Still knee-deep in homophobia

The Arizona Republic ^ | Apr. 29, 2003 | O. Ricardo Pimentel

[presidio9]

Let me translate into "bigotspeak" what Sen. Rick Santorum meant when he compared gays to bigamists, polygamists and practitioners of incest and adultery.

Translated: Hey, I place you in the same category as all those scummy people I just mentioned. Oh, and if you act on who you are, you're also a criminal.

[presidio9]

- But in any case, you can't rebut mine, can you?

Actually I'm not sure what the point is that you are trying to make because you don't use HTML in you posts. The Supreme Court has not struck down Utah's blue laws though,(if that is what you are trying to say), so I guess you're wrong.

It is you and your silly utopian libertarianism that can't rebut anything in practice.

[tpaine]

HTML has something to do with your undestanding of point, counterpoint? -- Bull.

[Coleus]

AIDS is primarily a hetrosexual disease. Only a small fraction are spread by homosexual practices. Remember the world is a big place. >>>

Nope it's just the opposite--a gay man's disease.

[presidio9]

HTLM is very simple to learn, I promise. And it makes your posts legible. This website has very helpful links that would have you at least itallicizing in less than 2 minutes. Give it a try. And as far as I know, I did address your point. It is you who failed to address mine.

[ArGee]

Therefore, homophobia should be afforded the same tolerance as is demanded by the gay community.

Don't be an arse. Tolerance is only a virtue if the thing you tolerate is a vice.

Shalom.

[presidio9]

I'll second that. The idea that promiscuous anal sex is not the reason the AIDS epidemic happened, as well as the primary transmitter today is liberal lie. Get your facts straight. Men have anal sex with women, true. Very few men have anal sex with women who are complete strangers (not the sort of thing you generally do on the first date). To think otherwise is nonsensical.

[ArGee]

So I ask you, who is the victim of two adults engaging in homosexual conduct?

I will answer they are the only victims. And for their own protection it is not unreasonable to make it illegal. They may not realize they suffer from a mental illness nor seek treatment, but they do and they should.

Who are the victims if a man abuses his wife and she does not seek protection or redress - if she goes to the doctor for treatment but refuses to tell the doctor her husband is abusing her. Was a crime committed?

I would say yes.

Is it protected by the right to privacy?

I would say no.

Was anyone hurt other than one of the consenting adults?

I would say no.

Do you think wife abuse should be illegal in this case?

Shalom.

[jmc813]

These promoters and defenders of sodomy have the chutzpah to assert that the Founders thought of morality in the same fashion that they do.

Before you get too comfy with your new pal FF578, why don't you ask him what he feels the penalty for homosexual behavior should be?

[jmc813]

Since when does the fact a person doesn't think we should arrest and jail adults for consensual sodomy in the privacy of their homes make them "pro-sodomy"?

It fits the pattern of his type. Heck, there was a thread just yesterday where the FR authoritarian cult was accusing people of being "druggies" and "pro-drug" becuse they thought 26 years in prison was a bit harsh for dealing a relatively small amount of marijuana.

[jmc813]

kids are being taught how to practice sodomy and other sick acts.

But it's what makes the important constituents of the Democratic/Libertarian Party happy

Doesn't it make you feel all warm and fuzzy that a Republican president teamed up with Ted Kennedy to increase federal funding to these very schools?

[tpaine]

HTLM is very simple to learn, I promise. And it makes your posts legible. This website has very helpful links that would have you at least itallicizing in less than 2 minutes.

Weird remark.
I've been using HTML at FR for five years now, when necessary. -- With the new 'word wrap' program, it is generally not needed, as you can attribute a short comment, then rebut without needing to HTML paragraphs, etc.

[tpaine]

HTLM is very simple to learn, I promise. And it makes your posts legible. This website has very helpful links that would have you at least itallicizing in less than 2 minutes.

-P9-



Weird remark.

I've been using HTML at FR for five years now, when necessary.
-- With the new 'word wrap' program, it is generally not needed, as you can attribute a short comment, then rebut without needing to HTML paragraphs, etc.

As this repost demonstrates.
You have problems reading this? Why?

[presidio9]

As this repost demonstrates.

Actually the repost does just the opposite. It looks like it is all part of the same post, so it is hard to identify the quoted material. Actually your HTML challenges are symptomatic of a deeper problem. You think that if everyone does what he or she feels like doing, everything will be hunky-dory, as long as their behavior "doesn't harm anyone." This philosophy is as nonsensical as your posts, but I'm not expecting you to understand that. Just as you never address the points that I make that are inconvenient to your "logic" I will no longer be bothered trying to decipher some hidden meaning from your illegible ramblings.

[jmc813]

Actually your HTML challenges are symptomatic of a deeper problem. You think that if everyone does what he or she feels like doing, everything will be hunky-dory, as long as their behavior "doesn't harm anyone."

Do you think posting to FR without HTML should be illegal?

[tpaine]

"Actually the repost does just the opposite. It looks like it is all part of the same post, so it is hard to identify the quoted material."

-p9-



An even weirder claim..

Are you attempting to say that there are no paragraph breaks in my repost?

Or, for instance, -- in this reply?

[Dolphy]

Do you think wife abuse should be illegal in this case?

Yes, I think that this abuse would be illegal. But we are both aware of the difficulty of pursuing these cases when a spouse does not press charges or, in many cases, does not even involve law enforcement. But, this is not the equivalent in my mind. I think we would both agree that in the case of spouse abuse that one party did not consent to the abuse.

Who are the victims if a man abuses his wife and she does not seek protection or redress - if she goes to the doctor for treatment but refuses to tell the doctor her husband is abusing her. Was a crime committed?

Are you suggesting that the doctor or abused spouse is guilty for not involving law enforcement?

And for their own protection it is not unreasonable to make it illegal. They may not realize they suffer from a mental illness nor seek treatment, but they do and they should

I am not certain if you mean emotional, physical or spiritual protection. But wouldn't you agree that there are countless legal behaviors that many would say present a risk to a person?

[tpaine]

"Actually the repost does just the opposite. It looks like it is all part of the same post, so it is hard to identify the quoted material."
-p9-

An even weirder claim..

Are you attempting to say that there are no paragraph breaks in my repost?

Or, for instance, -- in this reply?

Can you understand this, 'italisized' version?

[presidio9]

Do you think posting to FR without HTML should be illegal?

Twit.

[MEGoody]

What an idiot this author is. It seems he has purposefully missed the point of Santorum's statement. The reality is, if we say that the government (in this case the state)cannot regulate sexual activities between consenting adults, then that would, indeed, include all the activites he listed. Whether they are comparable from a moral perspective or not is beside the point.

[MEGoody]

"I really don't understand the anti-gay lobby."

The 'anti-gay lobby' as you call it is a response to the pro-gay lobby. If the gays would have just went about their business and weren't running around demanding that everyone celebrate their queerness with them, there would never have been an 'anti-gay lobby'.