleged "thought", but disagree with it, no way.

Perhaps the most frightening thing is that, in the context of a bunch of things you've said, it's possible to get a fair idea of what you thought you were saying.

gfs, the decision to marry a person of the opposite sex, and have sex with them, is NOT the same as being born with as different color skin...now is it?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 03:48 PM

Don. But what if the bastards manage to breed? Then we're all fucked.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 12:41 PM

DonT: "The biggest single flaw in your argument is your fixed belief that long term Gay relationships are based purely on sexual attraction. That alone qualifies you for twit of the year."



".....Sure, we 'love' a lot of different people in our lifetimes..men and women...having sex with them is NOT the same as being born with a different color skin...now is it?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 02:45 PM

I would even support the rights of homophobes to marry each other. That way two people would be bloody miserable instead of four.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 02:41 PM

The biggest single flaw in your argument is your fixed belief that long term Gay relationships are based purely on sexual attraction. That alone qualifies you for twit of the year.

Then add in your complete abnegation of all scientific knowledge on the subject, in favour of your very own pseudo scientific theory based, not in what is the result of genuine scientific research, but in what you would like the facts to be. Now you are plumbing the depths of tinfoil hat stupidity.

Then add the fact that you think everybody is daft except you, a sure indication, we are told, of incipient madness.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own FACTS!

Now go sit in the corner and mumble to yourself, because the only person who is listening to you is Ake. You make a pretty pair of homophobes, and it's a pity that you can't come out of the closet and be who you are. You would feel so much better for it.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 02:26 PM

".....Sure, we 'love' a lot of different people in our lifetimes..men and women...having sex with them is NOT the same as being born with a different color skin...now is it?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 01:22 PM

Opposites/thread drift:

I wonder if the anonymous guest who calls him/herself "guest from sanity" believes that s/he lives in a universe where everyone is sane, and those of us who do not "live" there are NOT sane. Who else would populate said world? And who among us would not be allowed into that treehouse and considered INsane?

What values and viewpoints would we have to have to be given the secret handshake to the world of sanity from which guest thinks s/he is from? Who would we have to hate? Would we have to "believe in" science?" And if not, what would be our method of operation? Is this place anywhere near the Libertarian complex offshore of Washington state where only "sane?" Libertarians would be allowed to live?

Just wondering.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 12:41 PM

Goofus and AkeHATEon seem to be friendly enough. To each other that is.

Great minds obviously think alike. Wish I was clever enough to put facts and my prejudice on the same plate.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 11:35 AM

Like all musicians, we are ALL at the limits of our education...however, the feedback that I have received by people who have attended my concerts, maybe even better than I would have thought!

Like all ideologues, they are at the limit of their education...and that's a drag, when the info they are getting is completely spun.

'Civil Rights' do not cover elective sexual practices for fun.

Sure, we 'love' a lot of different people in our lifetimes..men and women...having sex with them is NOT the same as being born with a different color skin...now is it?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 06:08 AM

Well Goofie, it's obvious to all that you have a very high opinion of your own musical ability.

I once had a lab assistant like that.

In the three months before we sacked him, he performed his duties entirely to HIS satisfaction.

Perhaps you should concentrate on the music. That way, there's every possibility that you may be as good as you think you are.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 06:01 AM

""DonT: "WRONG DON GOOFIE! You can't even keep track of who you are talking to."


There you go again..who are YOU talking to?

GfS""

I'm talking to YOU Goofie, about the following extract from one of your posts, in which you address ""Don "the reporter" Firth"".

Don Firth had nothing whatever to do with that post, it was in fact mine.

Now do you get it?......WRONG DON!


""Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity - PM
Date: 17 Feb 13 - 04:14 PM

-snip- Aslo: Don 'The reporter' Firth:
"Discrimination of any kind whatever is a civil rights issue you fool.

Disabled
Mentally ill
Learning difficulties
Fat people
The aged
Women
Gays
Lesbians
Transexuals
Hippies
Punks
Goths
And many more

All of these have exactly the same civil rights to live their lives free from interference and discrimination from the likes of you and Ake, and all of them do in fact suffer discriminatory infringement of those civil rights at various times."

You forgot these 'genetic based' categories: -snip-""

God, for a self styled genius you are dreadfiully slow on the uptake.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 04:41 AM

Yeah...been organizing some musical arrangements....been working on another monster piece.....the people who've heard it, have had their minds blown!!...so, time to fine tune it!

Warmest Regards to you and the family!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 03:19 AM

hi sanity!....you're up late!.....all the best

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 03:02 AM

Well said!
I DO have a true story I was going to post...but the glaze eyed, mono-toned, parrot zomboids can't get past their ideological chants of 'homophobe'..when in reality, those same droners know very little about homosexuality, nor the make up...other than if two people think it 'feels good' it must be made into a 'civil right'!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 02:49 AM

""What, precisely, is the difference between an infertile heterosexual couple adopting a child and making a caring and safe environment for it, and a homosexual couple (male or female) doing exactly the same thing?"

Of course there are differences.....between an infertile hetero couple...a fertile hetero couple...and a homosexual couple.

The first difference being a medical problem which stops the infertile couple performing their primary natural function, the second difference is that the homo couple are of the same gender and never designed by nature to produce children.
Almost all experts agree, that mother father children is the best template to bring up children.....simply because that is nature's design. Homosexual rearing is a dangerous, idiotic,social experiment, involving the wellbeing of young children, often with no say in whether they wish to participate or not.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 02:19 AM

"WRONG DON GOOFIE!"

Maybe he meant Don Juan.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 03:39 PM

He's talking to YOU, Goofball! Everybody knows that but YOU.

By the way, I'm Don Firth. The other gentleman is Don T. Granted, there might be room for confusion, but then—you are obviously easily confused.

Always glad to help. Especially those whose natural state seems to be one of chronic bewilderment.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 03:39 PM

"WRONG DON GOOFIE! You can't even keep track of who you are talking to."
There you go again..who are YOU talking to?
GfS

Hey, gfs; ever have one of those days when you can't seem to get it out of your pants, and eventually your pants get wet in front, and the other funny thing is that the crack of you butt keeps getting chilly?   I never have myself, but the way your mind works, I could easily see it happening to you.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 03:24 PM

DonT: "WRONG DON GOOFIE! You can't even keep track of who you are talking to."


There you go again..who are YOU talking to?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 10:10 AM

Shut up and listen to Macklemore

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 07:48 AM

Steve, you don't think banjoists and pipers also warrant our wrath?

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 06:19 AM

What a foul and disgusting mouth our self styled counsellor has, when challenged.

It covers his pathetic inability to answer a simple question like

""What, precisely, is the difference between an infertile heterosexual couple adopting a child and making a caring and safe environment for it, and a homosexual couple (male or female) doing exactly the same thing?

He can't answer, because his sick perverted mind cannot get past his disgust.

A true, dyed-in-the-wool homophobe, hiding behind a puerile facade of pseudo scientific claptrap, he hasn't the capacity for empathy of a brick.

When his application for entry to the human race comes before the governing body, he should be blackballed.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 05:58 AM

""Aslo: Don 'The reporter' Firth:
"Discrimination of any kind whatever is a civil rights issue you fool.

Disabled
Mentally ill
Learning difficulties
Fat people
The aged
Women
Gays
Lesbians
Transexuals
Hippies
Punks
Goths
And many more

All of these have exactly the same civil rights to live their lives free from interference and discrimination from the likes of you and Ake, and all of them do in fact suffer discriminatory infringement of those civil rights at various times.""

WRONG DON GOOFIE! You can't even keep track of who you are talking to.

And I didn't forget any category of people who have the same civil rights.

It's simply a case of you not knowing the meaning of the phrase ""and many more"".

And I wasn't obsessive enough to waste bandwidth trying, AND FAILING, to cover every one that exists.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Feb 13 - 09:54 PM

That works!

GfS