Another Ugly Republican

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

October 12th, 2004, 06:30 PM
reason

Quote:

Being gay has nothing to do with that. Hell, you accused me of calling you a pedophile when I did no such thing.

I don't know where that post is, but I suggest you go back and find it.

I believe it was about gay marriage. You followed that up by bringing up bestiality and pedophilia.

Why do we persistently have people bringing up pedophilia and bestiality in the context of gay marriage? They are entirely disconnected.

In case you haven't heard, gays and pedophilia are constantly linked by the opposition. So when I see you connect the two - as did Lew - the innocent, "I didn't mean anything" may be true, but there's still a connection you're making.

I even went as far to post an article just days ago about a local minister who said the passage of Issue 3 will lead to gay marriage. And if we have gay marriage, it will lead to the legalization of bestiality and pedophilia. His words, not mine.

I don't make any apologies.

If anything, I suggest some of you learn a little history before you mentioning gay marriage, bestiality and pedophilia all in the same breath.

Don't make the same mistake again. And it was a mistake. On your part.

[ October 12, 2004 03:31 PM: Message edited by: reason ]
October 12th, 2004, 06:30 PM
travelinman

Tell you what.

I tie you up and put you on the 4th floor of a wood building, then set the building on fire.

You are laying there dying of smoke inhalation.

Who do you want to come and carry you out?

A 6 foot 200 pound male firefighter or a 5 foot 4 inch 95 pound female firefighter.
October 12th, 2004, 06:32 PM
reason

Quote:

Originally posted by travelinman:
Tell you what.

I tie you up and put you on the 4th floor of a wood building, then set the building on fire.

You are laying there dying of smoke inhalation.

Who do you want to come and carry you out?

A 6 foot 200 pound male firefighter or a 5 foot 4 inch 95 pound female firefighter.

What's your point?

I don't care who it is as long as they can get me out.
October 12th, 2004, 06:34 PM
reason

Quote:

Originally posted by Sean Pa:
of course your taking it out of context. you always do.

No, you just wrote stupidly, that's all.

So, what you meant to say is that equality has gone to far in the other direction, thus things are unequal?

[ October 12, 2004 03:38 PM: Message edited by: reason ]
October 12th, 2004, 06:37 PM
reason

Quote:

Originally posted by G L:
I wouldn't want anyone like reason teaching future children of my own. Not because he's gay but because he is bigotted, narrow minded and uses stereotypes to define people. Like GS pointed out, he throws out comments left and right and then hides behind his gayness. He's a whining, leftist, homophobic jerk. And since he also happens to be gay that means he's self-loathing on top of it. Not sure what happened to him from when he used to post on here and when he came back. But in the transition I have lost any and all respect I had for him. He's a loser. And that's why I have him on "ignore". Not sure why the rest of you waste your time answering him.

Ok, gae. This would be a prime example of you stepping in a la Pina and deleting the post or GL entirely.

While others are contributing to the discussion, this is more of the same from GL.

Boot him. Pina got booted temporarily for a lot less.
October 12th, 2004, 06:41 PM
reason

Quote:

All he has are questions.

Huh? You're wrong.

Have you been reading his posts?

He doesn't want a gay person teaching his junior high child? Why? He wants them exposed only to "normal" relationships.

Ok, we're back to this polite "I'm protecting my children" shit, all while backhandedly calling me abnormal and unfit to teach your children.

Get it?

There's no misinterpreting on my part. That's what he said. And I have a right to call him on it.
October 12th, 2004, 06:42 PM
Gunslinger

Quote:

Originally posted by reason:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Being gay has nothing to do with that. Hell, you accused me of calling you a pedophile when I did no such thing.

I don't know where that post is, but I suggest you go back and find it.

I believe it was about gay marriage. You followed that up by bringing up bestiality and pedophilia.

Why do we persistently have people bringing up pedophilia and bestiality in the context of gay marriage? They are entirely disconnected.

In case you haven't heard, gays and pedophilia are constantly linked by the opposition. So when I see you connect the two - as did Lew - the innocent, "I didn't mean anything" may be true, but there's still a connection you're making.

I even went as far to post an article just days ago about a local minister who said the passage of Issue 3 will lead to gay marriage. And if we have gay marriage, it will lead to the legalization of bestiality and pedophilia. His words, not mine.

I don't make any apologies.

If anything, I suggest some of you learn a little history before you mentioning gay marriage, bestiality and pedophilia all in the same breath.

Don't make the same mistake again. And it was a mistake. On your part.

[ October 12, 2004 03:31 PM: Message edited by: reason ]<hr /></blockquote>I made two mistakes:
1)My question was vague. I should have been clearer. I don't know how many times I have to say it though before it gets through your thick head. I did not say "hey since you're gay you must be a pedophile also" If you would have read my whole post instead of portions of it you would have seen where I said all I was doing was asking a question that has been asked before. I'm not the minister in the article you quoted. Nowhere have I ever said here or anywhere else that gay marriage will lead to that kind of behavior. I only asked a question. Excuse the hell outta me for thinking that I might get an actual answer to my question. Instead what do I get: you avoiding the question and trying to turn yourself into a victim.

2) Thinking that you were capable of a rational discussion of Issue 3. That was my second mistake.

Don't insult my intelligence by talking down to me either. I know my history. Inside and out. I may not have a fancy schmancy degree from some liberal college, but that doesn't mean I'm an idiot. Do not make THAT mistake again.
October 12th, 2004, 06:46 PM
reason

Quote:

Nowhere did I see where he said gays should be banned from anything. He said that some jobs would be difficult for gays.

Some jobs? Some jobs?

He said he didn't want his children exposed during their tender age.

Did you think teachers are the only ones who could potentially expose his children?

I'm not taking anything out of context. I'm taking what he said and carrying it to fruition. I'm telling you that once this shit starts, it justifies banning exposure to a host of other things.

If he doesn't want his kids being taught by a gay person (a concept I find thoroughly offensive - something some of you just don't get), we can extend that to god knows what else - coaching, counseling, ministry, etc. This isn't far fetched at all.

Sean thinks I'm taking things out of context. No. I'm taking what he says and telling him the ramifications.
October 12th, 2004, 06:52 PM
reason

Quote:

1)My question was vague. I should have been clearer. I don't know how many times I have to say it though before it gets through your thick head. I did not say "hey since you're gay you must be a pedophile also" If you would have read my whole post instead of portions of it you would have seen where I said all I was doing was asking a question that has been asked before. I'm not the minister in the article you quoted. Nowhere have I ever said here or anywhere else that gay marriage will lead to that kind of behavior. I only asked a question. Excuse the hell outta me for thinking that I might get an actual answer to my question. Instead what do I get: you avoiding the question and trying to turn yourself into a victim.

Go find your post. I'd do it, but I don't know what thread it was on.

I'll pick it apart.

And thank for for your lack of reading skills with regards to my response. I never accused you of calling me a pedophile. I accused you of ignorantly connecting concepts unnecessarily in a discussion.

[ October 12, 2004 03:59 PM: Message edited by: reason ]
October 12th, 2004, 06:54 PM
reason

I'll give you guys this. Maybe you're not the minister in the article. You're just a few steps away.

A lot of you are kind of reminds me of my parents sahing, "I have nothing against black people, but I wouldn't want my daughter to marry one."

Just change it a bit: "I have nothing against gay people, but I don't want my son taught by one."

[ October 12, 2004 03:55 PM: Message edited by: reason ]

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page