Peter LaBarbera #fundie #homophobia

Peter LaBarbera #fundie #homophobia rightwingwatch.org

How dare anybody say Jesus Christ can’t heal homosexuals and help them overcome. Jesus forgives murderers; he restores the most vile criminals, rapists, alcoholics, drunks; yet we are going to say that Jesus can’t change homosexuals, people trapped in homosexuality? That is an insult to God himself.

124 comments

Obviously there are grey scales in sexuality

But the equivalence thing has to be put under the forensic spotlight that legislatures require

Is there any such thing as a physical consummation to a gay marriage.

Because for most of human history the concept is explicit in heterosexual marriage.

If Gay marriage is to be made the moral ethical equivalent to straight marriage does consummation exist? If it doesn't we are NOT all equal.

Equality is the myth you bring to this discussion.

[Mr Spak, I can support an argument that Muhammad was a wife beating, psychotic or sociopathic killer, pedophile, brutal slave owning thief. All comparisons with Jesus run dry very quickly]

These aren't essay's, but I believe I can argue the case that the push for recognition is, in itself a manifestation of a compulsive drive "for recognition", and the masking of inadequacies. At a corporate level it can be the "commerce of professional lobbyists" - at the individual level I'd posit overcompensation.

Look at it this way. People saying "my unhappiness is the fault of those homophobes" rings alarm bells.

Forget Autoimmune disorders, physical function of body bits, eating disorders, depressive illness, neuroses, mind body dissociative identity disorder.

Anyone saying, "I'm unhappy and its all their fault" has some burden of proof. Otherwise, above and beyond all else, the traditional description of marriage is being eroded down to any corporate contract. And this ain't no gay basher hammering the keyboard.

Enough. There's another day.
[thanks for the link and
as I say
Zero credible informed historians doubt the existence of Jesus.]

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

Jesus may even forgive bigots who spout cruel and inflammatory rhetoric. You can point to the victims of murderers, criminals, rapists and alcoholics, to the damage they have done. What damage to gays and lesbians do simply by existing? How dare anybody say that Jesus Christ can't heal Romanians (to give an example at random) and help them overcome?

@P-G

Because for most of human history the concept is explicit in heterosexual marriage.

Demonstrate. Assuming you can do this, it is also true that for most of human history the concept of dowry has been explicit in heterosexual marriage which is, after all, the alliance of two kinship groups. Where is your argument on the financial aspect of marriage?

If Gay marriage is to be made the moral ethical equivalent to straight marriage does consummation exist?

The state does not see consummation as part and parcel of marriage - you don't have to show your bedsheets to the judge - and it is the state's definition of marriage about which the opponents of gay marriage are upset, not that of Canon Law or the rules of other private religious organizations. Besides, heterosexual married couples who live in celibacy do exist. It is not so much that equality is a myth, but that consummation is a red herring.

Nay Hasan, the issues of financial security are still recognized. Cultural context is still recognized even in supposedly secular courts.
Divorce is only a rubber stamp if uncontested.

Ps.
If I am a douchebag, I'm prepared to wear the epiphet, the corollary is Gay activists are the Butt Plugs.
Think about it; Who is condescending to employ a cultural context?

The Faux RadFem joke is, What do you call the useless thing hanging off the end of a penis? An> A Man.
Gotta laugh, and gotta go. Pressed for time. God willing I'll be back, just like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Douglas_MacArthur and, the actual Jesus - certainties that do abound.

old comment by Dr. Shrinker

"How dare anybody say Jesus Christ can’t heal homosexuals and help them overcome."

- Because he hasn't.

"Jesus forgives murderers: he restores the most vile criminals, rapists, alcoholics, drunks; yet we are going to say that Jesus can’t change homosexuals, people trapped in homosexuality?"

- But he still hasn't 'cured' a single homosexual, as far as can be determined. Evidently Jesus has no problem with gay people. If he did, there would have been mention of it in the gospels (you have read the gospels, haven't you Pete?)

"That is an insult to God himself."

- I quite agree, pointing to your god's creation and saying 'god hates you' is an insult. I'm surprised you god has put up with you for so long.

old comment by Askie

P-G: Okay, care to tell me why all you always say, is about homosexuals being unhappy, with the only thing that could solve their problem, being the magical marriage thing?

Why would you not accept, that it`s simply the fact of legal rights, like the right to be with your loved one on his/her deathbed, inheritance and such?

It`s not about happiness(as I`m fairly certain lots of homosexual couples are just as happy, as can be with, or without any legal papers) but simply clearing the legal stuff for them.

ps. "mind body dissociative identity disorder" I assume the correct term is unknown to you, just as the fact, that it has precisely nothing to do with sexual orientation?

old comment by Vlad III

This is what I feel should be done about the homosexuality problem:

1. Repeal all gay "marriage" laws. They make no sense from a logical, legal, semantic, or philosophical standpoint. You can't have male hens and you can't have gay marriage.

2. Eliminate "civil unions" - see above.

3. Draft a Constitutional amendment preventing either of the above 2 points from ever being issues anywhere in the country.

4. Nullify all existing gay "marriages" and "civil unions". To allow them to continue to exist undermines the entire agenda.

5. Work to eliminate the arbitrary stigma toward reparative therapy.

6. Make said therapy mandatory for first-time offenses of displaying homosexual behavior in public.

7. Train all school counselors - from pre-K to college - in said therapy.

8. Make any public displays of homosexual misconduct a misdemeanor after the first.

I think this would really eliminate a lot of the problems homosexuals are causing. If you have any other ideas, let me know.

old comment by NonProphet

@Vlad III:
This is what I feel should be done about the homosexuality problem:
Oh, this should be good...

1. Please explain the second sentence, as it is demonstrably wrong. As for the third sentence: Most of modern Northern Europe, Ancient Greece, Rome, various Native American tribes & even Ancient China show otherwise. You might as well say "you can't have interracial marriage."

2. Translation: "I don't want those queers having the same rights I do."

3. I'm sorry, perhaps you haven't heard: this is a democratic republic, not a theocracy or Vlad-led dictatorship.

4. Allowing gay marriage undermines the agenda? I assume you mean the authoritarian theocrats' agenda to deny civil rights to a minority, yes? Or are you simply incapable of typing that sentence correctly?

5. So-called "reparative" or "ex-gay therapy" has been proven to be completely unsuccessful, to be based entirely on lies & non-scientific misinformation, and actually harmful by all scientific & psychological evidence. It was also admitted to be such by some the very groups who used it, such as Exodus International. How is that "arbitrary"?

6. You must be a government official from Uganda... or perhaps 1930s Germany (pardon the Godwin, but it seems apropos here).

7. Oh, sure. I'm certain that training teachers & counselors to push a proven lie that can lead to psychological harm couldn't possibly have negative consequences.

8. More hints of fascism & totalitarianism. Very telling.

I think this would really eliminate a lot of the problems homosexuals are causing.
"...for bigots & psychopaths," you mean. They aren't causing problems for anyone else.

If you have any other ideas, let me know.
Here's one: see a psychiatrist. Seriously.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@GigaGuess

"@Vlad III

Recriminalized on what grounds? Surely you have a sound reason as to why the actions of two consenting adults merits legal action."

'But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.'

-Thomas Jefferson

'But it does me no injury for my adult, consenting neighbours of the same gender to do whatever they want in the privacy of their home. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.'

-Anon-e-moose

And unless - especially via the 10th Amendment - homosexuality is specifically proscribed under the law (and I challenge you to find in the US Constitution the words 'God', 'Jesus', 'Creator', 'Marriage, and especially 'homosexual/ity', 'same-sex' etc), you & your bigoted ilk are doomed to FAIL in any & every possible forcing of your unjustifiable 'agenda' (which in itself has absolutely no basis in the Constitution), V(little)lad III(years old) & P-G.

Equal Rights Under the Law. And 'Persecuting' others just because you consider what they do 'Icky' is not a legal right, nor is the same law denying you of your 'religious "freedom"' - persecuting others in itself Persecution, neither.

@V(little)lad III(years old), P-G, and all other homophobes who can never justify their way of thinking. You = :

image

Reality does not bend to your will. Just ask the population of the mainly Protestant (King William of Orange, and all that jazz), lowest teen pregnancy rates in Europe (if not the world) country of Holland. After all...:

image

...85% of people can't be wrong.

old comment by Xotan

I dare

Jesus Christ does not cure homosexuals.

When I was entering my teens I was a believer and prayed most fervently that what I even then saw as a very heavy burden would be lifted from my shoulders. I prayed almost non-stop for about 5 years. Guess what, I'#m now 70 and still gay. But I have laid down the burden of barren belief, have am now married to my partner of 41 years, and JC had nothing to do with it.

Jesus does NOT cure the ghey. Nor, if he exists, do I believe he is in the least interested in it. His reported life never mentions his saying anything about it good of bad.

Try talking about something you understand, you ignoramus.

@ anonymous....#1538699

People who are married while in prisons where no conjugal vists are allowed,

another reason why I think prisons, as they now exist, are evil/ essentially anti christ.

RE: the consummation argument. It is implicit in people younger/ able bodied. If a partner should not "perform" the marriage is annulled rather than a divorce sought.

Children for the younger/ able bodied couples is an expectation/ right of marriage. Of course pre marriage counselling/ training/ rite of passage includes the same basic teaching. Every adult should discuss children before marriage. Its as basic a conversation as people can have. If one or both don't or won't discuss same, one or both, are in denial/ afraid or weak minded to the point of not competent to marry.

Askie, Why would you not accept, that it`s simply the fact of legal rights, like the right to be with your loved one on his/her deathbed, inheritance and such?
As someone who works in hospitals from time to time, there is no automatic right to be with anyone in a hospital. Admission to a hospital means you accept that doctors, nurses, social workers, occupational therapists, psychologists, radiologists,pathologists, are there to perform what is necessary when it is necessary.
These are red herrings. Give each other full power of attorney and you will get whatever access you want.
Draw up pre-nups and inheritance won't be a problem. Two men aren't always financially well off but chances are they aren't struggling. They haven't sired a dozen children have they?
Reality Askie. Where is the reality.

MindBody, dissociative identity disorder -more vagaries. Why hybridize nomenclature. Because I wanted to throw in mind when many would doubt it's existence even.

Askie, these aren't essays. The point about straight marriage and ideology is that when one marries, one gives up exclusive rights to one's own body. Like, "Uncle Sam owns me for the next 6 years". A wife's body belongs to a husband and a husband's body belongs to a wife".

The evil of the prison system is something I've been on about for years.

I am talking traditional marriage. Not as it has been for the last 40 odd years. Rape in marriage only exists from about 30 years ago. This generation is the last.

I, God honestly, think you've been incredibly dumbed down.

this is not about bashing Gays. Do they really want to be looked at closely?

old comment by Wehpudicabok

So, Phillip-George, you want us to care what you think? Fine, I'll take that.

So long as their actions do not interfere with the lives of those around them, individuals' private lives are no concern of the government.

Do you agree or disagree? If you agree, you certainly must agree that gay marriage should be legal, since marriage does not affect anyone but those getting married and therefore the government has no say in regulating it. If you don't, on what basis do you justify government interference in our private lives? What parts of my life must now fall under the government's purview? What parts of yours? There must be some sort of demarcation. Since you seem determined to make sure marriage falls within that demarcation at the expense of where it has historically been placed by a longstanding consensus of political scientists, I think you ought to explain and defend your position.

Wehpudicabok
Yes I disagree.

I disagree sexuality is fixed.
I disagree government recognition will make happier gays.

Legislation is driven by ideology - always. Secular unemotive empiricism is a myth.

If someone has a gambling addiction recognizing their right to gamble isn't going to help them. Unlimited freedoms is a myth. Even on a website like this no-one would get away with threats to hack the moderators computer with spyware, track down a poster and kill them. Common law/ case law and statute law are fluid to mores.

No amount of coprophilia "rights" advocacy makes it healthy or normal. Healthy in an absolute sense or normal statistically. The DSM was meant to be a statistical guide was it not?

This is neither extreme or irrelevant. If one man agrees to be mutilated and eaten by another man, consent doesn't make right. Humiliation might be consensual, torture consensual, but is it healthy or right? Laws can be unenforced - think about that would you! Sadists, masochists, and extremists might be consensual - but is it either right or statistically normal?

A man can donate his organs for transplant.
Can he donate his body for consensual enjoyment by necrophiliacs.

How many gays want to keep themselves virginal and pure for Mr Right. Compulsion is driving many posters right here, on this website.

If Gay were entirely "right" I 'think', I'd be fully on their side. Think on this. A gay prostitute ruptures his anus and has a colostomy. The colostomy site gets infected with syphilis because the gay prostitute can advertise his colostomy site for business. True story. All very consensual/ all done in private. But government in many places is picking up the medical bills. True story.

Does fisting have a tendency to lead to double fisting?

I'm not here to deodorize real life. I'm just pointing out facts.

old comment by Wehpudicabok

@Phillip-George:

You didn't answer my core question. I reiterate: "What parts of my life must now [according to you] fall under the government's purview?" And on what basis do you claim the government has that right?

You point out a bunch of completely irrelevant (and admittedly unsavory) things, but the government traditionally doesn't have the right to prevent someone from doing something just because it's unhealthy. Smoking and drinking are legal, for instance. Would you want to ban smoking? And, more importantly, on what basis do you think the government has the right to ban smoking?

I can't say your argument makes any sense to me, in part because you throw out facts and don't bother to say what you think they imply. "Coprophiliacs are disgusting and unhealthy, therefore gays shouldn't be allowed to get married"? Complete non sequitur. But again, you don't actually say that. You never reach any conclusions; you just throw out facts. I can't even tell what you're arguing!

Oh, and by the way:

"In traditional marriage there is, without controversy, a right to a certain type of sexual involvement called intercourse. It is a fundamental right within marriage."

Bullshit. Just because a woman marries a man doesn't mean he has the right to sex with her. She must still consent. Marital rape is a crime. And if you're actually defending marital rape I wish you would leave this site, because I cannot stand the presence of rape apologists.

Wehpudicabok

for most of two thousand years for most cultures on this "god damned" earth, just about every definition of marriage in existence, would be, not married until "intercourse" has happened.

It is not just a "right" - you aren't married without it. Annulment was granted without it. Not divorce but annulment.

Assault and battery is the common law abuse within marriage, not rape! BTW - you are not talking to a rapist nor an apologist for rape.

But you are now firmly living in a jurisprudence that is all of 30 years old.

BTW, the collective, corporate 'fuck you' culture of here is exactly why I'd take my children out of the Scout movement if they adopt anything other than a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy.

Good-bye, As I fully expect you'll be screaming rapist, like another generation screamed witch.

McCarthyism was the witch hunt of the 60s, homophobe hunters today's brand. And you are winning and will scream down all opposition., I'm confident of your taking over. The I,I,I,me. me, me generation are fully cognizant of burning down the house if they don't get what they want.

old comment by Wehpudicabok

@Phillip-George:

Once again you didn't answer my main question. I'll ask it again. "What parts of my life must now [according to you] fall under the government's purview?"

I'm not going to claim you are a rapist; that's a straw man. If you claim that a married woman must consent to sex with her husband, then I'll claim you're a rape apologist. Which you do appear to be.

According to this website article on the legal definition of annulment, your claim is invalid. "Fraud is the most prevalent ground for annulment... Physical or emotional conditions may also be grounds for annulment, particularly when they interfere with sexual relations or procreation." So annulment is most commonly about deceit, not lack of sex; and when it is about lack of sex, there must be some physical or emotional ground for the annulment, not just "she didn't want it, so I want out!" This is American law; it isn't new and it isn't a product of modern liberalism.

"Burning down the house"? Really? Here's what's going to happen: LGBT people will get their rights. Conservatives will whine about it for about ten to twenty years, and then they'll move on. The world will not be destroyed. It wasn't destroyed when we freed the slaves or gave women the right to vote, either. Though I am flattered by the implication that LGBT people are apparently powerful enough to destroy the United States if we felt like it.

For most of the world for most of recorded history conjugal rights have been taught. Simple fact.

Given the respect and deference Anthropologists afforded their first contact people groups it is truly bizarre people can't define now where the Western World has come from.

From the biological, medical point of view, I'd say there was no such thing as safe sex involving penetration of the anus. Yet a woman's immune system is trained by degrees, this adaption possibly involving epigenetic switches within a woman's immune system.

I don't think its trivial. A legal system should reflect healthiest/ best practice even if the law is not enforced. Obviously you disagree. The traditional marriage had to be first destroyed to bring in the Gay Marriage - the sexless neutered disembodied union of gender neutral partners A and B. Persons, literally, legal fictions.

Every single gay rights lobbyst here, to the best of my knowledge, has made the claim marriage has nothing to do with sex. I can't communicate how bizarre that is.

old comment by

@ P-G

Just because the lack of consummation can in some limited cases be grounds for annulment if one of the parties requests it does not mean that the marriage is invalid.

Failure to consummate in my state, for example,is only a valid excuse for annulment if one of the parties has a demonstrably long-term or permanent physical condition which prevents him/her from doing so. This clearly demonstrates that it isn't the fact that the courts feel that lack of consummation in and of itself makes a marriage invalid, but that the party who is deprived of sex should have a right to exit the union if he/she wants that marriage benefit but is deprived of it due to the incapacity of his or her partner. In other words, the terms of the original marriage contract were changed due to an accident or INCURABLE illness, so that can in some cases give grounds for annullment. That is a vastly different thing than a marriage being regarded as invalid because of lack of what you or anyone else sees as legitimate consummation.

And NONE of your arguments about conjugal rights have any place in a gay marraige debate. Gay couples have sex just like straight couples do, so they're getting their conjugal rights, even if they aren't getting them in a way that you approve of.

Equally irrelevant to the argument is your opinion of the prison system. Unconsummated prison marriages are still just as legal and valid as all others.

yes, but legal and lawful, speaks of the disconnect between laws tested before Juries and laws untested, or ratified only by Judges, Magistrates, Tribunals. And laws as they have existed for how long. Forty/ fifty years?

But where was this going?

Biblical law "know ye not that your bodies are no longer your own"? This wasn't at all the uncommon thought for most of civilised recorded history. If you don't want sex don't get married. Headache is no excuse. Lie there and do it for England. Spread those legs for God, King and Country.

the Feminazi are apoplectic at the thought of not being able to say no.

Look Sane in a conversation. Obviously in a loving relationship coercion shouldn't be any issue. But a headache? Make an effort. Tired, just roll over and lie there. I'll do the rest.

Gays are generally in a fantasy land about history and their own relationships _ so I believe. Stats on depression, suicide - its all homophobes fault, I don't buy the moral abdication. I was born this way. No. You were born with tendencies not actions.

Your stuck with your social relativism, individual ideology and sheer wishful thinking.

old comment by Kuno

Well, I really shouldn’t feed him, but what the hell:

And as you know the difference between legal and lawful if profound.

yes, but legal and lawful, speaks of the disconnect between laws tested before Juries and laws untested, or ratified only by Judges, Magistrates, Tribunals.

Yup, typical freeman woo. Nothing new here.

And laws as they have existed for how long. Forty/ fifty years?

It does not matter how long a law existed. As soon as it has passed the process to be regarded a law, it has the same value as any other law.

Kuno - you put a question.

No, I haven’t. You may notice the lack of question marks in my post. Also, please try to write in complete sentences. Your arguments are hard enough to follow as they are.

There is a difference between "can, should and 'legally sanctioned by government'"

But in a modern society only the last one matters for the state, including the granted rights and the courts.

Also, please do not think your tactic to subtly change subjects, as soon as you are asked questions that would show that you have no really arguments, did go unnoticed. I have a conspiracy theorist friend who does the same, and as with him I am neither surprised nor convinced.

Kuno, I'd actually be a lot more blunt, but believe it or not, I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, and, believe it or not, I don't think Gays really want to talk about it. Being Gay that is. Too private, too personal, and, for all the nonsense about coming out, being Gay is entirely a closeted affair.

I can look a teenage couple in the eye and give them what I think is both the historical and biblical definition of marriage and not bat an eye lid. The marriage bed is undefiled the argument goes.

I sat around a camp fire in a national park once. The woods were an isolated quite spot but the camp ground was busy. The fire became communal. After some wines, beers, a bi guy wanted to 'share' how good sex with a man was. He just spoke about it in glowing terms. I couldn't comment. It was his personal testimony to a small group of campers around a camp fire. I didn't judge him. If he felt some high so what. If a drug could have given that to him so what. If climbing a mountain, skiing a glacier, kayaking a rapid, catching a big wave , I wasn't trying to prick anyone's bubble. A lot of highs dissipate. The glory of a win fades. Faces grow old. Woman's and men's bodies lose the glory of youth. Will you still love your "friend" then. Could you really never learn to love a woman that way? I'm not here to judge you Kuno - but have you limited yourself to the set of appetites least in the heart of the real man,

there, how, arrogant of me.

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

@P-G

It is implicit in people younger/ able bodied. If a partner should not "perform" the marriage is annulled rather than a divorce sought.

You can't get an annulment when you're married by the state except in cases of fraud, dishonesty and bigamy, not failure to consummate. Indeed, I have had a couple of conversations with a friend who is a Catholic priest on the subject and he tells me that, contrary to popular belief, neither the presence or absence of children is relevant to the granting of an annulment in Canon Law.

If you're worried about consummation as an essential part of marriage, go and campaign for your church not to marry gay people. When it comes to consummation and the law of the land, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Children for the younger/ able bodied couples is an expectation/ right of marriage

Are you going to campaign for the breaking up of infertile married couples?

But you are now firmly living in a jurisprudence that is all of 30 years old.

So, if I smoked, I could light up in a bar downtown because the law against smoking in public places, backed by a statewide referendum, is only five years old? The law is the law whether or not it is a single day old, is decided by the representatives of the people and is applied in the courts.

I cherrypick out the bits that people got right in history.

You spoke a mouthful. History, how does it work?

old comment by Kuno

[]I don't think Gays really want to talk about it. Being Gay that is. Too private, too personal, and, for all the nonsense about coming out, being Gay is entirely a closeted affair. [] The fire became communal. After some wines, beers, a bi guy wanted to 'share' how good sex with a man was. He just spoke about it in glowing terms.

So, your evidence that gay people do not like to talk about being gay is an anecdote about a bisexual man talking about gay sex he had.

Huh.

Even if you define “being gay” solely as “having gay sex”, how does that story help your case in any way? And how many heterosexuals do you know that talk openly about the specifics of their sex life?

Or to put it shorter: Why did you even feel the need to tell that story?

(You will notice that this time I actually “put [a] question~~”[sic]. It would be nice of you to answer them.)~~

Kuno, really got to sign off. Am heading out the door sooner than later.
Just a quick note. The psychodynamics of trying to equate gay living to heterosexual is an interesting challenge to say the least.

Another anecdote is listening of a ex convict talk about rape in prison. The rapist with his penis in another man's anus will call the man receiving it a "poof, gay, faggot". ie. Being dominant is somehow more manly than receiving.

Passive recipient/ codependent relationships. Too hard for inevitably short posts.

Placebo effect. Cognitive dissonance and dissociative identity disorder remain areas of interest.

If someone simply says in conversation how 'great sex was' - it isn't something to deny on my part. How could I live someone else's thoughts. What I want to know is, where did choice, decision making start and stop and where does compulsion start and stop, aversion, troubled memories, rejection etc.

I suspect one person in most gay relationships are at least partly living a lie.

Hasan, to the best of my knowledge an ecclesiastical court would annul a marriage without question if it were never consummated. ie. it was never an actual marriage. Please clarify.

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

@P-G

As my priestly friend puts it, what is important is the intention at the time the marriage was contracted. If there was no intention to create a permanent, devoted relationship, then an annulment may be granted. This can be done even when there are several children in the marriage. By the same token, there are cases where no consummation has taken place, where an annulment is refused. Consummation may be taken as evidence of intention, but is not in itself conclusive.

Similarly, the state views consummation only as something that may be taken as evidence in deciding whether fraud or dishonesty has taken place and, therefore, whether an annulment may be granted. It is not conclusive either way and in cases of bigamy it is entirely irrelevant.

It may be different in your church, but if consummation is such a big issue for you, campaign for your church not to marry gays. This issue has no bearing on the views of the state.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Carbonated Margarine

(*faints*)

*THUD!*

(*gets up off floor. Dusts off trousers, elbows, eyebrows and other open spaces*)

Hisashiburi desu, you ol' punmeister, you!

'A man's not really drunk, if he can keep on the floor without holding on'

-Dean Martin

And methinks there'll be material a-plenty for you to argumentally annihilate our new troll P-G Tits with your Ronnie Barker-esque Wordmeistery.

@Wehpudicabok

@Phillip-George:

"Once again you didn't answer my main question. I'll ask it again. "What parts of my life must now [according to you] fall under the government's purview?"

Of couuuuurse fundies refuse to answer our questions, and to our satisfaction. Because, argumentally cornered in this way, and if they had to answer such to our satisfaction, they would be forced to admit that they & their 'beliefs'/politics are wrong in every conceivable way, and we Atheists are right, as we always have been. I mean...:

image

...not exactly enthusiastic have fundies been in proving the existence of their 'God' to our satisfaction, have they? Because it's not as if their 'God' - who they 'claim' to exist (and is 'True' because their book of fairytales says so!) - can't prove (as per 1 Thessalonians 5:21 [KJV]) that Creation happened. After all, all it would have taken to destroy Evolution is for him to - as per Genesis' in the 'True' Word of God - 'poof' a completely different species of animal into a cage wheeled into the courtroom.

So why didn't he, in 2005...? When you can answer that one, P-G, then you'll know why it's only Mortal, Democratic Rule of Law that ultimately matters. Ergo, there's absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality, what they do in private, and same-sex marriage.

And Wehpudicabok, if P-G refuses to answer that question, then he's openly admitted that his 'God' doesn't exist, thus the 'laws' in the so-called Bible are even less relevant to mortal law than Aesop's Fables, and anything he says on the matter are nothing more than eternal butthurt on the issue. Gay = legal. Deal. With. It.

And there's less than fuck all you can do about it, too, fundies. Reason has won.

Hasan, not every Priest has studied canon law more than passingly. I suggest your priest friend is simply wrong. Intention? What a marriage isn't real if one participant never intended it to be real.

"I was only pretending to be married so now I'm not married anymore. The vows were a lie so you have to annul it!"

And you constantly want to draw this into a discussion about fertility. No way. Science being what it is no-one even now with a uterus, ovaries and menses can be declared infertile. How much less a hundred years ago. Up until menopause no-one could be declared infertile by anyone doctor or priest. Couples could go on hoping. And interestingly adoption improves fertility.

No, Kuno, just because a law is new doesn't mean its right. Arguably if a jury cognizant of nullification hasn't tested it, arguably, it still isn't de jure. Intercourse as a conjugal right remains implicit in many jurisdictions.

Modern man is a fool. Hell beckons.

[ps. What is a priestly friend? Do you mean an ordained orthodox or catholic priest with a degree in Canon Law?]

Question #1
Wow, PG is also a “freeman of the land”/”sovereign citizen”?

Who are they Kuno? - never heard of them.
If they have a website perhaps I could review their material for you.

Question #2 And correct me if I am wrong, but homosexuals already can have sex, whether they are married or not. So it would follow that allowing gay marriage has nothing to do with sex.

I don't follow the logic. An able bodied man can already commit murder and be hunted down by the FBI. What a person can do has little bearing on whether they should or shouldn't. Let's say sodomy has been decriminalized in all US jurisdictions.

Removing a prohibition is not the same as conveying a government sanction. Licensing a "contract" which implies sexual commitment to perform does.

No matter which way you come at it, heterosexual statistically normative marriage implies intercourse and a right to same. I suggest a Jury has to test this as judicial review is insufficient.

Now as a sworn or affirmed agent of the courts, you may not be permitted by license to agree with that statement. If the courts have become a corporation at odds with the law, I suggest you have no choice but to ignore the law according to your contract.

Qu.3 See what I meant with my last paragraph in my former post? [Rhetorical question because obviously you go on to answer your question with a statement to which I do not agree] Nothing in your story had anything to do with what I wrote or with your own arguments posted earlier. This tactic is predictable, and to be honest, rather boring. [boring - perhaps it matches your concentration span and ability to make connections in a parabolic and circumlocutory dialogue]

Qu4. Also, what makes you assume that I am gay? Qu5. You know what they say about why you shouldn’t assume?
What makes me think you are Gay? Your apparent disconnect from reality. Conjugal rights simply don't exist in your world. Considering you are an apologist for modernity in law I find that an item to muse over.

old comment by

Qu 6. Even if you define “being gay” solely as “having gay sex”, how does that story help your case in any way? Qu7. And how many heterosexuals do you know that talk openly about the specifics of their sex life?

Qu 8. Or to put it shorter: Why did you even feel the need to tell that story?

(You will notice that this time I actually “put [a] question”[sic]. It would be nice of you to answer them.) [In fact I think I spotted some question previously that you overlooked]

Qu. 9 Why am I not surprised?
You should really try to avoid the more obvious tactics. - another rhetorical question you answered yourself.

Answers: Seeing no-one is defining Gay or speaking on behalf of Gay's or are de jure citizens of Gaytopia or are officially designated spokespeople I have been investigating/ engaged in a process of discovery to find out what is being used here as the definition of Gay. It is morphic or obfuscated or perhaps deliberately vague. It is utilitarian being whatever people want it to be. It discriminates against normality. Denies sex is involved. Makes no commitment to sex. Has no sense of the statistically normative model that might be adopted. Blames nature for its existence. Implies moral abdications.

But it is always only about genuine love, as good as heterosexual, involves looking after children as well as anyone else and it is about, above all else, equality before the law, getting a chair bedside in a hospital and ensuring wills aren't contested.

~~Plenty of heterosexuals will discuss a great deal of sexual detail if they believe it is an honest discussion, genuinely no threatening, without prejudice, anonymity probably helps.~~

old comment by Kuno

@PG-13:

Alright, there was indeed one question mark. I could argue that the question was not directed at you, but I will still grant you the point.

The second one is a statement, not a question.

Also, I was rather referring to the questions in my other post, namely why you felt the need to tell your “campfire story”. I see that you now gave an answer of a sort

Your analogy with murder does not work, as homosexual sex is not illegal and does not harm others, regardless of your unproven opinion.

I see the situation as follows:

Gay marriage is illegal > gay people have sex
Gay marriage is legalized -> gay people have still the same amount of sex

You may not find it good, but whether or not gay marriage will be made legal, will not change the fact that gay people will have (legal) sex.

So that fact has nothing to do with the discussion.

Re: Definition of “gay”: I think I already made you aware of the existence of dictionaries. You will find the definition(s) of the word there. (While you're at it, look up the definition of "blog".) Strangely enough I couldn’t find the definition of “de jure citizens of Gaytopia”. The rest of the paragraph is again full of half sentences that completely fail to transport what you could be meaning by them.

Plenty of heterosexuals will discuss a great deal of sexual detail if they believe it is an honest discussion, genuinely no threatening, without prejudice, anonymity probably helps.

Plenty of homo- and bisexuals will discuss a great deal of sexual detail if they believe it is an honest discussion, genuinely no threatening, without prejudice, anonymity probably helps.

Re: My sexual orientation: “You disagree with me, so you’re gay!” I haven’t heard that kind of argument since elementary school. Nice.

old comment by Nightangel

PG-13:

You say you support the 2000 year old biblical definition of marriage?

Okay then, so if your daughter gets raped, just tell the rapist to give you 50 sheckles and force your daughter to marry him. That is the biblical way, after all. Also, how many wives did King Solomon have again? So you support polygamy as well. OH! And you also support a slave owner pairing up his slaves whether they want to marry one another or not... and fathers forcing their daughters to marry men of their choosing irregardless of their own feelings toward the man in question.

Yup, your biblical marriage is just so lovely, isn't it?

Oh, by the way, if your daughter refuses, you get to stone her to death! Ah, the joys of Biblical Law!! (/sarcasm... just in case you're too stupid to tell)

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Nightangel

"the 2000 year old biblical definition of marriage"

And here is/are said 2000 year old Biblical definition(s) of marriage:

image

And now, the early 21st Century definition of marriage - in Holland (among others):

image

One of these things is not like the other, certainly morally. Which is it, P-G...?

[/Argumentally cornering the Bryan Fischite-esque Closet Case, as per this thread] >:D

(But then, Wehpudicabok, he's already admitted - by not answering my previous ultra-easy question on the prtevious page - that his so-called 'God' doesn't exist, therefore the 'moral' dimension of the issue at hand [and which he's so obsessed about, proving what a Closet Case he really is] has even less credibility, nay, is as nonexistent as his 'God'.)

Peter LaBarbera #fundie #homophobia rightwingwatch.org

124 comments

Confused?