Posted on 10/19/2004 5:17:28 PM PDT by TaxRelief
You forgot to state examples, by not doing so your statements are baseless.
Of course it really doesn't matter what I say to you because you will consider everything I say to you to be 'blatherings'.
Even more riddiculous is the fact that our country is even addressing this nonsense primarily.
Men sexualizing each others anuses and demanding society aknowledge their perversion as a ligitimate marriage?.
Square peg round hole, move along!
Bologna...How many examples do you want? Each time I cited YOUR example and then explained why you were wrong.
For someone to base a relationship on nothing more than sex makes them no better than an animal.
You stated; Now I’ve pointed out that AIS is gender specific and you’ve not challenged that fact. CAIS is always assigned female, PAIS with predominantly female external genitalia is assigned female gender and PAIS with ambiguous genitalia or predominantly male genitalia is always assigned males gender. Case closed. Your argument is ridiculous. While NOT providing weblinks, NOR stating what the acronyms in your statement stand for.
Also, this is the FIRST time I have seen you state this. If you did reply this above statement to me in the last 6 months, I would not have gotten it because I have away from FR.
Finally, you came to this thread from the sole intent of flaming me because you disagree with me.
The "relationship" in question is called "same sex marriage"
Perversion is still perversion by any other name.
Main Entry: per·ver·sion
Pronunciation: p&r-'v&r-zh&n, -sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : the action of perverting : the condition of being perverted
2 : a perverted form; especially : an aberrant sexual practice especially when habitual and preferred to normal coitus
You missed my point, which was 'how relationships are not based solely on sex'.
Perversion is still perversion by any other name.
To put things in perspective, there are some people I know who consider hetrosexual sex outside of marriage to be a 'perversion'.
Question...
Why have you attempted to turn this thread, which is about militant homosexual leftist insurgency into a debate of your pet into a discussion of your pet theories on the endorsement of sexual deviancy?
Were you trained to ask 'loaded questions' or do they come naturally to you?
They come naturally when appropriate. Now why don't you go find a nice thread where the subject is actually "queer theory, nature or nurture?"
Huber: They come naturally when appropriate.
It is never appropriate to ask 'loaded questions', they are rude and as solely designed to start heat arguements of the worst kind.
Your point is well taken. I employed a liberal tactic to make a conservative argument. Instead, I should have simply and politely pointed out to you that your defense of homosexual legitimacy and victimhood changed the subject away from the article's topic, which, I believe, was the strategic objectives of militant queer activism and the purpose of the attack on O'Reilly. This point could have been followed by a polite request that you begin a new thread to discuss your topic without dominating this particular thread.
Thank you for the constructive feedback. :-)
"O'Reilly, in his position as an independent moderate, provides the perfect doorway through which a maturing, political aficionado can pass as he discovers the dangerous liberal slant of the mainstream media. (Certainly, a budding neo-con does not wake up one morning to the sudden discovery that he is ready for conservatism 'al Sean Hannity.')"
They’re all over the web, perhaps you should read them some time.
NOR stating what the acronyms in your statement stand for.
They were meant for you…a supposed authority on the subject. If you don’t know the common acronyms for YOUR example it’s clear you don’t know what the hell you are talking about. Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS) as you stated before, CAIS stands for Complete AIS and PAIS stands for Partial AIS. (Thus pointed out for the lay people and not the "Knowledgeably" Paul C. Jesup).
Also, this is the FIRST time I have seen you state this.
If you read my posts you will see I did.
If you did reply this above statement to me in the last 6 months, I would not have gotten it because I have away from FR.
Nope, just my first 3 posts to you.
Finally, you came to this thread from the sole intent of flaming me because you disagree with me.
You use disingenuous supposition, with cursory knowledge of a subject you can’t support, to erroneously justify “innate” practice of perversion. You sir are a fraud.
Stellar Dendrite: You need to understand cultural marxism. One of the goals according to Antonio Gramsci is to undermine the Family unit.
Paul C. Jesup: I understand 'cultural marxism', and unlike you I know the socialists in the country consider the homosexual movement to be no more than a tool and that when the socialists no long need them, the socialists with do their own version of 'the night of the long knifes' against homosexuals in this country.
If we can make homosexuals in this country understand this, then we could cut the socialists power base at their knees. But you and others are too short sighted to realize this.
Also, if you actually studied history, beyond the bible, you would see that rejection of homosexuality by christians in ancient Rome was because homosexuality was part of the pagan Roman culture and that the rejection of homosexuality by the christians of that time was part of their rejection of the pagan Roman culture as a whole.
I never claimed to be an expert on the subject, I was just pointing out a few examples and some loopholes that need to be addressed.
You use disingenuous supposition,
This from a person who came here solely to flame me.
with cursory knowledge of a subject you can’t support,
Well since you consider every thing I say to be 'blathering' it is kind of hard to get any point across to you.
to erroneously justify “innate” practice of perversion.
And how exactly is being born with birth defects a 'practice'?
You sir are a fraud.
No, it is you who are the fraud here. You sir came here with the sole intent of flaming me with baseless accusations, all the while you refused to back up your statements with evidence, like for example weblinks.
So you don't know what you are talking about?
Thanks, end of story.
So let me get this straight, if I was an expert you would claim I was a fraud and since I am not expert you claim I don't know enough to know what I am talking about.
Maybe you should change you name to "Clint Catch-22", you are really are showing everyone else here how immature you really are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.