posted on February 6, 2004 06:49:44 AM new
Twelvepole,
Thanks for the kind remark. I am not ignorant. I could have looked up the word deviant in the dictionary, but I wanted your opinion of the word since you are calling anything that is not normal deviant behavior.
I guess you now fall into the that catgeory as well since your response was not normal.
Perhaps you should be taking some classes and education on what tolerance means.
posted on February 6, 2004 07:06:52 AM new
Tolerance? Tolerance for people that molest children? tolerance for people that rape? tolerance for people who murder?
Where do you draw the line?
Don't lecture me on tolerance, if you disapprove of incest or necrophilia or beastiality... all the same thing... queers lead the pack... mentally they need help... also a continuation of denying any form of recognition
*edtied to remove the word destroyed... as it is against man's law to do so and therefore no physical violence should be used.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
[ edited by Twelvepole on Feb 6, 2004 07:15 AM ]
posted on February 6, 2004 07:07:30 AM new
Twelvepole,
The dictionary defines a deviant as: a person or thing that deviates or departs markedly from the accepted norm
Using that definition there are more deviants in the heterosexual community than there are in the homosexual community since homosexuals only make up 10% of the world's population.
Straight married couple who cheat on their spouses are deviants. Politicians who rob, steal and cheat are deviants. Prostitutes are deviants.
posted on February 6, 2004 07:14:13 AM new
Who said I favored incest, rape, murder, beastiality?
Those things are wrong in my opinion.
Furthermore, prove to me that those actions above are committed morse by gays more than they are by straights.
And yes you do need to practice tolerance.
The dictionary says tolerance is:
a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.
In a previous thread you had stated as a young sailor you went into gay bars hoping to convert gays back to a "non-deviant" way of living.
posted on February 6, 2004 07:15:22 AM new
::These types of law changes should be voted on by the voters of each state....::
Since when is constitutionality put to a majority vote? Call me kooky but isn't the issue of judging constitutionality exactly what the state court is supposed to do?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on February 6, 2004 08:08:50 AM new
I just figured out real early in life that a lot of people are very different than me and unless what they do effects me directly I see no burning need to change what they are doing.
It actually makes it harder for me to understand because I find the concept of buggery disgusting. But it is just one of a whole list of things people do that I find disgusting and it seems futile to try to make everybody conform to my standards. I guess I see being a control freak as a very very frustrating pointless hobby. In the mean time it can be a pain in the butt. I remember one time I visited a friend in LA I had not seen in years and when he meet me at the airport he gave me a bear hug at the gate and lifted me off the ground. He is a huge big black guy and I am a big pink guy and between us we add up to about 600 pounds. There was a guy there that just glared hatred at us. I suppose he was sure we were gay and making a show of ourselves that offended him. Wouldn't it have been funny if he assaulted us for being gay and we stomped the snot out of him all on a false assumption? Fortunately the size factor probably helps us. I just am not so afraid of looking gay that I can't hug a friend. I'd find that really sad to be that worried about it.
posted on February 6, 2004 01:01:30 PM new
Perhaps Twelvepole was molested by a man when he was younger. I'm not saying that to be mean or anything. It would be very sad and might also explain his present attitude.
posted on February 6, 2004 01:03:45 PM new Edwards Only Democrat to 'Personally' Oppose 'Gay Marriage'
In light of a Massachusetts court ruling Wednesday that the state's legislature cannot use civil unions as a substitute for so-called "gay marriages" in that state, many voters are asking where the Democrats competing for their party's presidential nomination stand on the issue.
While none of the leading Democratic candidates has openly supported homosexual "marriage," all four believe that homosexual partners should have the same legal rights and privileges as married couples.
The Massachusetts Senate had previously requested clarification of a November 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that homosexual couples have a right to "marry" under the state's constitution. In a four to three ruling, Wednesday, the court responded, saying that only fully equal "marriage" rights for homosexual couples would satisfy the state's constitutional requirements.
Although none of the four remaining likely Democrat nominees has openly supported homosexual "marriages," all four believe that the legal and societal privileges, until recently bestowed exclusively on traditional marriages, should be eliminated.
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) refers to "protecting gay and lesbian families" on his website.
"Same-sex couples should be granted rights -- including access to pensions, health insurance, family medical leave, bereavement leave, hospital visitation, survivor benefits, and other basic legal protections -- that all families and children need," Kerry writes in a position statement entitled "A Record of Working on Behalf of Gay and Lesbian Americans.
Kerry supported legislation to provide unmarried partners of federal employees the same benefits that have been reserved for married federal employees and their spouses. He boasts of being the only senator standing for reelection in 1996 to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), one of only 14 who voted against it.
The Massachusetts Democrat openly supports civil unions, and believes that employers and government should be forced to provide the same health benefits, inheritance rights and survivor's benefits to homosexual partners that are currently offered voluntarily to spouses of married employees.
Retired Gen. Wesley Clark said that he "welcomed the [November 2003] Massachusetts court decision with open arms." Clark compared homosexual activists' quest to have their relationships recognized as "marriages" to the struggles of racial minorities seeking civil rights in the 1950s.
"Growing up in Little Rock in the 1950s, I saw first-hand how wrenching the fight for civil rights was," Clark wrote on his campaign website.
"In too many ways, the struggle for equal rights is still on-going. Today, one of the frontlines in the civil rights struggle runs through the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community," Clark continued. "We must always stand by the principle: every American should enjoy the exact same rights as every other American."
Dr. Howard Dean is the only one of the four Democrats to have successfully lobbied to give homosexual cohabitants rights and privileges equal to those of married spouses.
"I'm proud to say that as Governor of Vermont, I signed legislation to grant same [sex] couples the right to enter into civil unions," Dean boasts on his website. "This law, the first of its kind in the United States, guarantees lesbian and gay couples the same basic legal rights that married couples enjoy."
In contrast, Sen. John Edwards is the only candidate to have openly opposed "gay marriage," while taking a firm stand against the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would prohibit activist judges from creating such a legal category. Edwards supports marriage-like benefits and privileges for homosexual cohabitants, as well.
"As I have long said, I believe gay and lesbian Americans are entitled to equal respect and dignity under our laws," Edwards said in response to the court's November 2003 decision. "While I personally do not support gay marriage, I recognize that different states will address this in different ways, and I will oppose any effort to pass an amendment to the United States Constitution in response to the Massachusetts decision."
The Democrats' positions -- except for Edwards' "personal opposition" to homosexual "marriages" -- are in direct opposition to the beliefs of voters even in traditionally liberal Massachusetts, according to public opinion polling data reported by CNSNews.com Jan. 7.
According to the Zogby International poll, sixty-nine percent of likely Massachusetts' voters want to consider a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage in that state. The poll found that 69 percent of respondents felt it was better for children to be raised in a household with a married mother and father.
Half of all respondents said they think the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court overstepped its bounds in its decision to redefine marriage. Seventy-three percent of those surveyed felt that if homosexual couples want to provide for each other, they could to do so through private contractual arrangements already allowed under the law.
The poll also indicated that voters' opposition to homosexual marriage would impact their decision about political candidates.
When asked if they would be more or less likely to vote for a candidate who supports homosexual marriage, 33 percent would be less likely to vote for the candidate as opposed to only 16 percent who said they would be more likely to vote for a pro-homosexual "marriage" candidate.
-----------------
Know the values of those you are considering voting for. Watch the activist judges **MAKE** law [not their job] that is opposed by the majority of the citizens of Massachusetts
posted on February 6, 2004 01:11:17 PM new
Well said, Gravid.
Logansdad, Twelve is the biggest deviant here. He's made no effort to hide his hidious lifestyle and character from us all - none of it good. All done in the name of God and America.
posted on February 6, 2004 01:29:53 PM new
Interesting link kiara, here's another I found following yours. Maybe ignornat is an alternate spelling that's used by lots of conservative thinkers.
posted on February 6, 2004 02:46:08 PM new
In about 50 years when you can go in to your doctor and have your baby combined from your own genes and two or three other people with a sprinkling of chimp and orca genes and a couple
totally artificial chromosomes tossed in all this talk about incest will seem silly.
I can see picking the facial form from a professional donor and your eyes and your wifes personality and clip out a few defects you both carry and adding strength from the chimp and voluntary diving reflex from the orca and maybe perfect pitch and encyclopedic memory from the crafted genes.
You will probably have to do it on vacation in Europe because the United States of North America will consider it deviate to do.
posted on February 6, 2004 04:26:58 PM new
hahaha, yeah, that's pretty much how I feel about it, Krafty, except I do still read Gravid's posts. He's got a view of the world and its intricacies that's not quite paranoid, not quite wrong, not quite right, not quite anything I can put my finger on, yet his skews on current events almost always provide me with a new perspective to contemplate. I admire his mind, for it clearly thinks "outside the box", and I admire him for having the ... the what... guts? , to post his ideas without a hint of apology or rancor.
