patrick.net

Dan8267 says

All that drama is created by conservative bigots. If our state simply treated homosexuals exactly the same as heterosexuals there would be no drama, no gay pride parades, no history of lynching gays, no history of imprisoning gays, and gay marriage would have been the law of the land since inception and no one would even be thinking of gay rights, gay marriage, or gay culture. It would be no big deal.

Dan, who is lynching anyone these days or putting anyone in prison for being gay? You are worse then the blacks who mentally stuck in 1861.

Marriage is about children, it's not about anyone anything. No one is preventing anyone from living together or getting a "union". Marriage however, is not something that is meant for homosexuals. Can't marry a horse just because you might like one, get over it Dan.

Dan8267 says

Now if you're asking are there any disadvantages to having two fathers (or mothers) as oppose to one parent of each gender, the answer is yes,

That wasn't so hard - was it?

Dan8267 says

You're comparing a consensual blow job to the mass amount of pedophile rape done by Republicans? Wow, you are morally bankrupt!

My partial list includes plenty of Democrat men diddling little boys.

Of course I didn't include the "Lion of the Democrat Party" Ted Kennedy leaving a woman in a ditch to die. That's a pretty high bar for any Republican to clear. His brother JFK wasn't much better.

Dan8267 says

And America would be damn lucky to have Bill Clinton or John F. Kennedy as president today. These are two of the most successful presidents in the past 100 years.

JFK was one of our best presidents in the past 100 years? The guy that got us into Vietnam? The guy that got rolled by Kruschev and nearly started WWIII? The guy that allowed mob prostitutes into the White House?

I think you still believing the Camelot myth. It's all style over substance with you Libs. That's what allowed you to vote for a guy like Obama with no experience.

anonymous says

So what exactly are those thinking people saying about themselves if they have to preface a statement with reassurance that they are not being bigoted? i.e. We can be tolerant of (fill in the blank) but still support, defend, whatever...

I dunno - how about you can love the sinner but hate the sin?

FortWayne says

Dan, who is lynching anyone these days or putting anyone in prison for being gay?

Honey, you don't get to discard all of history simply because we liberals stopped you conservatives from committing your crimes. If conservatives had their way, lynchings and slavery would be practiced again.

You conservatives have yet to condemn your ancestors for their vile and evil ways.

FortWayne says

Marriage is about children, it's not about anyone anything.

Bullshit. Elderly couples get married long after child bearing years. Infertile people get married. People who don't want to have children get married. Are you saying that those three groups should be denied the right to marry? Well?

anonymous says

Better go back to the early 1950s for the real roots of Vietnam

Democrats always blaming war failures on Republicans. "It wasn't JFK or LBJ that got all those US service men killed in Vietnam. It was Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford!"

socal2 says

That wasn't so hard - was it?

Like your penis, no. And as I stated in my detailed response, weighing the advantages against the disadvantages, gay men and lesbians come out ahead as parents. You can't refute that.

Dan8267 says

If you honestly believed that the best interests of the child is what should determine who can adopt, then given this information, you would have to oppose straight adoption. The fact that you won't change your mind to this is indisputable proof that you are simply a hypocritical bigot who doesn't give a rat's ass about the children and is only using them as political cannon fodder.

So, chicken, are you now going to admit that overall children are better off with gay and lesbian parents? Or is that too hard?

Dan8267 says

Bullshit. Elderly couples get married long after child bearing years. Infertile people get married.

There are exceptions to everything.

But the vast majority of US marriages end up procreating. And that was even more the case before the proliferation of birth control and abortion.

Anyway, great jobs guys! Keep fucking around with basic civilization basics. "Married Couples Are No Longer a Majority, Census Finds"
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/us/26marry.html?_r=0

And Progs wonder why there is growing income inequality!

Dan8267 says

You conservatives have yet to condemn your ancestors for their vile and evil ways.

Have you condemned your party's evil, vile and racist Eugenics past?

No - you made Margaret Sanger (who wanted less black, Italian and Jewish babies) a patron saint of your party and coveted abortion practice.

anonymous says

Bigger bullshit from here - my father and step mother got married for health insurance purposes, tax purposes and companionship when they were in their late 60s...

My co-worker's daughter who lives in Washington State won't marry the father of her child as they will lose welfare and other subsidies.

Just another fucked up liberal welfare policy that encourages destructive behavior.

socal2 says

My partial list includes plenty of Democrat men diddling little boys.

Four compare to over a hundred in my list. Almost everyone in the list I quoted is a pedophile. You're proving my point.

Oh, and my list is certainly partial as well. So don't bother to exaggerate the size of yours. We all know it's damn small compared to mine.

socal2 says

JFK was one of our best presidents in the past 100 years? The guy that got us into Vietnam?

Yes, despite that and other mistakes like the Bay of Pigs invasion, Kennedy was still vastly superior to any post-Southern-Strategy Republican.

Oh, and don't pretend that the Republicans didn't have a hard on for Vietnam. Nixon's actions during the war was a crime against humanity, and he used American soldiers as cannon fodder.

anonymous says

Dan8267 says

Marriage is about children, it's not about anyone anything.

That was Fort Wayne, not me.

Disclosure. Upon reading carefully through the long list I've quoted above, it's important to point out that the list, copied from here, has a bunch of duplicates like Beverly Russell listed three times. I'm too lazy and too busy to go through the list eliminating duplicates -- plus reading even partly through it is enough to make one puke with disgust at the rape of 5, 8, 9, and 10-year-olds.

However, if any other honest person is willing to go through the list and eliminate dups, you have my gratitude.

Dan8267 says

You conservatives have yet to condemn your ancestors for their vile and evil ways.

Why would I waste time condemning anything in the past? It's how society was back then, you'd be doing same thing if you were living in their generation. You'll understand that once you grow up Dan.

Dan8267 says

Bullshit. Elderly couples get married long after child bearing years. Infertile people get married. People who don't want to have children get married. Are you saying that those three groups should be denied the right to marry? Well?

They can marry, for bible does not make marriage explicitly for having children. Here is the definition Dan. Marriage is a lifetime union of a man and a woman, primarily for the purpose of building a family and providing a stable environment for that family. It is ok to not have children as long as reason is purposeful, not sin. However homosexuality is deviant, shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent and hence not right for marriage, it would destroy the very pillars on which our society is built upon.

anonymous says

FortWayne - Pondering your view on what happens when said marriage does not provide a stable environment for that family? As well, when straight couples engage in deviant, shameful, unnatural, lustful and indecent behavior - then what ? Doesn't this also destroy the very pillars on which society is built upon?

Yes it does.

So where does caitlyn fit into all this hell?

FortWayne says

No one is preventing anyone from living together or getting a "union". Marriage however, is not something that is meant for homosexuals.

FortWayne says

unnatural,

No matter how many examples people cite from nature, Forthood keeps flagellating himself with that lie, all the way to his Reseda rest room rendezvous with Larry Craig.

anonymous says

Gotta give you credit for

No, you really don't, and shouldn't. It isn't even a belief, it's a compulsive lie on his part. He knows full well for example that Ronald Reagan entrusted his own kids and home to a lesbian couple, and invited a gay male couple to stay in the Lincoln bedroom at the White House; I pointed that out to him, with links, so he Ignored me. Forthood doesn't deserve credit for repeating a disproved lie, and besides he doesn't even believe it; he's merely too invested now, so he needs to see his "Brokeback" lie all the way through and subvert his self-loathing into persecution a la Larry Craig and Mark Foley and Dennis Hastert and countless others before him. People who deserve credit are people like Dan, who if you point out an actual error and prove it, acknowledges it and doesn't repeat the same error.

http://patrick.net/misc/It+is+especially+inhumane+to+deceive+youth

FortWayne says

Why would I waste time condemning anything in the past?

...to not repeat the mistakes of history.

Why do you conservatives waste time glorifying your abysmal past?

FortWayne says

They can marry, for bible does not make marriage explicitly for having children. Here is the definition Dan. Marriage is a lifetime union of a man and a woman, primarily for the purpose of building a family and providing a stable environment for that family. I

You are contradicting yourself. None of the groups I mentioned get marry at all, nonetheless primarily, for the purpose of building a family. Furthermore, through adoption, gay and lesbian couples can and do build families, and they do society a great service by adopting.

FortWayne says

. It is ok to not have children as long as reason is purposeful, not sin.

There is no such thing as sin as your god is false. The fact that your false religion influences our laws in any way is justification to make your false religion illegal. Why should I tolerate any religion that is not tolerant of those who aren't believers of its lies?

As for evil, there is no evil in same-sex marriages or adoption. There is, however, great evil in the oppression of any arbitrary group and the prevention of responsible adults in adopting children who are wards of the state.

And even without the desire to adopt children, same-sex relationships are most certainly purposeful. To argue that spending one's life with someone you love is not purposeful simply because you have matching genitals is utterly ridiculous.

FortWayne says

However homosexuality is deviant, shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent and hence not right for marriage

This is simply your unfounded bigotry and has no basis in history, science, or reality. Oh, and there is nothing wrong with lust either.

As for unnatural, homosexuality is abundant in nature. You can't even get basic facts correct.

FortWayne says

it would destroy the very pillars on which our society is built upon

Exactly how much homosexuality is necessary to "destroy the very pillars on which our society is built upon"? How many states have to recognize same sex marriages for that to happen? What if a Constitutional amendment were passed to recognize same-sex marriages on the federal level? Would that be enough to destroy those pillars of society? And exactly what is going to happen when those pillars are destroyed?

https://www.youtube.com/embed/i2gVXd7FzhQ

The near future is going to show how batshit crazy your perception of the world is. Marriage equality will become the law of the land and society will continue better than it is now because things are getting better. And when people look back fifty years from now at your comments, they will sound as stupid as the comments fifty years ago saying that race mixing would destroy society. Hell, make that ten years.

curious2 says

FortWayne says

unnatural,

No matter how many examples people cite from nature, Forthood keeps flagellating himself with that lie

This is exactly why people who are members of any religion should not be allowed to vote. We don't let the insane vote because they are mentally incapable of weighing important decisions. If someone talks to an imaginary voice and has severe delusions about reality, that person cannot make a rational decision in an election or referendum. Religion is one of the worst forms of mental illness no matter how socially acceptable or pervasive it is. If there is any form of mental illness that should prevent a person from voting, it's being religious as FortWayne demonstrates.

Dan8267 says

Now if you're asking are there any disadvantages to having two fathers (or mothers) as oppose to one parent of each gender, the answer is yes, but those disadvantages are utterly insignificant and pale in contrast to other factors. It's nice to have parents of both gender so that you potentially have a role model from each. Sons can ask their dads questions they wouldn't ask their mom, and daughters probably don't want to talk about periods with their dads. However, these challenges can be easily and trivially met by having an aunt or uncle or grandparent or even close friend who's the opposite gender of the parents. Jane can ask Aunt Rosie about periods instead of her two dads. Problem solved easily.

Nice.

Dan8267 says

Now there are far more important factors that come into play with adoption. A child is way better off with wealthy parents than poorer ones. Well guess what, both gay and lesbian couples make more money than their straight counterparts. That means, on average, children are much better off with gay parents than straight one.

Nice.

Dan8267 says

Oh honey, the reason why so many African American families are headed by just the mother is that because of conservative's War on Drugs far too many black men are in prison. And the reason for the War on Drugs is the greed of corporations like

- big pharma who doesn't want competition from patent-free drugs

- big alcohol who doesn't want competition from other drugs

- the police unions

- the prison guard unions

- private prisons corporations

And they are all motivated by personal greed.

Not nice. Silly.

Dan8267 says

This is exactly why people who are members of any religion should not be allowed to vote. We don't let the insane vote because they are mentally incapable of weighing important decisions. If someone talks to an imaginary voice and has severe delusions about reality, that person cannot make a rational decision in an election or referendum. Religion is one of the worst forms of mental illness no matter how socially acceptable or pervasive it is. If there is any form of mental illness that should prevent a person from voting, it's being religious

You are awesome. :)

Strategist says

Not nice. Silly.

It may not be "nice", but it's a fact. The evidence speaks for itself.

http://www.thenation.com/article/180493/anti-pot-lobbys-big-bankroll
http://www.businessinsider.com/police-unions-and-pharmaceutical-companies-fund-anti-marijuana-fight-2014-7
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/12/08/pot-legalization-opponents-aim-to-protect-their-bottom-line
http://www.ibtimes.com/marijuana-legalization-pharmaceuticals-alcohol-industry-among-biggest-opponents-legal-weed-1651166

Need more?

socal2 says

Dan8267 says

Bullshit. Elderly couples get married long after child bearing years. Infertile people get married.

There are exceptions to everything.

These aren't "exceptions", and even if they were, wouldn't same sex marriages also be?

The fact is the law of the land allows for couples with no desire or capacity to have children to still get married. That's indisputable proof that having children is neither the primary nor the sole purpose of marriage under law. And things like the tax code, health benefits, survivor benefits, and tens of thousands of other rights are not predicated on having children.

socal2 says

Have you condemned your party's evil, vile and racist Eugenics past?

I don't have a party. In this country, you simply vote for the lesser of two evils, and today the Republican Party is the greater of the two evils by far.

In any case, it was the Dixiecrats, who became Republicans after the Southern Strategy was implemented, that practiced Eugenics. It's funny how every time Republicans talk about some evil thing in the past of the Democratic Party, they are really talking about their own past. They are literally blaming the other side for the actions of conservative scum who switched parties in the 1950s and early 1960s.

Strom Thurmond wore a donkey in the 1950s and an elephant in the 1970s, but he didn't changed. The parties did. Thurmond was a racist, pedophile rapist scumbag his entire life. The only thing the Southern Strategy changed was the pin on his lapel.

Dan8267 says

There is no such thing as sin as your god is false

There is such a thing as "sin". For if it wasn't, it wouldn't be against a law, and some things no law can prevent without folks simply choosing to do the right thing. This is where your childishness really shines Dan, you really don't get it.

anonymous says

The larger group was more interested in who came late, who wore what, who was sitting where, who put how much into the collection plate, who did or didn't go to communion

I remember all that, it's less frequent now, alas still happens. As a pastor once said, it's all part of growing up. Issues we care about or how we see them change over a lifetime. Been going to same church for a while, some folks come and go, some however stick around and build relationships with their community and god.

Strategist says

Dan8267 says

This is exactly why people who are members of any religion should not be allowed to vote. We don't let the insane vote because they are mentally incapable of weighing important decisions. If someone talks to an imaginary voice and has severe delusions about reality, that person cannot make a rational decision in an election or referendum. Religion is one of the worst forms of mental illness no matter how socially acceptable or pervasive it is. If there is any form of mental illness that should prevent a person from voting, it's being religious

You are awesome. :)

Dan is brilliant, but most people in the world are religious, so saying that religious people shouldn't vote amounts to an argument against democracy and especially against majority rule. Such an argument has little chance of success regardless of validity, and besides, in autocratic countries the rulers tend also to be religious megalomaniacs and use religion as a tool to control and usually oppress. There was a time when many devoutly religious Americans avoided voting for the same reason they avoided medicine (just pray and whatever happens must be the will of whatever omnipotent deity the preacher purports to represent); it also saved preachers from having to explain why their chosen candidates lost. But, Republicans found they could make an unholy alliance with Pat Robertson etc, and explain losses by blaming them on Satan or whatever; religious faith is not defined by logic, it defies it. What I find most interesting about this thread and the Irish vote that inspired it is that 70% of Irish voters identify as Catholic, yet 60% decided to vote for their fellow citizens rather than obey the Vatican's child molesting laundry overseers. The Vatican's disappointing and ungracious reaction reminds me of Dan's thread about a "personal" deity being really an extension of the ego: the unmarried "celibate" Vatican clergy reacted as they would to being spurned romantically.

curious2 says

Dan's thread about a "personal" deity being really an extension of the ego: the unmarried "celibate" Vatican clergy reacted as they would to being spurned romantically.

Wow, yes, I think there's a lot to that.

curious2 says

Dan is brilliant, but most people in the world are religious, so saying that religious people shouldn't vote amounts to an argument against democracy and especially against majority rule. Such an argument has little chance of success regardless of validity, and besides, in autocratic countries the rulers tend also to be religious megalomaniacs and use religion as a tool to control and usually oppress.

Who are the megalomaniacs autocrats again?

"Brilliant" guys like Dan who are so full of hate and want to ban millions of people from engaging in the Democratic process for having "impure" personal spiritual beliefs?

Cause we all know it is impossible for self-righteous secular or atheists to use the awesome power of the State as a tool to control and oppress. That never happens!

curious2 says

You are awesome. :)

Dan is brilliant, but most people in the world are religious, so saying that religious people shouldn't vote amounts to an argument against democracy and especially against majority rule. Such an argument has little chance of success regardless of validity, and besides, in autocratic countries the rulers tend also to be religious megalomaniacs and use religion as a tool to control and usually oppress.

I don't think Dan meant it literally. He is just attacking religion for their beliefs. Felons cannot vote, children cannot vote. If we throw in the religious, then "quasi religions" like communism, capitalism, and environmentalists would not be able to vote. Almost no one would be able to vote, and we would end up in complete chaos.

Down with gays, incest, rape, and violence! Now, if anyone needs me, I'll be catching up on my Game of Thrones...

socal2 says

Cause we all know it is impossible for self-righteous secular or atheists to use the awesome power of the State as a tool to control and oppress. That never happens!

And religion never kisses the ass of the powerful, and shelters them after they kill multitudes, right Ante "Pablo Aranjos" Pavelic?

FortWayne says

There is such a thing as "sin". For if it wasn't, it wouldn't be against a law,

Following that logic, Sharia Law proves that women who show their face in public are sinning. When your logic leads to ridiculous conclusions, your logic is wrong.

Strategist says

I don't think Dan meant it literally.

I did.

We don't let people vote if they are too far mentally gone to grasp reality. As FortWayne constantly demonstrates, religion is such a great delusion that even when confronted with reality that contradicts their ridiculous beliefs, the religious simply ignore reality. If that kind of mental illness doesn't disqualify a person from voting, then no mental illness should.

curious2 says

most people in the world are religious, so saying that religious people shouldn't vote amounts to an argument against democracy and especially against majority rule

True. It is an argument against pure democracy and majority rule. However, I am happy to take that stance. Minority rights and individual rights trump majority rule by my values. Majority rule can be tyranny. One only needs to look at the history of slavery in our country to confirm that.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
- Benjamin Franklin

That said, our government is a republic, not a democracy. The last time a democracy existed on this planet was the ancient city-state of Rome. The first was the city-state of Athens, and that was the closest to a pure democracy there was, but even there a 51% vote could not enslave the other 49%.

Strategist says

He is just attacking religion for their beliefs.

No, I'm attacking their beliefs. If I were attacking them, I'd be a lot crueler.

Strategist says

Felons cannot vote, children cannot vote. If we throw in the religious, then "quasi religions" like communism, capitalism, and environmentalists would not be able to vote. Almost no one would be able to vote, and we would end up in complete chaos.

First, felons should be allowed to vote. There is no justifiable legal reason to prevent felons from voting. Doing so first degrades voting to a privilege rather than a right. Second, such a prohibition gives the state amble motive to criminalize multitudes of people in order to rig elections. This is exactly what the War on Drugs does. And a state that rigs elections by criminalizing groups of people is a state that will be highly corrupt just as ours is.

Second, those who are mentally dysfunctional to the point of being unable to tell the difference between reality and fantasy, on the other hand, are clearly incapable of making sound judgement regardless of opinions or values. Would you want someone voting who thinks we need to nuke France to get rid of all the dragons and vampires there? Why then would you want someone to vote who thinks that Israel being in the Middle East will bring Jesus back as stated in Revelations?

Third, children don't vote because they are not mentally ready for the task. For voting purposes, that makes them like the mentally ill. If you let a five-year-old pick his own name, he'll choose Super-spiderman hulk smash. Do you really want that mind making decisions about who should get the nuclear codes?

Fourth, environmentalism is a science, not a religion. I will concede that economics is religion to most people interest in it. However, it should be a science instead.

Fifth, right now less than half the population votes. Even if that were to drop to 5%, society would not collapse. In fact, if only the top 5% of the smartest and most compassionate Americans voted, just about every problem our country faces would be solved in 15 years.